This dude is awesome

[antimatter 139]

+1 to what Ray and High Exposure wrote. I really enjoyed how the dude had his video ready for the whole thing when he decided to quote "this v that". it was very well rehearsed. there really is no need to advertise; unless your are running a TV network.

[Bob B 103]

1. Is open carrying a firearm, where open carrying is perfectly legal, reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed?

 

2. Open carrying, as a tactical decision, in a densely populated crime ridden urban area, might not be the best choice. While hiking, or working on your farm, or walking down the street in Maine, it's probably a perfectly fine choice.

 

3. Perhaps it is a strategic decision, but the police open carry all the time and it doesn't seem to be a problem. In fact, it seems to be quite a deterrent. I don't see why, as a matter of strategy for deterring crime in an urban area, open carry wouldn't be perfectly valid and yield positive results, i.e. lower crime.

 

4. Perhaps if dispatchers would not dispatch police officers to investigate legal behavior, having an officer investigate someone open carrying instead of helping a heart attack victim wouldn't happen.

 

5. If I were an LEO and I knew that there were people open carrying in a certain area, I would go somewhere else, where I might be needed - a gun free zone perhaps.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

Ok so all of you wouldn't open carry if new jersey allowed it starting today?

[PK90 3,573]

Ok so all of you wouldn't open carry if new jersey allowed it starting today?

 

Question or statement? Please rephrase.

 

My opinion on this would be skewed according to some. But I digress.

 

If "Open Carry" were allowed, I believe that most would carry. This is not going to happen in NJ who restricts those with permits to conceal carry. If given a choice, IMO, concealed is better than open.

[BlueLineFish 615]

I only open carry at work. Would never open carry off duty

[Smokin .50 1,907]

Ok so all of you wouldn't open carry if new jersey allowed it starting today?

 

No I probably wouldn't open carry, even if allowed to, since I too want to stay under the Radar. I'd let some of the other people who want to be "first" draw the ire of the public and the immediate response of the Cops. After EVERYBODY is doing it, and Cops are no longer dispatched to "Man with a Gun" radio calls round the clock, I might consider it. As of now, I'm perfectly comfortable with the Cops drawing their guns (or even touching the retention button) on someone else.......

[High Exposure 5,679]

1. Is open carrying a firearm, where open carrying is perfectly legal, reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed?

 

2. Open carrying, as a tactical decision, in a densely populated crime ridden urban area, might not be the best choice. While hiking, or working on your farm, or walking down the street in Maine, it's probably a perfectly fine choice.

 

3. Perhaps it is a strategic decision, but the police open carry all the time and it doesn't seem to be a problem. In fact, it seems to be quite a deterrent. I don't see why, as a matter of strategy for deterring crime in an urban area, open carry wouldn't be perfectly valid and yield positive results, i.e. lower crime.

 

4. Perhaps if dispatchers would not dispatch police officers to investigate legal behavior, having an officer investigate someone open carrying instead of helping a heart attack victim wouldn't happen.

 

5. If I were an LEO and I knew that there were people open carrying in a certain area, I would go somewhere else, where I might be needed - a gun free zone perhaps.

 

1. I don't know. But, it doesn't apply in NJ so it's a straw-man argument for our purposes.

 

2. I agree. Open carry has it's place - hiking, at home, yard work, in vehicles, on horseback. Around town running errands, not so much.

 

3. Police are a deterrent because they are the POLICE, not because they have guns, see the UK. The fact they do "open carry" (its in quotes because I don't believe it is open carry when you are wearing a uniform and badge as well, which advertises you have a gun and makes you a target anyway) in the US is coupled with the fact that they also carry radios, body armor, less-lethal, handcuffs, usually another gun - or two, have backup, and are trained to be vigilant and in weapon retention techniques with their level 40 retention duty holsters.

 

4. It is not a dispatchers job to tell a citizen what they see is legal behaviour based off of a report given to them via phone. It is the cops job to respond, investigate, and use discretion based on their training and experience to determine a if a crime is being committed, not a 3rd party message from an eye witness that is relayed by a dispatcher in a station a mile away.

 

5. Places that allow open carry are just as prone to crime and violence as anywhere else. The argument about GFZs is that it reduces a citizen's ability to respond to lethal force appropriately, not that it increases crime. Would you rather have some dude with his pistol permit and his .25 in his back pocket respond to a shots fired incident or violent crime, or a cop?

 

 

Ok so all of you wouldn't open carry if new jersey allowed it starting today?

 

Nope.

[PeteF 1,044]

1. I don't know. But, it doesn't apply in NJ so it's a straw-man argument for our purposes.

 

2. I agree. Open carry has it's place - hiking, at home, yard work, in vehicles, on horseback. Around town running errands, not so much.

 

3. Police are a deterrent because they are the POLICE, not because they have guns, see the UK. The fact they do "open carry" (its in quotes because I don't believe it is open carry when you are wearing a uniform and badge as well, which advertises you have a gun anyway) in the US is coupled with the fact that they also carry radios, body armor, less-lethal, handcuffs, usually another gun - or two, have backup, and are trained to be vigilant and in weapon retention techniques with their level 40 retention duty holsters.

 

4. It is not a dispatchers job to tell a citizen what they see is legal behaviour based off of a report given to them via phone. It is the cops job to respond, investigate, and use discretion based on their training and experience to determine a if a crime is being committed, not a 3rd party message from an eye witness that is relayed by a dispatcher in a station a mile away.

 

5. Places that allow open carry are just as prone to crime and violence as anywhere else. The argument about GFZs is that it reduces a citizen's ability to respond to lethal force appropriately, not that it increases crime. Would you rather have some dude with his pistol permit and his .25 in his back pocket respond to a shots fired incident or violent crime, or a cop?

 

1. Actually many here have permits to carry in states that allow it so it's not a "strawman" argument.

2. Open carry has a place. Where ever it is legal and the person doing it feels that the best way for him to carry.

3. BS. Why is it that a large man is less likely to be attacked than a small women. Its the perceived response. A large man might fight back so move to a easier target say a small woman.

Yeah OC can make you a target but it also can make you less of a target.

4. Shall I call the police and report that I want them to check you out because you are cutting your lawn?

Proper operator response is "Open carrying is a legal option. Is the person threatening you or anyone else with the gun? No? Have a nice day."

5. Actually it takes away a law abiding citizens right to protect themselves. If the guy with the pocket 25 is being attacked, He should be able to IMMEDIATELY respond.

Good guy attacked, pulls .25 and either scares BG away (best case) or shoots BG (worst case). Uninjured good guy calls 911 and waits to talk to police.

Call a cop Time line:

Get out phone, correctly dial 911, explain situation to dispatcher, dispatcher call to squad car. car immediately responds. Officer tries to figure out whats going on and who is who.

So in a best case scenario cops arrive 3-5 minutes after the call, and clean up the mess. More than likely Good guy being robbed, beaten, or killed. I don't see this as a win for law abiding citizens.

 

 

As to OC versus CC. They both have their advantages and disadvantages. That's why each person who decides to carry, needs to make up his OWN mind not let someone tell him whats best for himself.

[High Exposure 5,679]

 

 

1. Actually many here have permits to carry in states that allow it so it's not a "strawman" argument.

2. Open carry has a place. Where ever it is legal and the person doing it feels that the best way for him to carry.

3. BS. Why is it that a large man is less likely to be attacked than a small women. Its the perceived response. A large man might fight back so move to a easier target say a small woman.

Yeah OC can make you a target but it also can make you less of a target.

4. Shall I call the police and report that I want them to check you out because you are cutting your lawn?

Proper operator response is "Open carrying is a legal option. Is the person threatening you or anyone else with the gun? No? Have a nice day."

5. Actually it takes away a law abiding citizens right to protect themselves. If the guy with the pocket 25 is being attacked, He should be able to IMMEDIATELY respond.

Good guy attacked, pulls .25 and either scares BG away (best case) or shoots BG (worst case). Uninjured good guy calls 911 and waits to talk to police.

Call a cop Time line:

Get out phone, correctly dial 911, explain situation to dispatcher, dispatcher call to squad car. car immediately responds. Officer tries to figure out whats going on and who is who.

So in a best case scenario cops arrive 3-5 minutes after the call, and clean up the mess. More than likely Good guy being robbed, beaten, or killed. I don't see this as a win for law abiding citizens.

 

 

As to OC versus CC. They both have their advantages and disadvantages. That's why each person who decides to carry, needs to make up his OWN mind not let someone tell him whats best for himself.

 

1. Fair enough, but in that case each state you travel to will have it's own criteria, rules, regs, and requirements for OC and what is and is not PC for investigations.

 

2. Disagree based on personal opinion, not universal truth.

 

3. Right, so its not the presence of the firearm, but the preconceived notion by the bad guy of whether or not this person's presence, who in this instance happens to be a cop, will let you get away with the crime you want to commit. Correction Officers don't carry guns at work, they are surrounded by criminals daily, yet few of them get injured even though they are outnumbered. Why do you think that is? UK cops manage to curb crime in a nation with similar gun control laws as NJ. They manage to fight crime. How can that be without guns? Because they are the Police. Police deter crime, not the guns they carry or the way the carry them.

 

4. Red herring. Mowing your lawn is never a crime, and if it has the potential to be an ordinance violation, then yes, a dispatcher has to send a cop. Carrying a firearm may, or may not be a crime. Or it may be a part of the totality of the circumstances after a proper investigation by the responding officers that leads to an arrest or a prevention of a crime. How about this scenario: You call the police because the neighbors are arguing loudly. Is it a crime for them to yell at each other in their own house? No. So the dispatcher responds, "That's not a crime. Have a nice day." Not appropriate. It may be a signor a precursor of a crime, even though it is not a crime in and of itself. An appropriate response is to take the call. Dispatch an officer and let them make the determination on the scene.

 

5. We are saying the same thing about GFZs in the first part. I agree with your first 2 sentences with every fiber of my being... Then you lose me. I was referring to the notion that cops stay away from OC zones all together, letting the presence of armed OC citizens deter crime simply by walking around with holstered handguns, and the police only focusing on the GFZs as being shortsighted.

 

As far as your scenario with Good Guy pulling his piece and saving the day, you are forgetting a few outcomes. The bad guy has a vote in the fight. The true "Worst case" is he snatches the pistol out of your hand/holster, or skins his own, shoves it in your face and pulls the trigger till it goes *click*

 

Your call a cop timeline assumes that no cops are already in the area.

 

My call a cop "best scenario" timelines go something like this:

1) Uniformed cop on patrol in the area. Bad guy decides not to be bad.

2) Cop sees bad guy being bad guy because he is on patrol in the area, not avoiding the location and letting OC deter crime in and of itself, and stops bad guy doing bad stuff.

 

Edited because I hit the "post" button before I was done.

Edited June 24, 2012 by High Exposure

[JackDaWack 2,895]

I don't really understand the arguments flying around here... Did the guy break the law? No. You all have a right to your opinion on OC but that's all it is. I'm not sure what the big deal is here, the guy was clearly bringing awareness to how people are treated when they legally carry. The ranking officer knew right away what was going on. Are people seriously complaining that this man brought attention to the unfair treatment people receive when open carrying? regardless of your opinion relating the matter there is no difference between this man OCing and another individual walking down the street who isn't even armed. The fact that he had a good video at the end of this whole ordeal just goes to show exactly why he had the camera and "rehearsed lines" ready ATM. It's called being prepared.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

4. Red herring. Mowing your lawn is never a crime. Carrying a firearm may, or may not be a crime. Or it may be a part of the totality of the circumstances after a proper investigation by the responding officers that leads to an arrest or a prevention of a crime. How about this scenario: You call the police because the neighbors are arguing loudly. Is it a crime for them to yell at each other in their own house? No. So the dispatcher responds, "That's not a crime. Have a nice day." Not appropriate.

 

Disturbing the peace warrants a police response...

 

Have you ever heard of the word Probing? How would you feel if cops stopped you every day in your car to see if its registered has insurance and your licensed? That's the same argument you just gave... Driving a car may or may not be a crime...

 

And High Exposure, have you put any thought into the fact that the Police instigated this whole thing, apparently OC and following the law now means that you are a prick who instates verbal fights with cops... Actually the guy was walking down the street, and the cops were responding to a call someone made, the cops were actually looking for him, not the other way around.

[High Exposure 5,679]

 

 

Disturbing the peace warrants a police response...

 

Have you ever herd of the word Probing? How would you feel if cops stopped you every day in your car to see if its registered has insurance and your licensed? That's the same argument you just gave... Driving a car may or may not be a crime...

 

You are right, disturbing the peace does require a response. Whose job is it to determine if the "disturber" in question is in fact disturbing the peace. The caller, the dispatcher, or the cop on scene? That's my point. The dispatcher does not get to tell the caller "Oh, that is not a crime, have a nice day" when it could be a crime, or a sign of a crime, under certain circumstances. They must send a cop and the cop determines it in person.

 

Driving your car may or may not be a violation of Title 39, the NJ motor vehicle code, not a crime in and of itself.

 

If you are issued a summons for speeding and plead guilty, or are found guilty after a trial, do you have to answer "yes" when asked if you have been found guilty of committing a crime? No.

 

Yes, there are some 2C statutes that deal with operation of MV but that is a different ball of wax.

 

As far as stopping my car every day, if the cops have probable cause (PC) or an articulable suspicion (AS) for the stop, it's their perogative to light me up, even twice on the same day. I may not like it, but that doesn't matter. They can't, however, just stop me and "check my papers". They can stop me because I violated title 39, or they have some other PC/AS. I agreed to that when I accepted the responsibility of the "privilege" of driving on public roadways and signed my NJ Driver's License.

[PeteF 1,044]

2. Disagree based on personal opinion, not universal truth.

 

3. Right, so its not the presence of the firearm, but the preconceived notion by the bad guy of whether or not this person's presence, who in this instance happens to be a cop, will let you get away with the crime you want to commit. Correction Officers don't carry guns at work, they are surrounded by criminals daily, yet few of them get injured even though they are outnumbered. Why do you think that is? UK cops manage to curb crime in a nation with similar gun control laws as NJ. They manage to fight crime. How can that be without guns? Because they are the Police. Police deter crime, not the guns they carry or the way the carry them.

 

4. Red herring. Mowing your lawn is never a crime, and if it has the potential to be an ordinance violation, then yes, a dispatcher has to send a cop. Carrying a firearm may, or may not be a crime. Or it may be a part of the totality of the circumstances after a proper investigation by the responding officers that leads to an arrest or a prevention of a crime. How about this scenario: You call the police because the neighbors are arguing loudly. Is it a crime for them to yell at each other in their own house? No. So the dispatcher responds, "That's not a crime. Have a nice day." Not appropriate. It may be a signor a precursor of a crime, even though it is not a crime in and of itself. An appropriate response is to take the call. Dispatch an officer and let them make the determination on the scene.

 

5. We are saying the same thing about GFZs in the first part. I agree with your first 2 sentences with every fiber of my being... Then you lose me. I was referring to the notion that cops stay away from OC zones all together, letting the presence of armed OC citizens deter crime simply by walking around with holstered handguns, and the police only focusing on the GFZs as being shortsighted.

 

As far as your scenario with Good Guy pulling his piece and saving the day, you are forgetting a few outcomes. The bad guy has a vote in the fight. The true "Worst case" is he snatches the pistol out of your hand/holster, or skins his own, shoves it in your face and pulls the trigger till it goes *click*

 

Your call a cop timeline assumes that no cops are already in the area.

 

My call a cop "best scenario" timelines go something like this:

1) Uniformed cop on patrol in the area. Bad guy decides not to be bad.

2) Cop sees bad guy being bad guy because he is on patrol in the area, not avoiding the location and letting OC deter crime in and of itself, and stops bad guy doing bad stuff.

 

2. Like I said if you don't want to OC, don't. If someone else does that's fine too. (again where legal)

3. The presence of the firearm makes people more equal. The small woman now becomes ABLE to stop the large attacker. Therefore attacker may try to attack/rob an easier target.

4. Nothing the guy in the video was doing was a crime and according to the case law they had NO reason to stop him. If you're going to go down the "But he has a gun and may commit a crime" thought police argument. I just give up.

5. A civilian with a gun is not a cop. They have the right to protect themselves and others, not to chase down a BG, pull over a drunk driver etc. Once threat to you is done anything else you do will rightfully get you in deep doo doo. I'm not sure where you live but in my town at any given time there are ~8 cop cars patrolling. Very unlikely one will just happen to be right where a crime is happening.

And if they are a mile away there is no chance they can get there in under 2 minutes (residential winding streets). OC doesn't deter crime in general it deters crime against a given person. And thats what personal protection is about. I protect myself. Cops are supposed to protect the general well being.

 

As to your last

 

Oh no we wouldn't want to offend the attacker he might get mad. We should all just stand there and let what ever will happen happen. Please.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

They can't, however, just stop me and "check my papers".

 

 

This is exactly what they did to this guy. Police get a call that a man is carrying a gun, there was no report of suspicious activity, just that he was walking down the street carrying a gun... there is no PC or AS, no laws were broken. The officer said the only reason i stopped you was because you are carrying a gun, that's like him saying the only reason i stopped you was because your driving your car.

 

Regardless of what the dispatcher did, the officer who responded could have easily noted that a crime in fact was not being committed, since a crime was not even reported.

 

Dispatch gets call: man carrying a gun

Officer responds: see man walking down street carrying gun

Officer decides no law is being broken and does not warrant enough PC to stop the individual...

 

Mind=Blown

[High Exposure 5,679]

And High Exposure, have you put any thought into the fact that the Police instigated this whole thing, apparently OC and following the law now means that you are a prick who instates verbal fights with cops... Actually the guy was walking down the street, and the cops were responding to a call someone made, the cops were actually looking for him, not the other way around.

 

Like I said, I didn't watch the video. However, I don't live in Maine. Don't know the laws in Maine regarding OC, CCW or firearms in general, so I don't know of he was or was not following Maine's OC laws.

 

You said the cops were dispatched to look for him based an an eye-witness report of a man with a gun, right? How then were the cops instigating anything by following up on a citizen complaint? That's their JOB. People report something suspicious, weird, dangerous and cops respond and investigate. They then take action based on facts, discretion, experience, training, judgement, and the totality of the circumstances. Thats not instigating, that is how public safetu works in this country.

 

Maybe the cop was not trained in the exact way to handle this type of call. Maybe the law recently changed. Maybe he was a rookie cop. I don't know. By reports here, at the end of the vid, the boss came in, and set him right. The law ended up being followed and everyone went about their business.

 

What I can guess though is this. If the cop had walked up, introduced himself asked what was going on, then the OCer replied with whatever Maine requires and the cop said "OK, have a nice day" radioed HQ and said no problem here, the guy that made the video would have never posted it. Now that video of a pleasant PD to OC contact would have made a much better impact on 2A rights then this one where even gun owners can't agree.

[Bob B 103]

1. I don't know. But, it doesn't apply in NJ so it's a straw-man argument for our purposes.

 

 

I'll just stick with this one, because it is the important one.

 

The reason I ask the question is because the answer determines whether or not the officer's Terry Stop was legal.

 

The reason it is called a "Terry Stop" is from Terry v. Ohio, where the court ruled that an officer must have RAS to detain and search an individual for weapons, limited to patting down his outer garments. The justification of which was for the officer's safety.

 

Since the officer admitted that the only reason he stopped him was because he was carrying a gun, the question is completely valid and not a "straw-man argument" at all. It goes to the very heart of the matter.

 

Whether the guy was wise to open carry, or was acting like a jerk are other valid questions, but have nothing to do with whether or not what the officer did was legal.

 

So, my question remains:

1. Is open carrying a firearm, where open carrying is perfectly legal, reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed?

 

So, what does everyone think? Was there RAS, yes or no?

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Well this is why people are doing it, to bring awareness to the situation.

 

The Cops responding is not the gripe here, its how they generally handle it in some areas of the country. I'm not saying the cops should disregard such a call and just not respond, but they generally treat you like a criminal first. You have rights that protect you and sometimes case law that supports those rights, cops don't get to disregard rights to make there job easier or some place safer or for crime prevention. And yes you need to know the laws first in order to determine if someone is breaking one. The cop decided to confront the individual based solely on the fact he was OCing, which was brought to his attention from a concerned citizen. Nothing shows that the cop had any right what so ever to do so, but even that is OK. The problem is when he starts to disarm the man, treat him like he broke the law, and detain him.

 

Watch the video, i don't know why your responding if you didn't even watch the video. The cop has a right to confront the man OCing, but then again the OCer has a right to walk away.

[PeteF 1,044]

What I can guess though is this. If the cop had walked up, introduced himself asked what was going on, then the OCer replied with whatever Maine requires and the cop said "OK, have a nice day" radioed HQ and said no problem here, the guy that made the video would have never posted it. Now that video of a pleasant PD to OC contact would have made a much better impact on 2A rights then this one where even gun owners can't agree.

 

I'm not sure if this is the same guy, but there have also been videos posted giving the LEO kudos when the cop does the right thing as in your scenario.

 

[JackDaWack 2,895]

 

 

So, my question remains:

 

 

So, what does everyone think? Was there RAS, yes or no?

 

You know my answer, hell no!

[High Exposure 5,679]

 

 

2. Like I said if you don't want to OC, don't. If someone else does that's fine too. (again where legal)

3. The presence of the firearm makes people more equal. The small woman now becomes ABLE to stop the large attacker. Therefore attacker may try to attack/rob an easier target.

4. Nothing the guy in the video was doing was a crime and according to the case law they had NO reason to stop him. If you're going to go down the "But he has a gun and may commit a crime" thought police argument. I just give up.

5. A civilian with a gun is not a cop. They have the right to protect themselves and others, not to chase down a BG, pull over a drunk driver etc. Once threat to you is done anything else you do will rightfully get you in deep doo doo. I'm not sure where you live but in my town at any given time there are ~8 cop cars patrolling. Very unlikely one will just happen to be right where a crime is happening.

And if they are a mile away there is no chance they can get there in under 2 minutes (residential winding streets). OC doesn't deter crime in general it deters crime against a given person. And thats what personal protection is about. I protect myself. Cops are supposed to protect the general well being.

 

As to your last

 

Oh no we wouldn't want to offend the attacker he might get mad. We should all just stand there and let what ever will happen happen. Please.

 

2. Thanks, I won't

 

3. Balderdash. Guns don't make people equal. Me carrying my gun with my training and experience does not equal my wife carrying a gun that she has never shot or is scared of. It is about mindset. Software not hardware. Also. Don't pretend to know the mind of an assailant or bad guy. You are falling onto the trap of assuming you have the same thought process and risk factors as they do.

 

Also, I am not saying the presence of a firearm by a member of the public is bad or inappropriate. I am saying carrying OC so everyone, including the bad guys, know you have a firearm may not be the best decision you made that day when you walk into a stop and rob at oh-dark thirty.

 

4. I am not going down "pre-crime" lane here. I am simply stating that Cops have a job. That job is to investigate citizen reports of all nature. I don't know what OC or firearms laws in Maine are, so I can't respond if any laws were broken. A Maine resident, who presumably has an inkling of Maine laws, called the Maine police and reported something suspicious which may or may not be a crime. What if this guy was a convicted felon as was not allowed to own firearms? Without the cop investigating, how is he to make that determination?

 

5. Correct, partially my point there. Again I was referring to the notion that originally posted by NJ2AS-LCC about OC precludes the need for cops except in GFZs as being preposterous. You are correct, there is rarely a cop right there when you need one and the mile away comment was referring to the dispatcher attempting to determine if that a report of a possible crime should not be addressed. Not only good guys carry guns. Not only good guys carry guns in holsters.

 

Another point, if someone calls about the suspicious man with a gun, and cops are dispatched, and it is in fact a bad dude (cause only good guys carry guns right?) then you just may have a real Police right there when you need him.

 

Again, I am not saying that citizens should not carry firearms. I wish CCW was instituted in NJ as "Shall Issue". What I am saying is that OCing those firearms may not be the best tactical idea you ever had. OCing doesn't deter crime against the specific person OCing. I propose that it in fact makes them more of a target by some criminals.

 

You protect yourself by being smart first, not solely by carrying a gun in plain view for all to see.

 

I don't understand your comment about offending the attacker. I never said that. If someone attacks me or my family, I will do everything I can to make sure that hurt feelings are the least of his problems.

[High Exposure 5,679]

Again, I don't live in Maine, so this is all tainted towards NJ

 

 

 

I'll just stick with this one, because it is the important one.

 

The reason I ask the question is because the answer determines whether or not the officer's Terry Stop was legal.

 

The reason it is called a "Terry Stop" is from Terry v. Ohio, where the court ruled that an officer must have RAS to detain and search an individual for weapons, limited to patting down his outer garments. The justification of which was for the officer's safety.

 

Since the officer admitted that the only reason he stopped him was because he was carrying a gun, the question is completely valid and not a "straw-man argument" at all. It goes to the very heart of the matter.

 

Whether the guy was wise to open carry, or was acting like a jerk are other valid questions, but have nothing to do with whether or not what the officer did was legal.

 

Yes, I know about terry stops and Terry vs Ohio. Terry stop = Detain AND search with PC (which would let him put cuffs on right there, then search) or at the least AS. Great.

 

Does responding to a report of a man with a gun, and finding a man with a gun in plain sight matching the physical description meet the terry stop reqs? I don't think so. Could open carry, I mean, you can see the weapon, open the door to negate the terry stop rules. You no longer have a search for suspected weapons, the weapon is right there, in plain sight. No search required. Now an investigation to determine if the weapon is legally carried by a person legally allowed to have a weapon begins. If the investigation reveals "yes and yes" to the previos questions of legal and allowed, then its "have a nice day, sorry to waste your time." If there is a "no" in there, then everything changes.

 

A cop stopping to talk to a person matching the description of a citizen report does not need PC or AS. A cop can stop and talk to anyone as long as the person lets them. If this guy kept talking to the cop trying to prove his point, well then that's on him.

[Wastegate 9]

This pretty much sums up my opinions on open carry perfectly.

 

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Now an investigation to determine if the weapon is legally carried by a person legally allowed to have a weapon begins. If the investigation reveals "yes and yes" to the previos questions of legal and allowed, then its "have a nice day, sorry to waste your time." If there is a "no" in there, then everything changes.

 

A cop stopping to talk to a person matching the description of a citizen report does not need PC or AS. A cop can stop and talk to anyone as long as the person lets them. If this guy kept talking to the cop trying to prove his point, well then that's on him.

 

Again Watch the video, the guy asked to leave several times

[High Exposure 5,679]

They can't, however, just stop me and "check my papers".

 

This is exactly what they did to this guy. Police get a call that a man is carrying a gun, there was no report of suspicious activity, just that he was walking down the street carrying a gun... there is no PC or AS, no laws were broken. The officer said the only reason i stopped you was because you are carrying a gun, that's like him saying the only reason i stopped you was because your driving your car.

 

Regardless of what the dispatcher did, the officer who responded could have easily noted that a crime in fact was not being committed, since a crime was not even reported.

 

Dispatch gets call: man carrying a gun

Officer responds: see man walking down street carrying gun

Officer decides no law is being broken and does not warrant enough PC to stop the individual...

 

Mind=Blown

They didn't just stop this guy and check his papers. They responded to a call for service.

 

So, a citizen calls the police and reports a man with a gun because they feel it isn't suspicious?

 

The officers were dispatched to investigate a "man with a gun call" they find a man with a gun. They stop to talk to him. Were there other men with guns in the area? Was he specifically targeted for another reason in this sea of openly armed men?

 

The cop stating "I stopped you because you had a gun" is analogous to him saying "you matched the physical description of a man we were looking for"

 

And why do you think a cop can look at someone carrying a gun and determine that no crime was being committed without speaking to the person carrying a gun. The gun laws in Maine, while clearly better than those here, may be just as confusing. How can Police determine that the subject was legally allowed to own a gun, the specific firearm in question was legal in that jurisdiction, and the method of carry was legal as well with speaking to him?

 

You don't need PC to stop and talk to someone in an investigative manner. You need Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. Much less than PC.

 

 

I'm not sure if this is the same guy, but there have also been videos posted giving the LEO kudos when the cop does the right thing as in your scenario.

 

 

Thanks for posting that!

 

 

 

Again Watch the video, the guy asked to leave several times

 

Right, at that point the Officer has determined that that this is the person that was reported by a citizen and an investigation has begun. The Cop has AS and determining if there is PC to take it further. Detention justified.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

This pretty much sums up my opinions on open carry perfectly.

 

 

I can't watch a video that claims people who open carry in urban area's as "a** CLOWNS", especially when the goof-ball on the right is a prime example of one.

[Rysdad 5]

It has occurred to me that there is an underlying sentment here that comes from simply being in New Jersey for so long. The people that are born and raised in New Jersey have developed a kind of "we are screwed" attitude that comes out when they see someone pushing limits or questioning authority of any kind relating to firearms. These people would not think of pushing the limits because their limits are so low. Everyone in New Jersey sees what kind of punishment occurs for breaking the law and would not want to even approach that situation. Even though I live in New Jersey now and have to endure this as well, I feel bad that we all have been raised like lemmings.

Think of all the words that have been written arguing wether or not this guy should open carry. We should spend more time educating the public and writing to our senators, congressmen, representatives and Governor and who ever may listen. We need to change the laws here and soon.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

I like open carry, but I consider open carry OWB. If you don't like it, so what. To each his own.

[Bob B 103]

You know my answer, hell no!

 

Does responding to a report of a man with a gun, and finding a man with a gun in plain sight matching the physical description meet the terry stop reqs? I don't think so.

 

Thank you.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

They didn't just stop this guy and check his papers. They responded to a call for service.

 

So, a citizen calls the police and reports a man with a gun because they feel it isn't suspicious?

- I don't see any reasonable suspicion, OCing does not make you suspicious when it's legal.

 

The officers were dispatched to investigate a "man with a gun call" they find a man with a gun. They stop to talk to him. Were there other men with guns in the area? Was he specifically targeted for another reason in this sea of openly armed men?

Cops responded to a call of a man carrying a gun, which is legal in main... Yes they can respond, but how does a cop investigate a crime when no crime has been committed....

 

The cop stating "I stopped you because you had a gun" is analogous to him saying "you matched the physical description of a man we were looking for"

-he was stopped for having a gun, something illegal or suspicious must take place before police have a man to even look for. They were looking for him ONLY because he had a gun, because they got a report that a man had a gun. Not because he matched the physical description of man they were looking for, if a man with a gun was reported to have done something suspicious or illegal that's a different story.

And why do you think a cop can look at someone carrying a gun and determine that no crime was being committed without speaking to the person carrying a gun. The gun laws in Maine, while clearly better than those here, may be just as confusing. How can Police determine that the subject was legally allowed to own a gun, the specific firearm in question was legal in that jurisdiction, and the method of carry was legal as well with speaking to him?

The Second Amendment and the laws in Main allow people to OC, Period. LEO's can't look at people and profile them, PROFILING IS ILLEGAL! Just because he is carrying a gun doesn't make him a potential criminal, and it doesn't give the LEO any justification to investigate whether he is a criminal or not.

 

You don't need PC to stop and talk to someone in an investigative manner. You need Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. Much less than PC.

 

 

 

Thanks for posting that!

 

 

 

 

Right, at that point the Officer has determined that that this is the person that was reported by a citizen and an investigation has begun. The Cop has AS and determining if there is PC to take it further. Detention justified.

-you fail to understand that the report made by the citizen was simply a man carrying a gun, no illegal or suspicious activity was reported.

[Bob B 103]

 

You don't need PC to stop and talk to someone in an investigative manner. You need Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. Much less than PC.

 

 

Not exactly. An officer can ask questions of anyone at any time. However, the individual is under no obligation to participate, hence the question "Am I being detained or am I free to go?" The officer must have RAS to do a Terry Stop, i.e. detain and search via pat down of outer garments. The officer must have PC to search further or arrest (or have the person's consent).

 

The ME video and the CA video are very different because the CA individual is considered to have voluntarily participated because he didn't ask if he could go. The ME individual clearly asserted his right to not be detained, but was detained anyway. That is why, in the ME example, the existence of RAS is so important.