View Full Version : Open Carry Idiot
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=176_1310452930
Got this from Army Ranger.com. This is why cops have issues with open carry.
Maybe he was suffering from cabin fever. The snow was piled quite high on the streets. I guess Houghton, MI had a normal winter. But yes, he is just giving the left-wing anti-gun nuts additional fodder for their bitching.
Tress
IMO, that obnoxious gun owner is one example of what damages the image of other gun owners - in the eyes of some law enforcement and the anti-gun crowd.
He did us no favors in that interaction. I realize that the open carry issue is a contentious one and that others may have a different take on the situation.
That guy is an ASS. He obviously only does it to get a reaction. As soon as he started talking I wanted to smack him upside the head.
That guy is an ASS. He obviously only does it to get a reaction. As soon as he started talking I wanted to smack him upside the head.
What a tool! The officer handled that well. This guy was obviously seeking another reaction which could have varied upon a confrontational escalation with police or anyone else.
monsterhunter
07-19-2011, 22:03
I've only run into one "open carry" individual, but it's getting more common. Fortunately, the guy I ran into was very passive. He had a Glock 9mm in a Serpa holster and was getting a foot massage. We made a careful approach, inspected is weapon, and were on our way.
I've always been split on my feelings about individual rights. I support folks exercising their rights, but we also have those walking into schools with AK's for a very different reason. It sucks for us, because most often you have no idea which type of person you are dealing with. Is it the guy making a statement or is he going to swing the muzzle around on you? You never know until you get there, but one thing is for sure, we can't wait until they get to their destination to find out what their intentions are.
I sure don't have all the answers, but we will always respond when called. It really doesn't help when the guy is an ass.
Texas_Shooter
07-19-2011, 23:56
ROTFL. The second cop knew him by name. That is hilarious.
That guy is an ASS. He obviously only does it to get a reaction. As soon as he started talking I wanted to smack him upside the head.
Yes, I felt the same, the officers were professional and courteous.
ddoering
07-20-2011, 05:20
I've always been split on my feelings about individual rights.
How so? I support the rights of individuals as outlined in the Constitution. The fact that they know him and continue to stop him is harassment. And yes, he is an ass too.
How so? I support the rights of individuals as outlined in the Constitution. The fact that they know him and continue to stop him is harassment. And yes, he is an ass too.
How is it harassment when they're responding due to calls from the public? It's not like police get to pick and choose which calls they're going to respond to, and there's no telling what the complaints consist of--"he's waving it around", etc.
And that dude is a drama queen, he couldn't be any whinier if he tried.
"............you're the only one we get calls on..........." ".......we figured it was you......." "..........Yeah, I will lecture you........"
Everybody thinks he's as ass but from the comments the LEOs made I'm pretty sure both sides have a long history of interaction.
And from that long history I can see why he was filming his walk.
So does being a Dick change his rights?
ddoering
07-20-2011, 06:22
"............you're the only one we get calls on..........." ".......we figured it was you......." "..........Yeah, I will lecture you........"
Everybody thinks he's as ass but from the comments the LEOs made I'm pretty sure both sides have a long history of interaction.
And from that long history I can see why he was filming his walk.
So does being a Dick change his rights?
Actually, the Constitution protects your right to be a dick. If not then while has the ACLU lasted so long?
ddoering
07-20-2011, 06:29
How is it harassment when they're responding due to calls from the public? It's not like police get to pick and choose which calls they're going to respond to, and there's no telling what the complaints consist of--"he's waving it around", etc.
And that dude is a drama queen, he couldn't be any whinier if he tried.
The have a long history with him. They know his agenda and are only feeding into it. Like I said, he is a ass but the cops, as tools of government are just as bad as he is. If they ignored him, (unless he does something illegal) then he would become a non-issue in short order. Personally, I think carrying a gun should be a requirement of all adults. Sure, in the short term there would be a period of extreme Darwinism, but after the rest get a clue society would be a much more polite place. Bottom line is that we can't pick and choose which Constitutional rights we support and which ones we don't. After all, if we are doing that to others then someone is probably doing it to us.
monsterhunter
07-21-2011, 22:08
How so? I support the rights of individuals as outlined in the Constitution. The fact that they know him and continue to stop him is harassment. And yes, he is an ass too.
I agree he has the right in that state to do what he is doing. If they have dealt with him on so many occasions, perhaps they should just clear the call out as the local gun nut making a statement and keep driving.
I also hate to see the innocent gun owner's suffer because some other ass somewhere is doing something stupid with his gun. You have the right to open carry in California, but it can't be a loaded gun in a public place. State law gives us the authority to inspect the weapon. I don't like to interrupt the good citizen exercising his rights, but we have to check and make sure those are the intentions he has when he is carrying. Some of the other idiots out here are actually looking to use it in a fight. If the bad guys would just glow red so we could leave the others alone, that would be just great. Perhaps where I'm split is the uncomfortable feeling between stepping on someone's innocent right to carry vs. allowing the wrong person to continue on his way with a gun. I guess these guys in the video had it better because they knew him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb_9icqB1SA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC4UP10F-no&feature=related
Enjoy.
It appears that the subject in this video willingly approached the first officer and began conversing with that officer. Seems like a consensual contact to me. I didn't see that any detention ever ocurred. IMHO, the officers never gave the subject the feeling that he wasn't free to leave. The first patrol car is seen driving past this guy in the opposite direction. The guy turns around and quickly walks in the direction of the officer. If some dumb-ass with an AK-47 whips around and starts walking towards me, thats definitely going to get my attention. I'm going to turn around and confront the guy.
I believe the officers had more than enough for a momentary detention under Terry v Ohio.
Hell-of-way too get your ass shot by a "law abiding" citizen; IF, you were to move inappropriately.;)
"An AK-47 would've thrown me into combat mode in a heartbeat!":D
BTW...If I was with my family...I'm pretty goddamn sure I would've pulled my weapon on him.
Stay safe.
Another example of an open carry encounter and IMO a very professional law enforcement officer - the open carry guy was a bit of an A$$.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFzH5Oe-YL4
AngelsSix
07-23-2011, 13:52
The have a long history with him. They know his agenda and are only feeding into it. Like I said, he is a ass but the cops, as tools of government are just as bad as he is. If they ignored him, (unless he does something illegal) then he would become a non-issue in short order. Personally, I think carrying a gun should be a requirement of all adults. Sure, in the short term there would be a period of extreme Darwinism, but after the rest get a clue society would be a much more polite place. Bottom line is that we can't pick and choose which Constitutional rights we support and which ones we don't. After all, if we are doing that to others then someone is probably doing it to us.
I do not agree with this statement. I think most people can figure out why. The same reasons every adult shouldn't have a damn driver's license. People push the "right to do/ have/ say/ be" thing way too far in my opinion. I am tired of hearing about everyone's "rights", while my right to people not acting like assholes gets trampled every day. Certain things are privileges in society, not rights. People need to learn the difference.
The Reaper
07-23-2011, 21:13
I do not agree with this statement. I think most people can figure out why. The same reasons every adult shouldn't have a damn driver's license. People push the "right to do/ have/ say/ be" thing way too far in my opinion. I am tired of hearing about everyone's "rights", while my right to people not acting like assholes gets trampled every day. Certain things are privileges in society, not rights. People need to learn the difference.
Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege.
Firearms ownership and bearing of same is an inalienable right, as detailed in the curiously named Bill of Rights.
TR
ddoering
07-24-2011, 07:49
I do not agree with this statement. I think most people can figure out why. The same reasons every adult shouldn't have a damn driver's license. People push the "right to do/ have/ say/ be" thing way too far in my opinion. I am tired of hearing about everyone's "rights", while my right to people not acting like assholes gets trampled every day. Certain things are privileges in society, not rights. People need to learn the difference.
Don't let that pesky little document, the Constitution, get in your way of deciding how people should live and act.
AngelsSix said that she doesn't agree that it should be a REQUIREMENT to carry, and I don 't either. The constitution enshrines it as a right that the government cannot infringe on. It doesn't make it a requirement to carry. All for carry. Don't want every idiot of voting age carrying one around. (notice I didn't say shouldn't). By the way, who would "require" that it be carried? The government?
DJ Urbanovsky
07-24-2011, 12:27
You might be one of those people that needs to learn the difference.
The Bill of Rights grants us nothing - it merely enumerates our natural rights as human beings. And there is nothing about people not acting like assholes in the document that I have ever been able to find.
If you're talking about people behaving like assholes, you're talking about the morality of the individual. You cannot legislate morality any more than you can rehabilitate a pedophile.
I do not agree with this statement. I think most people can figure out why. The same reasons every adult shouldn't have a damn driver's license. People push the "right to do/ have/ say/ be" thing way too far in my opinion. I am tired of hearing about everyone's "rights", while my right to people not acting like assholes gets trampled every day. Certain things are privileges in society, not rights. People need to learn the difference.
Delta-1-Bravo
07-24-2011, 21:03
This moron's right to walk around town w/an AK needs to be safeguarded. Protecting our 2nd Amendment rights and those of the individual State require we tolerate stupidity if it's legal.
But I saw this headline a little while ago. "Gunman Kills Self, 5 Others At Texas Roller Rink"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/24/gunman-kills-self-5-other_n_907956.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk1%7C80701
Remember where moron tells officers what a good boy he's been by not walking into stores w/his rifle? Thought about that, about this latest shooting, then considered Guy's comment...
BTW...If I was with my family...I'm pretty goddamn sure I would've pulled my weapon on him.
It would suck to go to prison because you're at some store w/your wife and little girls and you decide not to wait and see if the assclown strolling in w/the AK-47 is crazy or not.
I thought the LEOs handled the situation just fine. If moron did something stupid and wound up w/a bullet in his head, I'd feel bad for the officers.
MOO - just because you 'can' doesn't mean you 'should'.
Richard :munchin
ddoering
07-25-2011, 05:59
But now we are not discussing "rights," but common sense which we all know isn't so common.
Delta-1-Bravo
07-25-2011, 11:57
How would we judge the 'common sense' of officers who failed to respond to calls about a guy strollin' down the block w/an AK-47?
My opinion: doesn't matter they know the guy. Doesn't matter it's an open carry state. Doesn't matter if he takes the same walk every day. You stop and chat w/this guy every time.
Sure, he's likely just an ass. And maybe he is sincere about exercising/protecting his rights. But there's no doubt he's squirrely. Speaks quickly and his voice gets all high-pitched when he's talking w/the officers. His heart races. Almost like you can smell him getting all sweaty.
Is it harrassment to stop guys like this? Is it 'profiling' when LEOs pay more attention to the guy acting like a retard? I don't think so. I think it's common sense for the officers to say: "Yeah, he's got the right to do what he's doing, but we still have to go check it out anyway."
ddoering
07-25-2011, 17:41
So then the cops should stop everyone that they think are squirally? Why not. I'd also stop all muslims, as potential terrorists. Problably all white guys with previous military expirience as well since, as Norway shows us, they are a threat as well. Blacks are potential crooks/drug dealers so we better stop them too. I guess I would just stop everybody. That would only be fair. What would Thomas Jefferson do?
Actually, it would be better if they parked outside of bars and arrested people as they got in their cars after drinking. They would save alot more lives and actually be dealing with crime proactively.
Delta-1-Bravo
07-25-2011, 20:57
So then the cops should stop everyone that they think are squirally?
Of course not. But they should talk w/anyone walking down the block w/an AK-47.
ddoering
08-05-2011, 04:04
The other side of the coin: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/21/video-police-officer-threatens-concealed-carry-driver-with-execution-beating/
No one has yet mentioned the configuration in which he was carrying; the shadows and limited views of his rifle showed that at times (often) he had it horizontal and pointed at folks. I would consider that an assault. I could very easily verbalize and articulate as to why I shot an ass-clown pointing the muzzle of an AK at me. It may be his RIGHT to open carry; but he has NO RIGHT to assault me with his weapon. Pointing a rifle at me and putting me in fear for my life is considered an assault - therefor, I can defend myself.
Maybe ass-hat should learn how to properly carry his rifle so people woulldn't feel so threatened. Guys like this do irreparable damage to legitimate arguments for carrying.
Kudos to the cops - very professional and didn't fall into ass-clown's trap.
The other side of the coin: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/21/video-police-officer-threatens-concealed-carry-driver-with-execution-beating/
As an FTO and a BLET instructor, this officer would be a failure at this station.
1. Both officers' attention was on the hooker before any engagement of the vehicle occupants.
2. The rear passenger was taken out of the vehicle, engaged in conversation and placed against the car, while still not engaging the driver of the vehicle. They didn't even know who the driver was at this point.
3. I did not hear any of them ask consent to search the vehicle from the person in control of the vehicle, presumably the driver, before searching the rear seat. I could see no reason to search this vehicle without consent just on the tape.
4. The rear seat was searched with the driver still in the vehicle and in control of the keys to the vehicle. He had still not been engaged in conversation nor identified.
5. To this point, the driver had been completely ignored.
6. When the officer finally approaches the driver, he instantly grabs the door handle and attempts to open the door. He places himself well into the red zone in an almost casual stance. If the driver had been intent on causing these officers harm, he had more than ample opportunity.
7. The officer apparently in charge is so caught up in appearing to be in charge that he doesn't take the time to actively listen to any of the suspects, hence missing the fact that the driver tried to tell him about the CCW on the first contact with the driver.
8. This officer was unprofessional from the beginning. He made several rookie mistakes that could have cost him and his partner their lives.