Cop Baiting

[GerSan69]

I don't condone drinking and driving (heck, I don't even drink), but I also don't condone LEOs pulling people over and questioning them without probable cause. If you want to combat drunk driving, then take an unmarked car (or more) and have them patrol areas around bars. When they see cars swerving over the line, driving too fast, driving too slow, etc. (basically giving them PROBABLE CAUSE) then they can pull them over and proceed with their DUI tests. Heck, I don't even care if they put plain clothes cops in bars to spot drunk people who leave the bar and climb behind the wheel. My point is nobody should be pulled over and questioned if they are doing nothing wrong. Maybe they do that in other countries, but they should not be doing that in the United States.

Ah, those arguments don't fly, my friend. For one thing, driving is a privilege, not a right. And DUI checkpoints are a court-accepted method of detecting impaired drivers. The overriding concern is the grave danger posed by drunks behind the wheel.
I don't think this is comparable to Border Patrol checkpoints. DUI checkpoints are not an every day thing. Typically, they're conducted for a couple hours, two or three times a year. They're very labor-intensive and usually don't produce a lot of arrests. If they're done properly, they only stop cars in a set pattern, like every third car, or every 5th, or something like that. (I was assigned to DUI duty for nine years, and only participated in two checkpoints in all those years - total.)
BP checkpoints, OTOH, are 24-7 in several locations across the Southwest. As I recall, they even have a permanent station set up near Temecula CA that straddles the highway.They stop every vehicle. And their objective is finding illegals and smuggling. (Again, if only this were part of a real plan to seal the border....)

 

[GerSan69]

That is true. But 4 others have also made similar rulings. I believe even the liberal 9th circuit court came to the same conclusion. As more people bring suit against police over stepping their authority by harassing people who OC eventually it will make it to the SCOTUS.

sent from my Galaxy S3, superior to the iPhone.

It's probably something like that. Again, I have no real problem with the "right" in and of itself. I simply think that the "in your face" attitude of some proponents is counter-productive, it's rude and boorish behavior, and it's just plain stupid. As I have said before: none of us were appointed by any law OR the Constitution to "force" our fellow citizens to accept anything that they don't want to accept. No one, especially anyone whose method of operation is to go looking for confrontations, is going to "teach" people or the cops to accept OC.
Let me see if I can say this in a sensible manner: It's a long road back to the point where gun rights are not constantly under attack. If people keep doing things that ultimately hurt the cause, it's only going to make that road longer.

 

[Rastoff]

As for DUI checkpoints, I suppose we should just let drunks roam the roadways unmolested.

Not at all, but that doesn't give cops free reign to ignore the 4th amendment. If we follow your logic on this, cops should be allowed to do random searches in people's homes.

A better solution is to have teams randomly canvass bars. When they see someone take a drink and immediately go to their car they'd have probable cause to stop that car. This would eliminate hassling the innocent.

 

[Palinvan]

I agree 100% GerMan. Unfortunately we now live in a society were people are hypersensitive and over fearful of guns.

sent from my Galaxy S3, superior to the iPhone.

 

[Smoke]

But, but, I LIKE doughnuts!

Just so you know, your average Dunkin' Donut is about 390 calories. Think about how long you'd have to work to burn that

 

[Smoke]

I wanted to get in on this thread but I'm not sure I have anything original to add. As I said in another thread it was the behavior of some one the more militant members of the open carry crowd that caused me to reevaluate and distance myself from the practice.

I don't see how going out looking for a confrontation helps our cause at all. I don't see how acting like a ******* wins us any supporters; I don't like it when I run into someone at work that makes my day a hassle why would I want to do that to someone else?

I can see the value of recording an official interaction, there was a case here in Co Springs not too long ago where a man was wrongfully arrested for open carry in a city park. He won his case partially because his partner recorded the entire incident on video but that doesn't mean I'm going out looking for a confrontation.

As for the civil liberties thing, I get it but realistically I haven't had an interaction with a cop in almost 5 years and I've never had one ask to search my car. If it ever comes up I won't consent but I'm not going to worry about it until it happens.

 

[lonejacklarry]

Not at all, but that doesn't give cops free reign to ignore the 4th amendment. If we follow your logic on this, cops should be allowed to do random searches in people's homes.

No one has suggested that police be allowed to do random searches in people's homes. For the non-law enforcement folks there are basically four ways a law enforcement officer can get into ones house:
1. Direct pursuit
2. Warrant
3. Exigent circumstances
4. Invitation

Vehicle and home searches are two very different things. Again, driving is not a right but a privilege and therefore is regulated differently.

The courts have been very specific regarding searches of cars and the fact that they are mobile and have the capability to be somewhere else quickly. Houses not so much.

As to the topic of the thread, yes, it is legal to open carry some places. And, yes, it is fairly stupid to do it, in my opinion. It is not tactically smart and it riles up the citizens.

 

[GaryS]

In some jurisdictions that happens. We don't hear about it because no one makes a video or blog post about something that didn't happen.

Some of these OC "advocates" have adopted the same in your face tactics that other groups have. The problem being that those other groups aren't carry items that can be used to harm someone. Nor are those other groups routinely vilified by politicians and the media.

Those advocates have to (and do) go out of their way to provoke a video worthy incident.

Police managers should, but often don't, make sure that their officers, supervisors, and dispatchers understand the law when it comes to this type of thing.

Frankly, I don't think it helps efforts to protect the Second Amendment one bit.

If some old lady was to call the cops and say that a man was walking down the street with a boom box on his shoulder, would they send out a car?

How about if she said a guy was walking down the street with a dog on a leash?

No. They would not send out a car. The operator at the station would say, "Ma'am, there is nothing illegal about that", or something similar.

If you call and complain that someone is washing his car or cutting his grass or taking a sunbath or clipping the hedge, or any number of LEGAL ACTIVITIES, the cops won't send out a car. At least I hope they wouldn't. Why? Because nobody is doing anything wrong.

"But they got a call. They have to check it out!!!"

Check what? No crime was reported.

So why, when the little old lady calls and says, "There's a man walking down the street in front of my house and he's WEARING A GUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Why don't they just say, "There's nothing illegal about wearing a gun, ma'am."?

 

[rock_castle]

We are all human beings, and no two of us are alike. I understand that a small number of people like to practice OC in order to make a statement. Some of them are A1 arseholes about it and that is unfortunate. If OC is legal then the people who OC should not be harassed by our public servants, even if they are being "stupid" about it. If they cross the line and do something illegal then all bets are off and they should be prosecuted. The people who call the police about an OC who is just minding his own business need to understand that you don't have a right to not be offended in this country. If no law is being broken then people should be left alone and not bothered. By the way, I would never OC myself as I think it is "tactically stupid" as someone earlier stated.

 

[Fishslayer]

Ah, those arguments don't fly, my friend. For one thing, driving is a privilege, not a right. And DUI checkpoints are a court-accepted method of detecting impaired drivers.

Just because it's court accepted doesn't make it right.

 

[GerSan69]

Just because it's court accepted doesn't make it right.

It makes it The Law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I figure people can accept the law, work to change it, or act like democrats and ignore it.

 

[Fishslayer]

It makes it The Law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I figure people can accept the law, work to change it, or act like democrats and ignore it.

Makin' it the law doesn't make it right either.

 

[lowriderfxr]

A glazed donut with a string on it usually does the trick

Tie a dozen or so just married style on an ambulance and all the lawyers will chase it and won't see a thing!

 

[Fishslayer]

Tie a dozen or so just married style on an ambulance and all the lawyers will chase it and won't see a thing!

Laughs this thread needs...

"Am I being detained? Am I free to go?"

 

[Philadelphia Patriot]

I want to comment more on this thread, but it involves politics. I think I said enough of my opinion in this thread so I'm done with it.

 

[Kilibreaux]

The result of all those AWs wandering around with their unloaded open carried rifles & handguns was that it's now illegal in Kalifornistan to do so.

Guess they showed them....

Excellent point! Strutting around with openly carried firearms is a GREAT way to incite public OPPOSITION to open carry because of intimidation.
The ability to carry concealed eliminates any "need" or "2A claim" that open carry be allowed. The person is able to exercise their constitutional right to both possess and "bear" a weapon. To what end do they wish to carry said weapon in full view OTHER than intimidation?
Do those who want to strut their stuff with a gun strapped on think they're making bad guys think twice? Well they sure are...they're making bad guys decide to strike first, strike suddenly, and strike hard...if the bad guy thinks the person is unarmed maybe he tries to strong-arm...but when he SEES the ignoramus carrying a gun, he decides to simply shoot from behind and take not only money, but also the gun.
The ultimate act of foolishness is to go out posturing in public with a gun because it only lets the bad guy know who to KILL first.

 

[Kilibreaux]

One more sure thing that comes with citizens all strutting around brandishing their guns...SELF DEFENSE becomes an EASY option!
Some clown-head with his 9mm strapped on decides to get loud at the counter in Micky-D's so another customer whips out his .500 magnum and pops the guy's melon like water balloon and claims he was defending the employees and other patrons! An armed loud-mouth can certainly make someone feel threatened...and feel they are in immenent danger of death or great bodily injury...sound far-fetched?

 

[Alpo]

There you go.

He's got a gun, and he's got a gun, so they will get into a gunfight and someone will get killed.

And it took 77 posts for someone to say it.

 

[Nevada Ed]

Had one Butt Head that did that and was "Asked" to cut it out
and stop getting folks excited and worried....
Not !!

One day he dropped his weapon to the ground and out of no where two 10 pound sledge hammers landed, several times, onto the weapon.

For some reason we don't see him do that any more?

 

[cmort666]

As for DUI checkpoints, I suppose we should just let drunks roam the roadways unmolested.

So then why not "gun checkpoints"?

I suppose we should just let felons with guns roam the streets and roadways unmolested.