Unlawful detainment - or not?

[jimnyc]

Some will say he is free to do as he pleases with the guns, as it's his right, and others like myself say that he is looking for trouble. Of course people are going to call the police if they see a guy walking around with a pistol and a rifle. And I believe it's the duty of the police to follow up on such calls and ensure the safety of the public. It's not as if they sped up in 9 cars and got into a gunfight with him, it appears they were calmly following up on a call, and another guy waiting with a camera has to prove he knows more than the law.

<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/115_1335140148"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/115_1335140148" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>

[tailfins]

I would say not unlawful detainment. I'm not going to judge the activist. However, a complaint was made and it would be reasonable to to ask if he was waving the guns around in a provocative manner. Everyday police investigate if a crime was committed and leave after determining no crime was committed.

[jimnyc]

I would say not unlawful detainment. I'm not going to judge the activist. However, a complaint was made and it would be reasonable to to ask if he was waving the guns around in a provocative manner. Everyday police investigate if a crime was committed and leave after determining no crime was committed.

That's about how I feel. Suppose the owner of a business was concerned and called the police about it. If they don't follow up on it, make sure all is cool, then what happens if a guy like this shoots someone 5 mins later? Everyone would scream about how they didn't do anything to prevent the tragedy.

I'm 3000% for gun rights, but your typical gun owner won't be walking downtown business area, with a political sign, carrying 2 weapons openly & having a camera waiting. And in the end this guy was free to proceed with his weapons. And I suppose he got what he wanted, for the police to "harass him on film". IMO, all they proved is that the fine police in Oregon follow up on their jobs, remain polite, find out what they need to & let the guy go upon his way.

[ConHog]

Noway is that unlawful. of course the police have a duty to check into anyone carrying guns around.

[Nukeman]

He wasn't detained he was questioned for a couple of minutes that could have been only 1-2 if he wasn't a dick looking for a confrontation. I understand he is trying to prove a point. I think the cops were very polite and professional in the face of total ass hat!!!!

[gabosaurus]

That guy would be dead in Texas. Or, if he was black, he would have been dead in Los Angeles.

[fj1200]

CAPT DASH has a friend who can operate a video camera? Who knew.

[ConHog]

He wasn't detained he was questioned for a couple of minutes that could have been only 1-2 if he wasn't a dick looking for a confrontation. I understand he is trying to prove a point. I think the cops were very polite and professional in the face of total ass hat!!!!



Technically speaking you are detained anytime a police officer let's you know you aren't free to just walk away. Doesn't matter if it's only for 2 minutes. The question is what is illegal detainment. Certainly that wasn't.

[ConHog]

That guy would be dead in Texas. Or, if he was black, he would have been dead in Los Angeles.


As a person who has and will continue to defend you on this board when called for. Was this ^^^ necessary or even germane to the topic?

[tailfins]

As a person who has and will continue to defend you on this board when called for. Was this ^^^ necessary or even germane to the topic?

I think it's germane in this manner: The video speaks to part of the quality of life in Oregon. Gab's comment speaks to the consideration that dealing with LEOs in TX is a less desirable experience. In spite of being a Republican, I have noticed that the corporate and law enforcement culture of more "traditional" places is more authoritarian and places less value on independent thought. It's interesting that I sometimes work in Cambridge, Mass. and have never been hassled for being a Republican, even when working beside people from Harvard.

[cadet]

I think it's germane in this manner: The video speaks to part of the quality of life in Oregon. Gab's comment speaks to the consideration that dealing with LEOs in TX is a less desirable experience. In spite of being a Republican, I have noticed that the corporate and law enforcement culture of more "traditional" places is more authoritarian and places less value on independent thought. It's interesting that I sometimes work in Cambridge, Mass. and have never been hassled for being a Republican, even when working beside people from Harvard.

I believe it's completely off topic, and the real problem with this whole story is... COPS THAT DIDN'T GET IN A GUNFIGHT TO BE A HERO!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? WHATS UP WITH THAT?!?!?!?!?

[gabosaurus]

As a person who has and will continue to defend you on this board when called for. Was this ^^^ necessary or even germane to the topic?

It is for the following reason: Not every police office will be tolerant of someone who has a weapon. I was thinking of a case in Texas where a police office stopped a car for a traffic violation. The driver had a gun on his seat. When the police officer backed off, the driver said he had a concealed weapons permit. When he went to get the permit, the officer opened fire. Stated later he thought the driver was going for a gun.

Also -- police officers have a right to do their job. If they ask you not to be filmed or recorded, you had better not do so. Otherwise, you can be arrested. At least in California you can.

[tailfins]

Also -- police officers have a right to do their job. If they ask you not to be filmed or recorded, you had better not do so. Otherwise, you can be arrested. At least in California you can.


Could you use some cash? Your post prompted me to see whatever became of Simon Glik. He filmed cops in Boston and promptly got arrested. It appears the City of Boston wrote him a check for $170,000. Furthermore, your post makes me wonder if the subject in the video was hunting for a payday. It gives new meaning to the notion of using a shotgun to provide for your family.

http://www.wbur.org/2012/03/27/recording-officers-settlement


In August of last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled people filming public officials on the job are protected by the First Amendment.

[ConHog]

It is for the following reason: Not every police office will be tolerant of someone who has a weapon. I was thinking of a case in Texas where a police office stopped a car for a traffic violation. The driver had a gun on his seat. When the police officer backed off, the driver said he had a concealed weapons permit. When he went to get the permit, the officer opened fire. Stated later he thought the driver was going for a gun.

Also -- police officers have a right to do their job. If they ask you not to be filmed or recorded, you had better not do so. Otherwise, you can be arrested. At least in California you can.

No Gabby, you don't get away that easy. You tried to make this about race and got called out. Just say mea culpa and send me a pair of your panties as penance. :laugh:

[gabosaurus]

In Los Angeles, it is a crime to be black. Always has been. If you don't believe me, find a black guy driving an expensive car and send him cruising up Santa Monica Boulevard starting at I-10. Have your bail money ready.

[ConHog]

In Los Angeles, it is a crime to be black. Always has been. If you don't believe me, find a black guy driving an expensive car and send him cruising up Santa Monica Boulevard starting at I-10. Have your bail money ready.

I don't dispute what you're saying. But it has NOTHING to do with this thread. Or at least it didn't before you brought it into the thread.