Open Carry Trolling Of The Police

Just out having a troll stroll exercising rights at the same time:

hahah he suggests to the cop he should park elsewhere as not to impede traffic.  Good start guy..

How do automatic firearms normally look?  In my experience they look identical to semi autos unless you know what to look for.  *blah blah blah erring on the side of caution* because so many criminals open carry mid day minding their own business on a busy street right? *eye roll*  We discussed this before on the blog, but what phone operators at police stations need to start doing is asking a few simple questions like “So this person you saw open carrying… was he acting in a threatening manner?” etc.. and then based on the answers proceed to educate the caller that open carry of a firearm is in fact legal in the state.  It would really save a lot of time for everyone involved, and free the police up to deal with situations that are of actual importance.

I love how he was finished with the police at around 3.5 minutes, yet continued to be a douchebag and argue with them about the semi-automatic / automatic, and the NFA.

I’ll say it time and time again, open carry if you want… it’s your right (in some states) and you should do whatever you want, but don’t be surprised when you get harassed over and over because some “concerned citizen” sees you carrying around a “High powered fully automatic assault rifle with a shoulder thing that goes up”.

Thoughts?

Hat tip: Carl, Scott

73 COMMENTS

JUMP DOWN ↓ TO ADD ANOTHER

Ryan August 23, 2012 at 12:39 am

That’s a very professional, technically competent police officer… proceeded to identify the caliber and did a safe function check. You can tell he’s a “gun guy”. I’m impressed.

Reply

hydepark August 23, 2012 at 01:02 am

Totally agree. This officer deserves the “I know the law and am a good cop” award of the year. This man should be teaching departments all over the nation using this video.

Reply

Tekkie August 24, 2012 at 05:44 pm

Unbelievably professional police officer. Major kudos to him. He knew his stuff and ignored the BS these guys tried to peddle onto him. Terry v. Ohio violation? I think not…

Reply

Ben August 23, 2012 at 12:47 am

Aside from the two douches clearly trolling for a police stop, and even aside from spending money on a GSG:
Maybe there was reasonable suspicion, maybe not, but the video certainly demonstrates failure on the officer’s part. A. If he was really “trained and experienced” to recognize a Class III, he would have looked at the selector first., not the bolt function. B. He “function tested” to differentiate full vs. semi-auto how exactly? C. He knows about Class IIIs and says the weapon was from the 90s, yet he didn’t detain on “suspicion of carrying an unlawful firearm” only on suspicion that they didn’t have a Class III stamp for it. D. He removed the Magazine, visually inspected .22 rounds, and still checked to see if it was a 9mm Class III? Some “experience” you have there, officer.
Trolls trolling trolls and douches being douches all around.
Dumbasses

Reply

klyph August 23, 2012 at 01:43 am

The function check was to squeeze trigger to drop the hammer, hold trigger down and rack the bolt, and see if the hammer drops again or if it requires a reset. He properly checked to see if it was FA, the fire control indicators don’t always tell the whole story.

Reply

Ben August 23, 2012 at 08:40 am

Thanks for clarifying the function test. That said, I think there are still enough issues with his demeanor and actions to question his actual intent in the stop.

Reply

huey August 23, 2012 at 08:48 am

functions check, you clear said weapon, cock it, pull trigger and hold to the rear, work the bolt again and see if the hammer falls when the bolt goes forward on its own (auto) or if you need to release the trigger in order for it to be reset again (semi-auto)…once he made the decision to stop them to evaluate it I think the was obligated to do that….you can alter the sear of a semi to function fully auto without having to have a full auto selector position on it….

Reply

Ben August 23, 2012 at 09:06 am

You can, but he didn’t exactly articulate a reasonable suspicion that they had…

Reply

Leah August 23, 2012 at 07:49 pm

Ben, your vocabulary suggests that you’re a liberal. Name-calling is typical.

The officers did their job in a respectful manner. PERIOD. I’m thankful they’re out there!

Reply

Ben August 23, 2012 at 09:05 pm

Leah,
I’m actually more than a bit right of Genghis Khan. And my vocabulary suggests that I read a lot and that I’m also an Attorney practicing in the area of firearms defense. And while you may see a respectful officer, I see more of what I normally see, which is officers cracking down on legal open carry. I’m not saying the two pedestrians weren’t being d-bags, because they were, but had they actually been guilty of criminal conduct, what I see is an officer tanking the prosecution’s case.
The reality is that, especially when the officer self-professes knowledge of NFA requirements, making the assumption that a GSG is an MP-5, especially after a visual inspection of .22 rounds in the magazine, is not even remotely reasonable, especially for an officer professing specialized training. If I cross examined the officer, could he articulate a reasonable suspicion beyond the OC? Moreover, could he accurately state that the law allows him to assume a firearm is a class III until proven otherwise? Could he articulate a totality of circumstances that would suggest criminal behavior? Could he articulate a reasonable suspicion to believe, that two random pedestrians with a GSG would have modified it to be a class III, necessitating a detention and physical check? I think not. What he has done, on the other hand, is forcibly dissuade the two d-bags from further exercising a legal right while also finishing off in a “reasonable” tone which conceals that the initial stop was not, in fact, reasonable.
Think about how this stop went down next time you’re taking an AR or a Glock 17 to the range. Would you want to be detained because the officer’s SWAT team uses M-16s, M-4s, or Glock 19s? By this officer’s thinking, that would be perfectly OK, because despite external differences, you, random citizen, could have modified your firearm to be a class III. For that matter, would you like your next traffic stop to devolve into a mechanical strip search of your vehicle just in case you’ve installed an unlawful Nitrous system?

Reply

Tekkie August 24, 2012 at 06:42 pm

I think he could very easily articulate all of those elements.

Plus, your point completely ignores the fact that he received a call for service. He has a lawful duty to investigate and complete all calls for service. What you and the rest of the trolls seem to forget, is that he has as much a duty to the citizen that called for service as he does to the two guys carrying the weapon.

Do we have the right to bear arms? Yes. Do we also have the right to lead peaceable and quiet lives? Yes. When those two rights cannot exist in harmony, the police must get involved. This is exactly the same as the person who calls the police when their neighbors are playing music too loud. Is it inherently illegal to play loud music? No, but the police must still respond to the service call. This interaction and the hypothetical noise complaint are one in the same.

Reply

Ben August 24, 2012 at 10:57 pm

Tekkie –
Police officers neither have a duty to respond to calls for service nor “must” they get involved in anything.
You should probably read through the Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) materials before commenting as to what officers must or must not do.
It is also actually a fairly standardized violation of code to play music above certain decibel levels at certain times of the day AKA inherently unlawful. That you don’t know that casts doubts on the legal statement with which you opened your comment.
You’ve also missed the distinction between “open carry,” which is what occurred here, and “brandishing,” which would actually constitute disorderly and probably criminal conduct meriting a call for service.
OTOH, you called me a troll for offering a valid legal perspective on the video and you support, whether you realize it or not, rather expansive police powers, so perhaps you are merely playing to Leah’s earlier comment.

Reply

Tekkie August 25, 2012 at 09:21 am

Based on your comments, I’m beginning to think you’re just stringing me along here, but I’ll go with it.

I would firmly challenge that police officers have the discretion to respond or not respond to calls for service. Even in lieu of a state statute, I would take a stab in the dark saying that in the general orders of every department in this country there is a clause that says something to the effect, “Personnel must respond and investigate every call for service they are dispatched to.”

I’m not sure what Standards and Training manual you are referring too; all I own is the FDLE Law Enforcement Basic Recruit book. Any supplementary resources would certainly be appreciated.

Your initial sentence concerns me the most; if police do not have to respond to calls for service, nor “must” get involved in anything, what is their job then?

Finally, in reference to my noise complaint analogy; Let’s assume that the music was under the ordinance level. It still requires police/citizen interaction because they received a call for service. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘meriting’ a call for service. To my knowledge there is no merit standard by which citizens may call the police, when you dial 911 the police respond, regardless of how frivolous your complaint may be.

Reply

Jim P. August 25, 2012 at 09:57 am

Your initial sentence concerns me the most; if police do not have to respond to calls for service, nor “must” get involved in anything, what is their job then?

It has been repeatedly affirmed by SCOTUS that police do not have a constitutional duty to protect someone.

Add to that many cities have said they will no longer go to certain calls, including noise complaints, simple robbery, vandalism, simple accidents, etc. because of cutbacks in their budget.

Reply

Tekkie August 25, 2012 at 12:32 pm

Your statement is correct, but I’d make one amendment. Overwith calls like the ones you described are often handled by Community Service Officers, primarily because they only require reports or simple investigations. So those calls aren’t ignored, they are simply handled by someone other than a sworn peace officer. They are also still given case/event numbers by the responding agency.

Reply

Ben August 25, 2012 at 11:59 am

Clearly, what we have here is a fundamental failure to find common ground. You seem to think that life is like Law & Order or Hill Street Blues, whereas I’ve actually examined and cross-examined real police officers over real arrests in real courtrooms.
In the meantime, punch “Peace Officer Standards and Training or Police Officer Standards and Training into Google and pick a State’s official site to review. It’s really that simple.
And since you consider my experienced legal opinion to be “trolling,” I think we’re done here.

Reply

Heath August 25, 2012 at 12:26 pm

For what it’s worth there is one other person here who agrees with you. I respect the officer for his handling of the encounter but also question the validity of his stop and search.

If it is wrong for a cop to stop a driver who has done nothing illegal for sole purpose of checking for a drivers license or insurance then it should be wrong for the search shown in the video. Lawful activity of ANY sort can not be allowed to be cause for search. That’s exactly what the Fourth Amend is designed to do; place limits on an over reaching government.

I too feel the actions of the guys in the video was intended to force an encounter with the law. While I don’t like what he did I do have to support their right to lawfully OC. All our rights must be defended, even when we don’t agree with their message. I despise the Westboro Baptist Church clan and their message but absolutely defend their 1st Amendment right to be heard.

Reply

Tekkie August 25, 2012 at 12:48 pm

Well I’d categorize it more as a paradigmatic disconnect. From your perspective you feel the officer violated the guy’s rights. From my perspective I feel the call for service dictated the actions of the police officer. That was really my goal in this discussion, to encourage you to put yourself in the shoes of the complaining citizen and the police officer. Your viewpoint certainly forced me to think about the issue from a different perspective, and I appreciate that.

Having been acculturated in the law enforcement community, I am well aware that life is not like those TV programs. However, I don’t recall either of those shows dealing with patrol officers responding to calls for service, so I’m not sure I understand the correlation (although to be honest, I’ve never really watched Hill Street Blues).

Also I suppose you are right that I was a bit hasty as labeling you as a troll. However, I feel your attempts to drag me into an ad hominem pissing match over who has the greater qualifications is borderline.

Reply

SimplyThinkDreams March 16, 2013 at 10:17 pm

The problem with your line of thinking puts all of the power in the hands of the person who calls the police. Someone can call in, make a complaint, and then the office can go about violating the rights of others because of a simple call?

The 4th amendment protects us against warrantless searches and seizures that aren’t issued upon probable cause. In order for this seizure to be lawful, the person calling in would have had to make a statement under oath and then a warrant issued by the judge asserting some specific crime being committed.

A simple call does not give the officer a reasonable suspicion to detain. Reasonable suspicion must be based upon articulable facts, which were obviously not present in this case. Terry v. Ohio makes it clear that reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry Stop must be based on facts. I would even make the argument that the court erred in that ruling because the officer did not observe any crime being committed and until he did, he had no probable cause to search.

Even if it was the officer’s duty to respond to the call, he didn’t have to approach the men and stop them. He could have merely observed them to see if they were doing anything contrary to the law as alleged by the caller. Had he done so, he would have observed these guys just taking a stroll and realized they weren’t a threat. The officer obviously didn’t feel like these guys were a threat by the way he handled the stop.

If it were me in these guys situation, I would definitely be bringing a suit against the officers for unreasonable seizure and search as they had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain them in the first place let alone take the firearm of this gentlemen.

Reply

Heath August 25, 2012 at 12:32 pm

It’s worrisome to me how many people hear appear to think it is acceptable for warrantless searches to be conducted on American citizens. How did we get here?

Reply

dave w August 23, 2012 at 01:05 am

i love this cop. these guys went trolling for a uniform to make a vid of for youtube and got pwnd.

Reply

Will August 23, 2012 at 08:37 am

My thoughts exactly. You could tell the troll got nervous and stammering when he realized he wasn’t getting the next OC Encounter masturbation video :p

I love how the cop was completely unflappable, knowledgable, kept within his powers, friendly and polite. I especially liked the offer to come shoot fully automatic stuff with the police :D

Cop 1, troll 0.

Reply

Adam August 23, 2012 at 02:50 pm

Agreed, the invite was absolutely the Piece de resistance.

Reply

EventHorizon August 23, 2012 at 01:08 am

Why would you walk around with a rifle strapped to your back in a city? Because you’re a douche who wants attention. Until all out hell breaks loose my shit is stayin’ in the safe, or visiting the range. Until then you would never see me rollin’ around the streets with my AR slung around my shoulder like I’m patrolling some village in Afghanistan. I get it’s our “right” but the sheep have no clue and only get scared, especially with the recent rash of nut jobs shooting people with their guns. Open carry people here in CA who apparently loved to go to starbucks and hang out, got our open carry for handguns REMOVED. Long rifles will be next I suspect. Getting a CCP is next to impossible in most urban counties out here.

Reply

Jim P. August 23, 2012 at 01:24 am

Open carry people here in CA who apparently loved to go to starbucks and hang out, got our open carry for handguns REMOVED.

No your dope smoking, liberal, Marxist, tofu eating, idiot legislature did that. Same with the fake AWB ban. And all the rest of the socialist agenda that comes from Sacramento.

Did you not notice the recent California SB249 Bullet Button Ban attempt? Why did that come about?

You need to be educating your fellow state citizens that the gun is not the issue — it is the person who possesses it that is the problem.

Reply

Bryce August 23, 2012 at 11:45 am

“Did you not notice the recent California SB249 Bullet Button Ban attempt? Why did that come about?”

It happen because of Cal Guns .net (like the NRA but just for Califorina) is involved with the invention of the Bullet Button and Cal Guns.net founders are Lawyers.
They put one hell of a campaign together to fight SB249 and the legislators backed down
It will come back next year and we will fight. Califorina sucks

Reply

Bryce August 23, 2012 at 11:53 am

Sorry Sb249 came about because Senator LELAND Y. YEE saw a news report on chanel 5
about the bullet button and made it his personal mission to ban it. No real reason other than he thought it would prevent future crime. It has been defeated for now

Reply

elephantrider August 23, 2012 at 01:17 am

Oh no, not this shit again. Oregon Police officer 1, open carry armchair constitutional lawyer 0, for this round at least. The dipshit with the camera should have realized that the cop was a cool guy when he said he had no problem with him exercising his 2A rights. He also screwed himself by carrying what looks like a full auto SBR with a suppressor on it.

Reply

Jeep August 23, 2012 at 02:15 am

+1 for the cop!

Reply

matt August 23, 2012 at 04:44 am

So how long will it be until the police start pulling people over to verify that they have catalytic converters in their cars, or searching homes to verify GFI outlets are in the bathrooms.

Reply

Heath August 23, 2012 at 06:52 am

That’s my concern.

Reply

2Wheels August 23, 2012 at 03:08 pm

This wasn’t a random stop… A man walking down the street with a rifle (that appears to be a suppressed SMG) is quite out of the ordinary and these bozos know this, that’s why they did it with a video camera handy.

To use your example, it’s similar to driving a car around town that looks/sounds like something appears to be unsafe/illegal. Gonna whine when the cops pull you over?

The cops were extremely professional, and didn’t do anything wrong IMHO.

Reply

Calvin August 23, 2012 at 05:59 am

On the other hand if we all open-carried for a year straight the general public might begin to “get over it”. I CC myself for exactly this reason but if we ever decide we really want to change the culture of hoplophobia in America then mass open carry is the way to do it. “Hmm, I see guns everywhere everyday and never get shot. Maybe they’re not so bad.”

Reply

Joshua August 23, 2012 at 06:21 am

>>We discussed this before on the blog, but what phone operators at police stations need to start doing is asking a few simple questions like “So this person you saw open carrying… was he acting in a threatening manner?”

I know what your saying but the bottom line is this; Police get a call about a guy with a gun they are going to respond. The can’t afford not to. 99% of time it is going to be something like this but there’s always that 1% chance someone saw the “suspect” non nonchalantly walking towards the local movie theatre/shopping mall/busy public location to try to get the next “high score.”

Reply

PJ August 23, 2012 at 12:39 pm

Because someone planning to shoot some place up is going to openly carry the weapons down the street so that everyone can see him and call the cops lol

Reply

Adam August 23, 2012 at 02:56 pm

Given the mental health aspect of these crimes, it wouldn’t really surprise me. Loughner did, iirc.

Reply

Vhyrus August 23, 2012 at 03:45 pm

Nope. Loughner wrapped it up in a sweatshirt to conceal it till he got in range.

Reply

Heath August 25, 2012 at 12:28 pm

That idiot didn’t use a rifle. And he had it concealed.

Reply

Ben August 23, 2012 at 07:00 am

That cop is a straight up dude. Much respect for keeping his cool with that arsehole. He’s just doing his job, checking everything is above board and chatting to the guy, friendly and non-invasive. Hell, he even tried to get the guys involved in doing something productive.

I’d shake his hand and let him know he was doing a fantastic job and was a top class representative of the Police force.

Reply

StarvinPilgrim August 23, 2012 at 07:45 am

I’d buy that cop a beer. The troll can go fly a kite.

Reply

MikeyMike from /k/ August 23, 2012 at 07:57 am

These OC idiots are doing us no favors. It’s only a matter of time till they screw up and become felons. The cops are just waiting. We had some 18 year old OC idiot here, cops were watching and he got in a vehicle with his loaded firearm. Once he closed the car door, by state law and case law, it was now concealed. The cops moved quick and arrested him. Turns out that the 18 year old was not as much of a legal scholar that he thought he was. Now his a prohibited person and his antics have stopped.

Reply

NikonMikon August 24, 2012 at 04:05 am

you mean SA Operator from /k/?

Reply

SA_Operator##asffkj August 25, 2012 at 12:55 am

If these OC idiots knew anything about Home defense, they would buy a super awesome like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPoXjUJajKc

Truly the ultimate in home defense

Reply

NikonMikon August 25, 2012 at 12:57 am

LOL! oh shit.

Reply

Richard August 23, 2012 at 08:00 am

We need more cops like that one.

Reply

Jbeyea August 23, 2012 at 08:21 am

I totally get the whole OC thing but carrying that? Really dude…. That’s like walking into a bear cave covered in honey, totally legal just not a brilliant idea.

Although I think OCing 2 Serbia super shorties would be bad ass.

Reply

Jbeyea August 23, 2012 at 08:25 am

Serbu not Serbia damn auto correct

Reply

dave w August 23, 2012 at 09:43 am

Serbia super shorties sounds like a midget porn title :)

Reply

Vhyrus August 23, 2012 at 03:46 pm

You’re going to hell for making me smile at that.

Reply

45CALifornia August 24, 2012 at 10:40 pm

+1

Reply

Jbeyea August 28, 2012 at 12:24 am

I may or may not have seen that film before….

Reply

sancto August 23, 2012 at 11:04 am

If I saw someone strolling down the street with an MP5 on his back, I’d more likely think “airsoft” than full-auto 9mm. Like the troll said, real MP5’s are so dang expensive, it’d be the last thing I’d expect. That said, if the cop is really SWAT and around real MP5’s all the time, I could see him thinking it might be one without pausing to go through how logical that is. I don’t have any problem with the stop.

Reply

2Wheels August 23, 2012 at 12:33 pm

Trolls will be trolls… “Standing up for our rights” by baiting cops… Whatever, don’t these losers have anything better to do?

Cops were awesome IMHO.

Reply

Martin August 23, 2012 at 03:32 pm

This cop was a true hero of the force. If only more were like that!

PS I would like to be in the reserve! Issue ME a full auto! WOOHOO!

Reply

BBJones August 23, 2012 at 03:40 pm

Surprised they posted this as it put that cop in positive light. He disarmed them verbally by addressing all of their preplanned BS. I still think he should have asked if they were full auto and if they said no, told them to move along. Why can’t all cops have this guys attitude towards citizens?

Reply

Reno August 23, 2012 at 05:32 pm

As a police officer myself I think the officer handled the situation very professionally. I advise all my friends not to carry openly as it causes alarm to citizens that don’t understand firearms or firearms laws. Just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean that you should. My opinion is given it was a normal day in an Oregon town I do not feel he had the need to carry a long gun on his person and walk down the street knowing full well someone would call the police. In the U.S. carrying a long gun down a city street is not something the average citizen encounters very often and the firearms owner knew full well the police would be called, that he would record the encounter and that he was ready to spout off case law. I feel these type of people give firearms owners a negative image. Had there been civil disorder, a natural disaster, etc. I may have sided with the citizen. Why someone would want to cause themselves so much grief knowing full well a police encounter is immenent is beyond me. I also believe the chance of a tragedy befalling you is also much higher by pushing you luck with what may be an officer far less professional than the one in the video. I advise all open carry advocates to chill out, get a C.W.P and carry discreetly.

Reply

Jim P. August 23, 2012 at 11:42 pm

Just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean that you should.

Then you would say someone standing on the corner of First and Main with a sign saying “Legalize Pot, sign my petition.” shouldn’t do it?

You would say that someone on the corner of Second and Main with a sign saying “The end is nigh. Go to church.” shouldn’t do it?

I can agree that the carry of a rifle is a little over the top, what if he OCed a 1911?

You have to get that we, technically, live in a Constitutional Representative Republic not a mob rules democracy.

As noted above — 911 needs to educate the public that OC is legal.

Reply

Deisel04 August 23, 2012 at 05:54 pm

Theses retards are obviously out trying to get attention, but FAILED, Awesome job by the LEO, handled that situation well.

Reply

jpcmt August 23, 2012 at 06:34 pm

I’m pretty sure carrying an automatic weapon (NFA) isn’t illegal if NFA items are legal in that area. Having said that, the caller’s suspicion is not reasonable suspicion for the police. Just like you can’t run serials, I’m pretty sure you can’t check to make sure an SBR or silenced or FA gun is accompanied by an NFA tax stamp.

Aside of that, that cop is badass and deserve the biggest donut he can find! Very well done. I loved the “time out” he gave the punk kid saying “stop with the rules.” That was a nice shutdown that probably made the kid nervous.

Reply

Lance August 23, 2012 at 06:47 pm

These guys are activists. They’re not surprised when stopped. They plan for it. This particular guy I’ve seen at least 2 of his videos and I’m not big fan of how he handles things. For two reasons… he doesn’t handle things very logically and sounds like a dick… and he doesn’t know the law THAT well. I love OC activists as I believe they are exercising our rights that may be taken away if we don’t, but please do it correctly.

Now… with that said…. I don’t believe an LEO has the right to stop one based on that they believe your firearm could be fully auto. Any intelligent person that knows anything about firearms knows that any semi auto firearm could be turned into full auto… ANY. The only sure way to know is to function check. Looks should not be a factor.

Lastly… Terry v Ohio 1968… US v Deberry 1996! Dude… come on… you should know these.

Police have to have reasonable suspicion that you are committing or have committed a crime to detain you (Terry v Ohio) and a legally carried firearm CANNOT be the sole cause for reasonable suspicion (US v Deberry).

Reply

dave w August 23, 2012 at 07:34 pm

I liked his fully auto argument which went, in effect – i need to check if this is full auto, so i can tell if you should have a tax stamp on you.

Reply

Church August 23, 2012 at 07:37 pm

I WISH ALL POLICE OFFICERS WERE JUST LIKE THIS GUY!!!

Reply

Sterilize Idiots August 23, 2012 at 09:09 pm

That’s fine he wanted attention and maybe toake a point. But FAIL for execution you douche bucket. Rolling down the street with a GSG? Really? For what? Rabid rabbits you might encounter. Lame sauce.

Reply

RWC August 24, 2012 at 08:45 am

Finally got around to watching this. That officer is awesome. The open carry kid….not so much.

Reply

Taylor August 24, 2012 at 03:54 pm

I have to say, that cop handled things quite well, seemed pretty calm when a firearm was present.

Reply

Heath August 27, 2012 at 06:25 pm

Calm when a firearm is holstered or slung over a shoulder? Are you scared by the sight of a holstered handgun?

Reply

cc19 August 24, 2012 at 08:27 pm

This cop is boss. I wish we had more like him on the streets.

Reply

Federale August 25, 2012 at 11:19 am

Well, every semi-auto rifle based on a military weapon, e.g. M1A, AR-15 clone, AK clone, etc. looks like a fully automatic weapon. Is that reasonable then? I would say that is not therefore reasonable if almost every semi-auto because the basis for reasonable cause. One could say that there are full auto 1911 pistols out there, full auto Glocks out there, therefore everyone with a 1911 clone or Glock could be stopped. I think that beats the reasonableness argument.

Reply

Ninjavitis August 25, 2012 at 08:42 pm

This is all over the map on rights and procedure and what’s right and wrong. I think the Officer did an outstanding job of mediating what was obviousy intended to be a negative situation.

Reply

joechoes August 27, 2012 at 09:56 am

Ben,

Good luck finding a jury that will agree with you that the officer did not have a REASONABLE SUSPICION that they had a full auto weapon. If it looks like a full auto, it is reasonable to think it could be. Especially to a jury which is likely to be primarily anti-gun.
Also, the kid initiated the stop. He was the first to speak and stated he intended to have an “encounter” with the officer. The officer did not “detain” him till the kid already proved he was a jerk and the officer then had more reason to believe the kid was up to no good and may have an illegal weapon. The kid obviously thought he knew the law well. It is not unforseeable that the kid may have been so confident in his “knowledge” that he would have a full-auto, get it taken and get arrested thinking he could then sue for “illegal search and seizure” and get the charges dropped.
The officer did an awesome job.

Reply

Heath August 27, 2012 at 06:24 pm

Even IF it had been full auto, it’s LEGAL to own them in the US. Allow stuff like this and it evolves into traffic stops because vehicle that is squatting low on its suspension looks like they could be carrying narcotics.

Being a “jerk” is reasonable cause for being detained? And being a “jerk” is not reason to believe someone is doing something wrong. If this example were true, a cop could arrest detain you and conduct a search of your vehicle if you decline the search when they ask. If you refuse the search, with no warrant, you must be hiding something??????

Reply

Tom January 18, 2013 at 07:47 pm

That officer deserves a beer. He did an awesome job. I would have been a dick. Just sayin’

But his partner…that fat ass needs a dietician’s phone number and a gym membership. He’s a disgrace to the uniform. I hate to see cops that perpetuate the donut eating cop stereotype. Fat fuck!

As for the two legal minds that are walking down the street with a MP522…they need to get their ass kicked. I wish assholes like that could exercise their right in Compton or Oakland where some real felons would kick their ass and take that little sissy rifle and go off with it. And they could film that. Bwahahaha.

Reply

Heath January 18, 2013 at 08:04 pm

Perhaps you should find a new career?

Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT:

Previous post:

Next post: