OC Video: Have you guys seen this? OMG what a violation of this guy's rights!

[Ron_O]

'Good Guys Carry Guns' Video Stockpile

I've seen so many of these videos over the past couple of months while doing my research for the GGCG film that it's driving me nuts. I've set up a page where I'm stockpiling this and other videos and info before we do an official rollout of the GGCG project. These videos are not just open carry, they're to show the general public how guns save lives and that good guys and gals should be carrying daily.

The focus of the project is to work toward nationwide Constitutional Freedom to Carry.

The screened and selected video stockpile is on Facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/GoodGuysCarryGuns

 

[DON`T TREAD ON ME]

I try not to Monday morning quarterback, but this is begging for it.

The OCer in question was the victim of a violation of use of force! The force was absent any 1st hand knowledge of a crime, and even if there was a crime, was escalated beyond the obvious need. Had the officer rolled up, dropped his window, and asked a few questions... He would have been OK.

After flattening out, the OC'er consented to search, and (its a stretch,) but arguably the seizure as well. He also offered his version of the facts, and told the officers about the law, Even the null conflicting law to which they paid the most attn.

My takeaway is the display of an appetite for unbridled violence, from the dispatcher throughout the department. The cops admitted they were aware it was his right to carry, yet did everything in their power to attempt to dissuade him from doing it in the future. Their Oath means nothing, I saw unthinking drones violently carrying out their masters (politicians) wishes. Sad.

 

[Ron_O]

This video is equally as disturbing...

Check out this guy in Florida. Going fishing, legally OC'ing, detained, cuffed, searched, weapon seized, released.

[video=youtube;V_q7y3pFGbI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_q7y3pFGbI[/video]

 

[OC for ME]

I try not to Monday morning quarterback, but this is begging for it.

The OCer in question was the victim of a violation of use of force! The force was absent any 1st hand knowledge of a crime, and even if there was a crime, was escalated beyond the obvious need. Had the officer rolled up, dropped his window, and asked a few questions... He would have been OK.

After flattening out, the OC'er consented to search, and (its a stretch,) but arguably the seizure as well. He also offered his version of the facts, and told the officers about the law, Even the null conflicting law to which they paid the most attn.

My takeaway is the display of an appetite for unbridled violence, from the dispatcher throughout the department. The cops admitted they were aware it was his right to carry, yet did everything in their power to attempt to dissuade him from doing it in the future. Their Oath means nothing, I saw unthinking drones violently carrying out their masters (politicians) wishes. Sad.

Consent at gun point...hmm.

 

[waskel]

Check out this guy in Florida. Going fishing, legally OC'ing, detained, cuffed, searched, weapon seized, released.

[video=youtube;V_q7y3pFGbI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_q7y3pFGbI[/video]

Holy crap.
09:50 - "I'm a firm believer of ownership of firearms, your first amendment rights... are the cuffs too tight?"

10:00 - "I'm a firm believer of the first amendment and would try always never to do anything to cut into your rights on that..."

I must say I admire the young man's verbal restraint in the face of such arrogance and ignorance.

 

[MSG Laigaie]

If this happened to any of you guys, would you not demand that the officer lower his weapon? I would not be inclined to flat out submit. I'd definitely keep my hands up and would not make any sudden moves, and I'm sure I'd be taken down, but where is the fine line between submitting to proper authority and having a right to defend yourself against lethal force?

When this happened to me, I demanded, repeatedly, for the LEO to holster his weapon. He then told me I could not yell at him. I replied that I always get loud when confronted with "stupid".

IOW, the officer can use the time between when he detains/arrests you and when he writes out his first report to come up with RAS. It is nice to believe that it is only a few cops that need that time to come up with RAS.
stay safe.

In my case, the LEO used that time to make up a complete fabrication of the event, not knowing I was going to dog him.

I stopped watching when the LEO got out of the squad with his weapon already trained on the Victim. I find it very rude to greet someone with a gun drawn and pointed at the Citizen.

 

[garand_guy]

Well maybe since the officer unjustifiably brandished a gun, the 'victim' would have been well within his rights to brandish his firearm at the officer who now presented a threat to the 'victim.'

 

[DON`T TREAD ON ME]

Consent at gun point...hmm.

Yes he did consent, mostly it was after the guns were put away. After Qualified immunity, the political subdivision of the State will argue it was a consensual encounter (after the threat to the officers was handled) Remember the dispatcher categorized the call as Suspicious man with a gun. He has no bodily harm that i am aware of, so his strongest harm would be psychological. However when you are out arguing the cops and "participating... then thanking them, You are giving the judge or jury all the free pass to say he got exactly what he was looking for. I am totally on the dudes side, and I recognize these mistakes because I have made them. By pointing this out, I hope that it will help someone. I appreciate this man for doing his best, would love to buy him a beer!

• @ 5:05 He assisted the cop in the seizure of his weapon
• @ 5:56 he offers his ID
• @ 7:00 and again @ 7:15 he offers ID and access to his pockets.
• @ 8:50offers a conflicting ordinance
• @ 9:04 He urges the officer to "Go ahead and check on that, you wont find anything."
• @ 9:53 He states "If you check my ID and EVERYTHING, I am not a Felon.
• @ 14:45 He urges the officer to look up the conflicting law that he provided.
• @16:28 He thanks the officer for what he admits is "doing his job."

There is federal case law regarding people who continue to participate in the encounter, at a point it is considered consensual.

 

[WalkingWolf]

It can't be consent as long as there is the threat of violence, and that threat was displayed early in the encounter.

 

[DON`T TREAD ON ME]

It can't be consent as long as there is the threat of violence, and that threat was displayed early in the encounter.

You are right, to an extent. What makes this problematic, is that while "use of force" initially happened It was de escalated without further incident. The supreme court balances the rights infringements, against the cops ability to function in their capacity. My gut feeling is the court will grant a motion to dismiss that Use of force cause of action, claiming it was a tough couple of minuets at gunpoint, but it "worked like it was supposed to.

That leaves the detainment. The court will look at this separately, (that is what they do, and they will dismiss unlawful detainment for the reasons I mentioned above. I do not like it either, but I am a believer in building your case, prior to obtaining your harm.

 

[countryclubjoe]

If you are illegally detained then you are in theory "kidnapped". The only redress is to sue under U.S.C. 42 section 1983.

The amount of time it took for the illegal detainment cannot be recovered and the last time I checked time is a valuable asset that cannot be replaced hence monetary rewards is the only compensation.

My .02

Regards

CCJ

 

[OC for ME]

When did the cuffs come off? The cop's own words will be the citizen's best chance to gain redress. Especially after the 911 twit explained the law correctly-ish to the calling citizen yet dispatched a nitwit cop anyway.

 

[OC for ME]

You are right, to an extent. What makes this problematic, is that while "use of force" initially happened It was de escalated without further incident. The supreme court balances the rights infringements, against the cops ability to function in their capacity. My gut feeling is the court will grant a motion to dismiss that Use of force cause of action, claiming it was a tough couple of minuets at gunpoint, but it "worked like it was supposed to.

That leaves the detainment. The court will look at this separately, (that is what they do, and they will dismiss unlawful detainment for the reasons I mentioned above. I do not like it either, but I am a believer in building your case, prior to obtaining your harm.

A cop's ignorance of the law, and it may be that he knows the law but just don't care, does not negate/excuse his acts. His use of lethal force was not consistent with MI law it seems. Of course, cops, in MI, may have the latitude to draw down on citizens for lawful behavior without suffering any consequences.

How has the Fed 6th Circuit been on the 2A?

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

Well maybe since the officer unjustifiably brandished a gun, the 'victim' would have been well within his rights to brandish his firearm at the officer who now presented a threat to the 'victim.'

Oh, I firmly believe that officer made a threat to kill by pointing the weapon. If it had not been an LEO I would say even using the weapon at that point would be more than justified as the victim would easily be in fear of his life. However seeing as the criminal was an LEO and courts are quite skewed in favor of the Police it would be a long hard battle to prove using the weapon was justified.

If you are illegally detained then you are in theory "kidnapped". The only redress is to sue under U.S.C. 42 section 1983.

The amount of time it took for the illegal detainment cannot be recovered and the last time I checked time is a valuable asset that cannot be replaced hence monetary rewards is the only compensation.

Would he though? It's not kidnapped unless the victim is taken someplace against his will. I'm not totally familiar with U.S law yet but at least in the UK being cuffed illegally would be classed as 'entrapment' which is the offence under kidnap. Being disarmed though is certainly theft.

 

[Primus]

Oh, I firmly believe that officer made a threat to kill by pointing the weapon. If it had not been an LEO I would say even using the weapon at that point would be more than justified as the victim would easily be in fear of his life. However seeing as the criminal was an LEO and courts are quite skewed in favor of the Police it would be a long hard battle to prove using the weapon was justified.



Would he though? It's not kidnapped unless the victim is taken someplace against his will. I'm not totally familiar with U.S law yet but at least in the UK being cuffed illegally would be classed as 'entrapment' which is the offence under kidnap. Being disarmed though is certainly theft.

Theft according to what law? Not in MA.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

Theft according to what law? Not in MA.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

MA? It's MI we're talking about for one and even if it was the fascist state of MA, taking something that doesn't belong to you is still theft unless there is a justifiable cause. Do you mean to say you would justify this criminals actions?

 

[Primus]

MA? It's MI we're talking about for one and even if it was the fascist state of MA, taking something that doesn't belong to you is still theft unless there is a justifiable cause. Do you mean to say you would justify this criminals actions?

Ok so is it theft in MI? Simply taking an item is not theft in every state. Hence me mentioning my state as an example of my premise. If you are alleging that taking (then giving back momentarily ) is theft then cite.

And I never said a word about the "criminal actions". Stay with me brother...



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

Ok so is it theft in MI? Simply taking an item is not theft in every state. Hence me mentioning my state as an example of my premise. If you are alleging that taking (then giving back momentarily ) is theft then cite.

And I never said a word about the "criminal actions". Stay with me brother...



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

As supposedly obvious as this is supposed to be i'm having a hard time finding an actual definition. I see penalties for certain larcenies but apparently If the accused have taken the goods under a claim of right, however unfounded, he has not committed a larceny. I'm not sure thats applicable though as no officer would say he has a 'right of claim' to a weapon. All I can find is


(4) If any of the following apply, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $2,000.00 or 3 times the value of the property stolen, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:
(a) The property stolen has a value of $200.00 or more but less than $1,000.00.

 

[Primus]

As supposedly obvious as this is supposed to be i'm having a hard time finding an actual definition. I see penalties for certain larcenies but apparently If the accused have taken the goods under a claim of right, however unfounded, he has not committed a larceny. I'm not sure thats applicable though as no officer would say he has a 'right of claim' to a weapon. All I can find is


(4) If any of the following apply, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $2,000.00 or 3 times the value of the property stolen, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:
(a) The property stolen has a value of $200.00 or more but less than $1,000.00.

That was my whole point.. To show you that larceny isn't always simply "me take from you".

Check definition of larceny in that state. Should be a definition somewhere. In MA there is a distinct element of needing the element of intent to permanently deprive a person of said item. As in if I take your gun to look at it or even shoot it at the range its not larceny. It was borrowing it.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

That was my whole point.. To show you that larceny isn't always simply "me take from you".

Check definition of larceny in that state. Should be a definition somewhere. In MA there is a distinct element of needing the element of intent to permanently deprive a person of said item. As in if I take your gun to look at it or even shoot it at the range its not larceny. It was borrowing it.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I can't even find one. Though I suppose thats simply because Google isnt helping much and i'm not very familiar with MI law. I'm not for one moment going to say it isnt clearly defined somewhere