Why liberal cities suck; Open-Carry edition

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

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.

And chicks in slutty clothes may be raped.

But...

[NHSparky]

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??

No, the point is, and we have a few of these types up in NH (where open carry is also legal) that they're looking for a fight, so to speak.

Again, like the Phelps' with their speech, these guys are strapping rather than concealed carry simply to provoke a reaction.  The cop was wrong to do what he did, but so was the citizen for not complying.  Imagine if D6 had been approached by the police (even politely, as he has stated) and D6 starts giving the cops a blast of shit. 

Whose side would you be on then?

[Eupher]

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??

Let's understand that the perp is CHARGED with reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct. He's not yet been convicted of those charges. He's innocent till proven guilty, as we all know.

I believe that the perp instigated the action, pushed for and got an overly-aggressive cop to commit himself and illustrate his own ignorance, and otherwise created the entire situation to begin with. Did he break the law? Not regarding his open carry. But let's let the court decide whether or not he's guilty on the other charges.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Let's understand that the perp is CHARGED with reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct. He's not yet been convicted of those charges. He's innocent till proven guilty, as we all know.

I believe that the perp instigated the action, pushed for and got an overly-aggressive cop to commit himself and illustrate his own ignorance, and otherwise created the entire situation to begin with. Did he break the law? Not regarding his open carry. But let's let the court decide whether or not he's guilty on the other charges.

Made me think of:

A federal lawsuit claims a Branch County tea party group was denied the right to display banners and signs at a tea party rally at a public park in Coldwater because it was “too political” and “too controversial.” The Coldwater City Council then passed a resolution banning all banners and signs in that park.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-a-michigan-town-ban-tea-party-signs-in-public-parks/

[Eupher]

You're equating open carry as carrying a banner? As a symbol of free speech?

I'm not sure I understand your point, Snugs.

But if that's close to your meaning, I get it. And I can understand how the perp, et. al., can adopt that particular kind of behavior.

But I ain't sure that's what the 2nd Amendment is all about.

Be that as it may, history is rife with examples of politicians and people "in charge" who mean well but overreach and adopt policies that are ill-placed, ill-gotten, and ill-puke.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

The argument seems to have turned on the fact the local DA has charged a man with disorderly conduct even though when the incident was initiated he was doing absolutely nothing disorderly and acting well within his rights, the law and even local directives.

Yet he's been charged over an incident where he never should have been accosted in the first place and once accosted the encounter should have ended as soon as it was established he was compliant with the law and his personal rights.

I honestly have to reject the "he should have concealed carry" argument because--well--he's not obligated to do so. Again, I refer to my "sometimes chicks in slutty clothes get raped" analogy.

We read of Branch County telling the TEA Party "you're free to speak, you're just not allowed to speak anywhere people might see you and if you disobey us you will be arrested for disorderly conduct because we said so."

Again, I must ask: Knowing in advance all lines will be breached, how much of our freedom do we cede before we draw the line?

I am not prepared to tell the law-abiding people of the US they must submit to unruly cops. It should never be illegal to want to demonstrate to an armed agent of the state that you are, in fact, compliant with the law. It would be akin to being accused of driving without a license and as soon as you told the officer you didn't want to be handcuffed and hauled downtown because you have your driver's license on your person the officer then arrests you for DC because you challenged his assertion.

[Eupher]

We don't know all the facts, Snugs. All we have is what is in the article and I'd submit that the tone of the article isn't bias-free.

The article says that the cop was singularly responsible for all the aggression, all the ignorance, and all the wrongdoing. I singularly reject that slant, though could be convinced otherwise if all the facts come out -- but they won't in our discussion.

Your question is more rhetorical than not. "How much of our freedom do we cede before we draw the line?" That kind of question prompts the logical response, "None! Because we've ceded all the freedoms we're GONNA cede! Next stop is WAR!!"

And that, of course, is ludicrous.

Or is it?

I think we've concluded that the cop was out of line, that his ignorance of the law was profound, and that he most likely overreacted to the perp's seemingly legal carry of a firearm.

But we don't know what the cop had seen earlier in that shift, or whether or not he had a bad hair day, or if his partner was shot and killed just the day before by some guy outside an AutoZone sporting a pistol on his hip.

So to continue the rhetorical question/answer exchange, how many partners is the cop supposed to lose in the course of doing his job, shot and killed by seemingly law-abiding citizens? That's a ridiculous question, of course, but is it a legitimate one? Would it be asked in a court of law if the facts presented themselves that the cop had sustained a recent traumatic episode? You bet it would.

I have to assume a couple of things:

1.  The cop is qualified to do his job.
2.  The cop is mentally fit to do his job.
3.  The cop is prepared to defend himself.

So what other questions should be asked?

What prompted the cop to react the way he did?

That particular question intrigues me more than the high-level question you're asking, Snugs, because the type of question you're asking can't really be answered here on these pages.

Or can they?

Damned if I know. All I know is I don't have that answer.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I have to assume a couple of things:

1.  The cop is qualified to do his job.
2.  The cop is mentally fit to do his job.
3.  The cop is prepared to defend himself.

Fair assumptions to hold unless an individual demonstrates otherwise. And these are assumptions that I traditionally hold myself.

Please understand, my points have been directed at what I perceived to be points not part of the material facts. I hope you and Sparky know I hold both of you in high regard but I am troubled by the lines of argument that tended towards putting an undue burden on a lawful activity.

It's troubling to read that someone who was lawfully carrying in the open should have thought better of it and carried concealed otherwise he's essentially "asking for it" as some might dismiss charges of rape leveled against a woman dressed in the wrong sort of clothes.

Nor do the charges by the DA seem relevant. Exercising one's rights is not disorderly and arguing with cops who should be permitting law-abiding citizens to demonstrate they are abiding by the law is not a crime, nor should it ever be. Even if a cop asks for a drivers license and the license bearer surrenders it with a full-throated, "Here ya go ya ****ing pig!" no crime has been committed except against common decency.

If the cop was operating under the duress of a recent traumatic incident then he should be reassigned until his proper judgment returns to him. But his mental state has no bearing on the legality of the citizen's actions and it only calls into question the judgment of the shift supervisors.

I remain beyond the point of being able to see some genuine legal fault in the civilian.

Nonetheless my general respect for LEOs remains. I even support No-Knock warrants when a tactical need can be demonstrated because I believe officers should be afforded leeway when their safety is at stake.

[Eupher]

Fair assumptions to hold unless an individual demonstrates otherwise. And these are assumptions that I traditionally hold myself.

Please understand, my points have been directed at what I perceived to be points not part of the material facts. I hope you and Sparky know I hold both of you in high regard but I am troubled by the lines of argument that tended towards putting an undue burden on a lawful activity.

It's troubling to read that someone who was lawfully carrying in the open should have thought better of it and carried concealed otherwise he's essentially "asking for it" as some might dismiss charges of rape leveled against a woman dressed in the wrong sort of clothes.

Nor do the charges by the DA seem relevant. Exercising one's rights is not disorderly and arguing with cops who should be permitting law-abiding citizens to demonstrate they are abiding by the law is not a crime, nor should it ever be. Even if a cop asks for a drivers license and the license bearer surrenders it with a full-throated, "Here ya go ya ****ing pig!" no crime has been committed except against common decency.

If the cop was operating under the duress of a recent traumatic incident then he should be reassigned until his proper judgment returns to him. But his mental state has no bearing on the legality of the citizen's actions and it only calls into question the judgment of the shift supervisors.

Agreed. But cops ain't perfect, as we know.

I remain beyond the point of being able to see some genuine legal fault in the civilian.

Okay, but we don't have all the information yet -- if we ever get it at all.

Nonetheless my general respect for LEOs remains. I even support No-Knock warrants when a tactical need can be demonstrated because I believe officers should be afforded leeway when their safety is at stake.

And mine does too. In fact, I'm willing to give the cop the benefit of the doubt, because I see that the perp had deliberately set out to create a situation that he didn't have to do. Had he complied instantly and without argument to the cop, rather than argue with him, he would've had his day in court and the facts would have spoken for themselves and he might've been immediately released from the police station.

I understand your point completely. Yelling at a cop is not an offense by itself, but yelling AND being uncooperative could be construed as disorderly conduct. The cop has to make an on-the-spot decision and when an armed citizen yells at a cop or is being uncooperative, the smart cop is not going to allow that armed citizen much of a leash at all. Not if he wants to wake up the next morning.

As you fully admit, your argument is based on incomplete information, or perhaps better said, is based on elements other than material facts. With that said, we don't KNOW the extent of combativeness that the perp exhibited toward the cop. We don't KNOW how threatening the perp might've appeared to the cop. The article is biased toward the perp.

Let me ask you this:

Do you think the cop would've behaved toward the perp had he not been armed to begin with?

I suspect not, because the perp does not represent a threat.

But you may have a completely different take on it.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Let me ask you this:

Do you think the cop would've behaved toward the perp had he not been armed to begin with?

I suspect not, because the perp does not represent a threat.

But you may have a completely different take on it.

He may not act that way against a presumably unarmed citizen but I find that line of reasoning to be dubious because:

1. it is immaterial in the eyes of the law and the officer's obligations

2. had the citizen been concealed carrying he would have been *more* of a threat because the officer may have been less suspecting/on-guard. There's a reason lying in ambush is preferred by the infantry over a stand-up meeting engagement.

[Eupher]

He may not act that way against a presumably unarmed citizen but I find that line of reasoning to be dubious because:

1. it is immaterial in the eyes of the law and the officer's obligations

2. had the citizen been concealed carrying he would have been *more* of a threat because the officer may have been less suspecting/on-guard. There's a reason lying in ambush is preferred by the infantry over a stand-up meeting engagement.

Actually, I agree with you. It is immaterial in the eyes of the law. But we're dealing with human beings who don't look at everything the way they should in the heat of the moment. Like it or not, the cop is a human being with human fears, emotions, etc.

This is what I'm talking about when I say, "We don't have all the information." We don't know the parameters under which the cop did what he did.

Strappin' on the ol' Peacemaker may have been the way things were done in Tombstone back in the day, but that kind of practice today tends to make a lot of people nervous. That transcends the law, whatever the law is, temporarily at least. The law is the law, but the law sometimes isn't the law, if'n ya know what I mean.

We have a clear example here, or as clear as we know it right now. Why would the cop draw down on "Junior" just because he's packing?

The cop was clearly ignorant of the law, but beyond that, the cop reacted to a perceived threat.

Threats to one's person transcend the law.

Until the lawyers show up, of course.

And I also agree with you about the concealed carry bit -- except in one area.

If the perp had been carrying concealed, he would've had no reason to suspect he'd be razzed by the cops and therefore would've had no reason to wear a wire anticipating said razzing/rousting.

In other words, he wouldn't have found it necessary to be a dick. He would've just gone on his way -- maybe buy a couple of spark plugs or a quart of oil in the AutoZone.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Actually, I agree with you. It is immaterial in the eyes of the law. But we're dealing with human beings who don't look at everything the way they should in the heat of the moment. Like it or not, the cop is a human being with human fears, emotions, etc.

The cop is the only who brought heat into the moment. The CITIZEN was within his rights AND the law without provocation or threat.

The cop was clearly ignorant of the law, but beyond that, the cop reacted to a perceived threat.

Then he should be stripped of his badge and gun because he lacks basic sensibilities and his judgment is in serious doubt.

Threats to one's person transcend the law.

IF there is actually a threat.

If the perp had been carrying concealed, he would've had no reason to suspect he'd be razzed by the cops and therefore would've had no reason to wear a wire anticipating said razzing/rousting.

Neither his rights or the law require him to carry concealed.

In other words, he wouldn't have found it necessary to be a dick. He would've just gone on his way -- maybe buy a couple of spark plugs or a quart of oil in the AutoZone.

When did obeying the law make a person a dick to be harassed?

You know, Christians can be *really* ****ing annoying. Sure, the law says they have a right to their religion but maybe if they weren't such dicks openly carrying their Bibles and holier-than-thou attitudes on their sleeves maybe they wouldn't be hassled so much for hassling other people.

[Thor]

A holstered weapon is a perceived threat ?? This is the type of attitude that will allow the 2nd Amendment to be lost forever. Did the perp have his hand on his gun?? I kind of doubt it, especially when wrongfully ACCOSTED by the jack booted thug with his weapon drawn, ready to fire and aimed at the guy's head. Like I said earlier, open carry is LEGAL in Wisconsin, but the attitude of the cops there is similar. Since they can't arrest someone for openly carrying, they have clearly stated that they WILL arrest an open carrying person for disorderly conduct, regardless of the carrier's good demeanor. I've read the stories and heard even more since I lived within an hour of cheeseland and often went there.

[Eupher]

Well, I'm afraid we're going 'round in circles. All I'm saying is, due to this clearly-biased article which paints the perp as being a victim, there could be more to the story that we're not hearing about.

LEO's are not above being assholes (FreeBorn has a compelling story in another thread), and we've already concluded this particular cop was ignorant of the law -- IF the article doesn't spin the story in that direction.

I still maintain that this particular perp had an axe to grind and a chip on his shoulder. In that sense, ANY resistance made by an armed citizen to a cop's directives will most likely result in a higher state of alertness and general pisstivity by any cop that wants to continue breathing for awhile longer. And in that sense, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the cop.

You can paint how this particular perp's rights were violated and cry and whine about the unfairness of it all, but at the end of the day, the PERP was charged with a couple of crimes. The cop? Nothing that we know of -- not even a hint of whether or not additional training is warranted.

It costs the citizen/perp NOTHING to follow the cop's directions and keep his ****ing piehole shut -- to even a belligerent cop, which is what we're supposed to believe in this case.

The business of whether or not he's licensed and is legal will be sorted out in time -- but for right ****ing NOW, the perp should've done what he was told to do.

D6 illustrated in his own account the proper, logical thing(s) to do when challenged either by a proprietor or an LEO -- honor the request without argument or bullshit. If that means D6 or any other lawful open carrier refuses to frequent that establishment (and there are entire LISTS of these establishments that, in essence, are boycotted by CCW holders), then that's the pain that the proprietor will have to feel.

With that, I'm outta this thread. But thanks to all for a great discussion. 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

It's weird how the "concern for safety" and "we should withhold judgement" argument doesn't apply to the law-abiding citizen exercising his legal rights and making no provocative actions.

[Janice]

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6fAQ5sATZg[/youtube]

After Altercation, Philadelphia Police Say They Won't Look the Other Way on Open-Carry Gun Owners

With a shocking altercation between Philadelphia police and a 25-year-old IT worker putting the spotlight back on open-carry gun laws, local authorities are warning gun owners that they will be "inconvenienced" if they carry unconcealed handguns in the city.

Lt. Raymond Evers, a spokesman for the city police, told FoxNews.com that gun owners who open carry, which is legal in the city, may be asked to lay on the ground until officers feel safe while they check permits.

"Philadelphia, in certain areas, is very dangerous," he said. "There's a lot of gun violence." Several officers have been killed in the line of duty in the past three years, local authorities say.

The warning comes after Mark Fiorino, a suburban Philadelphia IT worker, posted an audiotape to YouTube of his tense, 45-minute encounter with police in February over his exposed handgun. The video went viral and captured national attention.

After Fiorino released the audiotape, he was charged with disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment. He now faces up to two years in prison.

"The police department and assistant district attorney are coming after me, in my opinion, to make an example of me because I stood up to them and exposed them for their lack of knowledge," Fiorino said, who called the trial "absolutely inappropriate and a waste of taxpayer money."

Fiorino said he did nothing reckless, nor did he endanger anyone's life.

"I had a gun pointed at my chest," he said.

-------------------------------------------------------------

So if I understand this correctly. If your a criminal and you carry a concealed gun, you have nothing to worry about from the police. BUT, if your licensed to carry you DO have MORE than something to worry about from the police.

So if you stand on the constitution, your as good as dead.

[docstew]

You're equating open carry as carrying a banner? As a symbol of free speech?

I'm not sure I understand your point, Snugs.

But if that's close to your meaning, I get it. And I can understand how the perp, et. al., can adopt that particular kind of behavior.

But I ain't sure that's what the 2nd Amendment is all about.

Be that as it may, history is rife with examples of politicians and people "in charge" who mean well but overreach and adopt policies that are ill-placed, ill-gotten, and ill-puke.

I believe Snugs, being a logical rabbit, is equating rights protected under the First Amendment, a part of the Bill of Rights, with rights protected under the Second Amendment, another part of the Bill of Rights.  In that interpretation, his analogy about the TEA Party is pretty much dead on.