Why liberal cities suck; Open-Carry edition

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

A story in today's Philadelphia Daily News shows why it's so important that citizens be allowed to videotape cops - it can be citizens' only way to fight back against police abuse of power.

This incident happened several weeks ago in Philadelphia to Mark Fiorino, a 25-year-old IT worker who carries a gun on his hip at all times for self defense. He got the gun after several friends were mugged.

But he didn't count on attacks by police:

On a mild February afternoon, Fiorino, 25, decided to walk to an AutoZone on Frankford Avenue in Northeast Philly with the .40-caliber Glock he legally owns holstered in plain view on his left hip. His stroll ended when someone called out from behind: "Yo, Junior, what are you doing?"

Fiorino wheeled and saw Sgt. Michael Dougherty aiming a handgun at him.

What happened next would be hard to believe, except that Fiorino audio-recorded all of it: a tense, profanity-laced, 40-minute encounter with cops who told him that what he was doing - openly carrying a gun on the city's streets - was against the law.

"Do you know you can't openly carry here in Philadelphia?" Dougherty asked, according to the YouTube clip.

"Yes, you can, if you have a license to carry firearms," Fiorino said. "It's Directive 137. It's your own internal directive."

Fiorino was right. It was perfectly legal to carry the gun. But that didn't matter to the cop:

Fiorino offered to show Dougherty his driver's and firearms licenses. The cop told him to get on his knees.

"Excuse me?" Fiorino said.

"Get down on your knees. Just obey what I'm saying," Dougherty said.

"Sir," Fiorino replied, "I'm more than happy to stand here -"

"If you make a move, I'm going to f------ shoot you," Dougherty snapped. "I'm telling you right now, you make a move, and you're going down!"

"Is this necessary?" Fiorino said.

It went on like that for a little while, until other officers responded to Dougherty's calls for backup.

Fiorino was forced to the ground and shouted at as he tried to explain that he had a firearms license and was legally allowed to openly carry his weapon.

"You f------ come here looking for f------ problems? Where do you live?" yelled one officer.

"I'm sorry, gentlemen," Fiorino said. "If I'm under arrest, I have nothing left to say."

"F------ a------, shut the f--- up!" the cop hollered.

The cops discovered his recorder as they searched his pockets, and unleashed another string of expletives.

Fiorino said he sat handcuffed in a police wagon while the officers made numerous phone calls to supervisors, trying to find out if they could lock him up.

When they learned that they were in the wrong, they let him go.

But only temporarily. Fiorino posted the audio recordings on youtube, and now they are harassing him again:

A new investigation was launched, and last month the District Attorney's Office decided to charge Fiorino with reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct because, a spokeswoman said, he refused to cooperate with police... He's scheduled for trial in July.

If one listens to the audiotapes, it's hard to imagine how a reasonable person could charge Fiorino (and not the cops) for disorderly conduct.

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/05/16/philly-police-harass-threaten-shoot-man-legally-carrying-gun#ixzz1MZJ35UEK

[Thor]

Minneapolis is the same way. The police there totally disregard the law in Minnesota when it comes to open carry. I spoke with one Sergeant and he told me he'd "prone out" ANYBODY with a gun, permit to carry or not. I guess that they feel that they are the only ones "professional enough" to carry guns. 

[youtube=425,350]MeGD7r6s-zU[/youtube]

[Rebel]

You don't stop your state from being Californicated, it'll happen there, Snugs. My co-worker, who's from New Orleans, spent 5 years there. He's conservative, USN Vietnam Vet that was a side-gunner on a Huey flying off the Coral Sea, said his neighborhood had tons of idiots from California. He said they were all liberal, but when he'd ask why they came they'd say, "the taxes and intrusion was getting out of control". They were either obtuse or completely ignorant to the fact that is was THEIR voting patterns that made it that way. Washington State and Oregon were Californicated years before. There's a reason "dry" Washington wants to secede from Olympia and "wet" Washington.

[NHSparky]

Frankly, the guy was being a total dick to the cops.  They can still ask him to stop, and he should have at least complied until his intentions were known to the police.

And really, why open carry when PA is a shall issue state?  Guy is looking to stir shit, nothing more.  Reminds me of the dipshit libertarian Free-Stater types up here.

[CatholicCrusader]

Frankly, the guy was being a total dick to the cops.  They can still ask him to stop, and he should have at least complied until his intentions were known to the police.

And really, why open carry when PA is a shall issue state?  Guy is looking to stir shit, nothing more.  Reminds me of the dipshit libertarian Free-Stater types up here.

So the dick is the guy who was wrongfully arrested?
Excersising your right to bear arms is stirring up shit?

Wow. I hope you never become mayor of my town.

[NHSparky]

So the dick is the guy who was wrongfully arrested?
Excersising your right to bear arms is stirring up shit?

Wow. I hope you never become mayor of my town.

No, refusal to follow police direction is stirring shit, and when he starts acting like a dick, the blue gloves and tasers come out.  Notice that the guy isn't being charged with carrying a weapon, he's being charged reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct--because he was (altogether class) BEING A DICK.

Bottom line, when you give cops shit, you WILL lose.  If your rights are violated, then you have a case.  This "gentleman" does not.  He's a fool who thinks he is acting within the bounds of the law when he clearly is not.

You wouldn't happen to have a CCW permit, would you?  I'm guessing that if you do, you weren't paying attention when they explained the part about you still need to comply with police orders.

Then again, he could have avoided all this silly unpleasantness had he 1--had a CCW permit in the first place (remember, PA is "shall-issue") or 2--complied with the police orders until his intentions were verified.  As much as you might like the idea of a society with no rules, such is not the case.  Like the First Amendment, the Second is not absolute.

[JohnnyReb]

If I were a cop and I came across a person openly carring a weapon....I'd ask myself, "Is he John Doe solid citizen or a bad MoFo?"....I would "air" on the cautious side.

[NHSparky]

If I were a cop and I came across a person openly carring a weapon....I'd ask myself, "Is he John Doe solid citizen or a bad MoFo?"....I would "air" on the cautious side.

Ding-ding-ding!!!  No more calls please, we have a winner!  Face it, boys and girls, virtually ANYWHERE you go these days, if you are observed open carry, or if someone notices you are doing a concealed carry, expect someone to make a phone call, and more likely than not your intentions will be verified.

Had the gentleman in question simply said, "Here's my permit, here's this, okay, can I have my gun back now?  Thank you very much!" instead of itching for a confrontation, well, I guess he wouldn't be looking at a trial in a couple of months.

Believe it or not, not all cops are jackbooted thugs--really!

[Eupher]

Frankly, the guy was being a total dick to the cops.  They can still ask him to stop, and he should have at least complied until his intentions were known to the police.

And really, why open carry when PA is a shall issue state?  Guy is looking to stir shit, nothing more.  Reminds me of the dipshit libertarian Free-Stater types up here.

Absolutely spot-on. It's one thing to pursue your constitutional rights, it's another thing entirely to provoke matters to the point he almost gets shot.

[DefiantSix]

No, refusal to follow police direction is stirring shit, and when he starts acting like a dick, the blue gloves and tasers come out.  Notice that the guy isn't being charged with carrying a weapon, he's being charged reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct--because he was (altogether class) BEING A DICK.

Bottom line, when you give cops shit, you WILL lose.  If your rights are violated, then you have a case.  This "gentleman" does not.  He's a fool who thinks he is acting within the bounds of the law when he clearly is not.

You wouldn't happen to have a CCW permit, would you?  I'm guessing that if you do, you weren't paying attention when they explained the part about you still need to comply with police orders.

Then again, he could have avoided all this silly unpleasantness had he 1--had a CCW permit in the first place (remember, PA is "shall-issue") or 2--complied with the police orders until his intentions were verified.  As much as you might like the idea of a society with no rules, such is not the case.  Like the First Amendment, the Second is not absolute.

With all due respect, Sparky, you're wrong on this one.  The threshhold had already already been crossed when the guy turned around in response to the cop's smart-assed "Yo, Junior, what are you doing?" and found a pistol in his face.

I carry everywhere I go, sometimes openly, sometimes concealed.  And I've been approached by officers regarding the pistol on my hip, just as this man was.  I have NEVER had an officer point a gun in my face over it, though, or absolutely refuse to even look at the paperwork I'm offering him, which permits my pistol to be there.

This officer was over the top from the first words of the encounter, so lost in his own power trip, full of being "SooperCop", taking down the bad guy with the gun, that his obligation to be an honest witness and investigator wasn't even at the BACK of his mind.  IMHO, having the recorder running during the encounter was the only thing that save this kid from a weekend in jail on trumped up charges.

[NHSparky]

Was the cop over the top?  Probably.  But whatever sympathy this person might have had from me he pissed away with his attitude.

That being said, it would be wise to remember the old line from Ron White which goes, "I didn't know how many of them it would take to kick my ass, but I knew how many they were gonna USE..."  Bottom line, there's more of them then there are of you, and no matter how well you THINK you know (or even actually know) the law, if the sloth that is the bureaucratic machine turns its ugly eyes on YOU, well, you're pretty well ****ed, no matter how in the right you may be.

And again, seriously, if he's that hot-cock on carrying a gun, get a CCW permit.  It ain't that hard.

Guys like this (warning: extreme example alert, not to be taken literally) remind me of the Phelps types--PROPRIETY being the key concept here.  Just because you CAN do something doesn't necessarily mean you SHOULD.

ETA:  I've lived in places that kids would take their deer rifles to school after hunting in the morning (or would go after leaving school), and in places where the mere MENTION of the word gun would get you the stink-eye.  Appropriate to the situation.  This guy fails at it.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Was the cop over the top?  Probably.  But whatever sympathy this person might have had from me he pissed away with his attitude.

That being said, it would be wise to remember the old line from Ron White which goes, "I didn't know how many of them it would take to kick my ass, but I knew how many they were gonna USE..."  Bottom line, there's more of them then there are of you, and no matter how well you THINK you know (or even actually know) the law, if the sloth that is the bureaucratic machine turns its ugly eyes on YOU, well, you're pretty well ****ed, no matter how in the right you may be.

And again, seriously, if he's that hot-cock on carrying a gun, get a CCW permit.  It ain't that hard.

Guys like this (warning: extreme example alert, not to be taken literally) remind me of the Phelps types--PROPRIETY being the key concept here.  Just because you CAN do something doesn't necessarily mean you SHOULD.

ETA:  I've lived in places that kids would take their deer rifles to school after hunting in the morning (or would go after leaving school), and in places where the mere MENTION of the word gun would get you the stink-eye.  Appropriate to the situation.  This guy fails at it.

Sir, I will respectfully disagree, not so much on the points of fact you present but on principle.

We are the citizens. Government is not a thing living beside us like some symbiotic lichen it is a thing instituted by us for our us. A surely as a man builds a house for his purposes and use so too he builds governments.

That the agents of our government can abuse us and commit all manner of intrusion into our lives without regard for the very laws that permit them their powers is a travesty.

I understand that every genuine law-breaker would love nothing more than an alibi to resist the police then claim he was doing so out of his own presumption of innocence and I understand the genuine lawbreakers far, far outweigh those encounters such as found in the OP.

As an aside: Before I posted the OP I gave it no small amount of consideration about bringing it here because I tend to defer to the professional officers on the scene and I constructed my thread title on a desire to more accurately account for what I believe to be the true culprit.

But just because the police can summon enough officers to kick my fluffy ass doesn't mean a law-abiding rabbit should have to operate under the assumption that the police will kick my ass. I own them, not vice versa. They are obligated to check their facts before emplying their power--which ultimately extends from the ability to destroy life--and if they refuse to do so, even when confronted by a smart ass then they are unfit for the power they wield.

Being a smartass is not an arrestable offense. Absent due process, being armed is an individual right. Knowing the law is an obligation of the armed agents of the law.

 

[NHSparky]

Very true--but in many areas in this great nation of ours, we have surrendered our rights to the state--most often in the liberal enclaves of large cities, being the prime example.

As such, the mores of such a society creates a situation where, "When in Rome..." that means no poking the bear with a sharp stick if at all avoidable.  The police in these areas are not about to surrender THEIR authority, nor are they about to allow themselves to become a victim in a city in which people who ARE carrying or found with weapons are doing so illegally more often than not.

Yes, the cop overreacted, I'll stipulate that, if you'll allow that the reaction of the citizen SHOULD have been one of deference--not submission, mind you, but deference.  Then, with the situation resolved and defused, THEN it would be allowable to make a complaint regarding the behavior of the policeman via channels or even the media.  The problem I have with a lot of the, "It's my **RIGHT**" types is that they want the right without accepting any of the responsibility of said actions.

Again, in a place like where you or I live, persons doing open carry isn't nearly the eyebrow-raiser that it would be in a place such as Philly, NYC, Boston, etc.  Different situations require different responses.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I think, my friend, we are much closer on this issue than we dare to imagine.

That being said I am reminded of a G. K. Chesterton quote I am fond of:

"Morality, like art, involves knowing where to draw the line."

Setting aside the fact that we are dealing with law more than morality, where is the line we wish to draw between the citizenry and LEOs?

When we draw this line we must do so with the understanding that BOTH sides will cross it from time to time.

But knowing the line will be crossed we want to set the line in such a way that trivial crossings do not result in tragedy either in matters of public safety or individual liberty.

Not an easy task, I'll grant that.

I would like to see *something* come against the officer that initiated this whole series of events. As harsh as it may sound: he needs to be reminded of his place. If not then we draw the line in his favor so when there is yet another line crossing the results will be far worse than what we read here.

As for the civilian: what are his obligations? If the department has already considered its policies and he operates within those expectations I'm not sure what it is he "ought" to do. However, if he meets those obligations he is to be left in peace. I'm opposed to the heckler's veto even--and especially--if the heckler sports a badge.

Consider this variable:

villager  (1000+ posts)      Tue May-17-11 12:50 PM
Original message
Federal judge rules against Calif. gun advocates (no Constitutional right to conceal carry)
 Source: AP

Federal judge rules against Calif. gun advocates

A federal judge has ruled against gun-rights advocates who had challenged how much discretion California law enforcement officials have in issuing concealed weapons permits.

U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England Jr. in Sacramento supported a policy by Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto, who says applicants must have a reason, such as a safety threat, to legally carry a hidden gun.

<snip>

In his ruling Monday, England said the Second Amendment "does not create a fundamental right to carry a concealed weapon in public."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/0...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4854068

What follows is a bunch of DUmbasses cheering for the LEO that vetoed our rights.

He might as well say we can only peaceably assemble if *he* feels we have a need.

Poking the bear with a stick?

My friend, we need a bigger stick.

[Rebel]

Didn't the USSC JUST decide this shit? Who is this lower court idiot to override the USSC?

[BlueStateSaint]

Didn't the USSC JUST decide this shit? Who is this lower court idiot to override the USSC?

It would seem so, and IIRC, the SCOTUS tends to look rather unfavorably on that.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Didn't the USSC JUST decide this shit? Who is this lower court idiot to override the USSC?

The sheriff didn't say you can't have a gun he's just saying you're only allowed to have it under the terms and conditions he personally deems fitting.</liberal>

[Thor]

Sparky, you're wrong on this one. There are a few states where open carry is legal. Pennsylvania is apparently one of them. I know that Minnesota is, too. There law in Minnesota most certainly permits open carry of a gun. It is not illegal. Some of the carry crowd up there consider it imprudent, as far as tactical reasons, however they all endorse the right to openly carry. And, yes, there have been citizens making the 9-1-1 call about a man with a gun. I can safely say that 99.9% of the people that carry openly are not criminals. Criminals are going to make sure they hide their guns until they're ready to use them.

The cop WAS over the top in addressing the permit holder. He was also very unprofessional. Technically, he assaulted the permit holder with a deadly weapon. The problem seems to be that there are SOME cops that think that they are God's gift to law enforcement.  Like I stated earlier, I've run across a few cops that will either disregard the law because the want to OR they are just plain ignorant of the law, period. It's not that difficult to say, "Pardon me sir, may I see your permit?" and be prepared to draw & fire, if necessary. Open carry has been discussed in depth at one of my gun forums, twincitiescarry.com.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

It's not that difficult to say, "Pardon me sir, may I see your permit?" and be prepared to draw & fire, if necessary.

It's almost akin to asking for license, registration and proof of insurance.

And before any protest that a simple traffic stop doesn't involve a known weapon carrier it should be pointed out: 1) there is no such thing as a simple traffic stop because 2) the weapon carriers are unknown when you go in

[Eupher]

Sparky, you're wrong on this one. There are a few states where open carry is legal. Pennsylvania is apparently one of them. I know that Minnesota is, too. There law in Minnesota most certainly permits open carry of a gun. It is not illegal. Some of the carry crowd up there consider it imprudent, as far as tactical reasons, however they all endorse the right to openly carry. And, yes, there have been citizens making the 9-1-1 call about a man with a gun. I can safely say that 99.9% of the people that carry openly are not criminals. Criminals are going to make sure they hide their guns until they're ready to use them.

The cop WAS over the top in addressing the permit holder. He was also very unprofessional. Technically, he assaulted the permit holder with a deadly weapon. The problem seems to be that there are SOME cops that think that they are God's gift to law enforcement.  Like I stated earlier, I've run across a few cops that will either disregard the law because the want to OR they are just plain ignorant of the law, period. It's not that difficult to say, "Pardon me sir, may I see your permit?" and be prepared to draw & fire, if necessary. Open carry has been discussed in depth at one of my gun forums, twincitiescarry.com.

If Sparky's wrong on this one, then I'm wrong too.

Irrespective of the law, there are some things -- and weaponry is one of them -- that any cop is going to be sensitive about. Was the cop out of line? You bet he was. Was he unprofessional? Absolutely.

But what Sparky is saying that doesn't appear to sink in all that well is that the permit holder appeared to be CENTRAL in the entire incident. He walked into an establishment with carrying openly. Again, let's put the law aside just for a moment and look at the permit holder's BEHAVIOR.

He walked into the establishment, carrying openly. That is a practice that is UNCOMMON and, quite frankly, makes some people nervous. If I were the proprietor of that establishment, it might make me nervous too, as I don't know the guy and don't know what his intentions are. We don't know, for example, whether or not the proprietor had been robbed or otherwise accosted by someone who was armed. Carrying openly does not happen all the time and it tends to make folks edgy, whether or not it's legal.

This is EXACTLY what the permit holder was doing -- trying to get a reaction.

He was prepared for a reaction because he was wired. He WANTED to create a scene and create a problem.

No self-respecting CCW holder I know of deliberately goes out of his way to create a problem. This guy did. And he got one in return.

So now he's got multiple charges against him, not for carrying, but for the shit he gave the disrespectful, unprofessional cop. Maybe the cop undergoes some disciplinary action as a result of his behavior, but for right now we're looking at the permit holder.

He was an asshole who created his own problem. Period.

Say what you want about the law, the fact is the law doesn't cover all aspects of life. If you want to be an asshole, chances are you're going to have karma bite you in the ass.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

If we set the law aside what holds the police in check?

We don't decide when the state is allowed to employ armed agents based on what people have been socially habituated to accept or fear. At the end of the day there must be an objective standard we can all refer to that explains the limits of any given behavior prior to invoking force or abridging inherent rights.

That standard is the law, policy, regulations, directives and such.

"I don't like your attitude," doesn't suffice. It's too subjective. We are in a desperate battle to keep DUmbasses from codifying their "I don't like your attitude" preferences with their asinine hate crime and fairness doctrine laws because we all know how bastardized those standards become.

This brings me back to my point: Where do we draw the line?

We know the line will be breached, how far into our own territory of civil liberty will we cede before we draw that line?

Law doesn't just say when the cops can arrest; it's corollary is: the law orders the police that they must leave us in peace unless...


SIDE NOTE: good discussion guys. Serious questions on the nature of law, liberty and practical limits of each. This thread--so far--reinforces my faith in conservatives even when they don't meet eye-to-eye 100% of the time.

 

[Eupher]

If we set the law aside what holds the police in check?

"Putting the law aside" was probably a bad way to put it. What I meant was to look at the guy that actually started all the shit. The guy's behavior is singularly responsible for continuing the shit when it didn't need to go that far. Had he complied with the cop instantly and without bullshit, things might have turned out differently. Instead, he was bellicose and antagonistic and challenged the cop's authority, which is not a smart move ESPECIALLY when the cop is misinformed or ignorant. Instead of retreating, the cop is going to insist on what HE thinks is right, especially when a weapon is involved.

While the law supports his right to carry (something the cop clearly wasn't too clear on, which indicates a training issue), the law did NOT support his right to "recklessly endanger" or to be disorderly -- two charges which are being brought him against him not by the cop, but by the district attorney's office.

We don't decide when the state is allowed to employ armed agents based on what people have been socially habituated to accept or fear. At the end of the day there must be an objective standard we can all refer to that explains the limits of any given behavior prior to invoking force or abridging inherent rights.

I think that objective standard you're referring to is called "procedure." Cops, AFAIK, have procedures that they are trained to follow. Whether or not there is a procedure to address citizens who are carrying openly is something none of us can determine based on what we know. I think we're all agreed the cop was woefully out of line in addressing "junior" from the get-go. But even had the cop addressed "junior" in a more respectful, but assertive manner, we are pretty certain "junior" was looking for an opportunity to assert his new-found knowledge over the ignorance of the cop. That's why "junior" was there to begin with -- stir shit.

That standard is the law, policy, regulations, directives and such.

And the procedures that police officers are to follow when addressing the public at large.

When and where those procedures are inadequate, I have to believe that the police will address that inadequacy through training not just of the cop who was involved, but other officers as well. It's called "corrective action" and while that corrective action may or may not be punitive, it will certainly address those areas that need it.

The perp's "corrective action" could well be a fine, probation, or other action that he ain't gonna like.

"I don't like your attitude," doesn't suffice. It's too subjective. We are in a desperate battle to keep DUmbasses from codifying their "I don't like your attitude" preferences with their asinine hate crime and fairness doctrine laws because we all know how bastardized those standards become.

This brings me back to my point: Where do we draw the line?

We know the line will be breached, how far into our own territory of civil liberty will we cede before we draw that line?

Law doesn't just say when the cops can arrest; it's corollary is: the law orders the police that they must leave us in peace unless...


SIDE NOTE: good discussion guys. Serious questions on the nature of law, liberty and practical limits of each. This thread--so far--reinforces my faith in conservatives even when they don't meet eye-to-eye 100% of the time.

 

The cop breached the line. NO doubt of that.

But the perp started the shit to begin with. As my platoon sergeant once told me:

"If you don't start no shit, won't be none."

We have to hold the cop to a higher standard. I think that's clear, simply because of the trust and confidence the police force has put in him due to his training and responsibility. So there's work to do there.

As for "junior," well, a good asskicking might be in order.

[DefiantSix]

"Putting the law aside" was probably a bad way to put it. What I meant was to look at the guy that actually started all the shit.

Euph, the guy who started this shit was the COP, not the "perp".  The "perp" was fully within his rights at all times.  If you'll recall the details of the story, SooperCop had drawn on a private citizen before he'd even reached the door of the business.  The business owner had no opportunity to get nervous, concerned or anything else about the "perp" and his sidearm, because the "perp" never entered the premises.

Colorado is an open carry state.  I have my CCW permit, but I don't think twice any more than you do about taking my jacket off in a store, restaurant or other establishment when I'm overly warm.  At that point I'm carrying openly.  Most times, nothing happens.  Some times, the store manager will approach me, state his concerns, and request that I remove my weapon from the premises: I always comply.  On rare occasions, I have been approached by officers called in by the store manager; they secure my weapon - magazine, then sidearm - while they run my documents through the system.  When I come up clean, they return my documents to me, apprise me of the concerns of the store manager, and retain possession of the weapon as we remove the offending item from the premises.  Once outside the store, they return my sidearm and magazine to me, and I store it in my vehicle so that I can complete the transactions I went to the store to engage in.

This is how it's supposed to work.  Presumption of innocent gun owner by the cops; respecting private property rights of the store manager by the gun owner; and respect for the law by all involved.

While the law supports his right to carry (something the cop clearly wasn't too clear on, which indicates a training issue), the law did NOT support his right to "recklessly endanger" or to be disorderly -- two charges which are being brought him against him not by the cop, but by the district attorney's office.

How did he recklessly endanger anybody?  It was the COP with his sidearm drawn, ready to discharge.  It was the cop who was in the wrong from the very beginning of the encounter.  It wasn't the "perp" who was being verbally abusive and openly hostile from the very beginning of the encounter.  Especially when someone has gone through the bureaucratic hoops required to exercise their rights in such jurisdictions, why should they then surrender that right - or others - when they have done nothing to forfeit the right?  At what point is the cop being out of line the problem.

I think that objective standard you're referring to is called "procedure." Cops, AFAIK, have procedures that they are trained to follow. Whether or not there is a procedure to address citizens who are carrying openly is something none of us can determine based on what we know. I think we're all agreed the cop was woefully out of line in addressing "junior" from the get-go. But even had the cop addressed "junior" in a more respectful, but assertive manner, we are pretty certain "junior" was looking for an opportunity to assert his new-found knowledge over the ignorance of the cop. That's why "junior" was there to begin with -- stir shit.

Procedure MUST be in accordance with the LAW, or it is just another jack-booted authority on a power trip.  As for the rest, I refer to my above documented encounters over my sidearm.

[Eupher]

Euph, the guy who started this shit was the COP, not the "perp".  The "perp" was fully within his rights at all times.  If you'll recall the details of the story, SooperCop had drawn on a private citizen before he'd even reached the door of the business.  The business owner had no opportunity to get nervous, concerned or anything else about the "perp" and his sidearm, because the "perp" never entered the premises.

Colorado is an open carry state.  I have my CCW permit, but I don't think twice any more than you do about taking my jacket off in a store, restaurant or other establishment when I'm overly warm.  At that point I'm carrying openly.  Most times, nothing happens.  Some times, the store manager will approach me, state his concerns, and request that I remove my weapon from the premises: I always comply.  On rare occasions, I have been approached by officers called in by the store manager; they secure my weapon - magazine, then sidearm - while they run my documents through the system.  When I come up clean, they return my documents to me, apprise me of the concerns of the store manager, and retain possession of the weapon as we remove the offending item from the premises.  Once outside the store, they return my sidearm and magazine to me, and I store it in my vehicle so that I can complete the transactions I went to the store to engage in.

This is how it's supposed to work.  Presumption of innocent gun owner by the cops; respecting private property rights of the store manager by the gun owner; and respect for the law by all involved.

How did he recklessly endanger anybody?  It was the COP with his sidearm drawn, ready to discharge.  It was the cop who was in the wrong from the very beginning of the encounter.  It wasn't the "perp" who was being verbally abusive and openly hostile from the very beginning of the encounter.  Especially when someone has gone through the bureaucratic hoops required to exercise their rights in such jurisdictions, why should they then surrender that right - or others - when they have done nothing to forfeit the right?  At what point is the cop being out of line the problem.


Procedure MUST be in accordance with the LAW, or it is just another jack-booted authority on a power trip.  As for the rest, I refer to my above documented encounters over my sidearm.

I re-read the story. Actually, the story doesn't say he had entered the store -- my misunderstanding on that. But it doesn't say he was on the street, either. But for the sake of argument, let's say he had NOT gone in the AutoZone and the cop drew down on him on the street. My bad.

The perp -- and yes, he is the perp because he wound up getting arrested for reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct (those are the charges against him, after all) -- he was within his rights to carry, but you can see the results of that exchange. HE gets arrested -- not the cop -- and when it's all over, HE (not the cop) is going to have to deal with the potential fallout of what has happened. What that might be, I have no idea.

I have to say, I avoid instances where I'm openly carrying. I might stay uncomfortable, but I do not openly carry. It might be my right to do so (and in Missouri, with certain exceptions, as long as I have a CCW I may openly carry also, though the state law does allow municipalities and businesses to make their own rules), but I try to be sensitive to others in that way. I think that practice draws a lot of unnecessary attention and while I might be an attention whore here on CC ( ), it ain't that way on the street or in public. Consequently, I've never had a business owner ask me to leave or had a cop approach me -- so from that standpoint, I've not been through that drill.

My opinion on this sides with Sparky's. I think the guy was asking for trouble and found it readily enough. That does NOT excuse the cop in any way. He clearly has a problem with judgment and approached the situation completely half-cocked and for that, he needs to be held accountable.

But the guy wearing a wire and failing to instantly comply with the itchy-trigger-finger cop will most likely wind up losing this one.

You can be right as rain, and still be wrong. That's what happened here.

[Thor]

So, Eupher, what I hear you, and others saying, is that one must not abide by the laws of the state or else they will be charged for some other charge than what is relevant? Just like in Wisconsin; it is legal to open carry there (no permit, nada). I've read reports of folks who open carry there being charged for disorderly conduct just because they were following the law. I've also read stories of cops there that stated that they would arrest open carriers there for, at a minimum, disorderly conduct. How is that justified?? Just because open carry scares the sheeple?? I open carried in MN a few times. I got a few strange looks, but that was about it. Most of the time I tried to be discrete, but in all honesty, who cares, as long as I'm within the law??