• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This is outrageous conduct by police

Beaudreaux

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed


North Carolina Criminal Law
UNC School of Government Blog

How Should the Police Respond to a Report of a Man with a Gun?

November 14th, 2013
By Jeff Welty

Case study: the Neenah stop. Recently in Neenah, WI, a woman called the police to report a man with a gun strapped to his back walking down the street. The call was placed to the non-emergency police number and the caller didn’t report that the man was doing anything threatening, but she did suggest that the police check on the situation. As a result, an officer stopped the man and his companion. The officer engaged in a protracted dialogue with the man, at one point telling the man that he would be shot in the head if he made any furtive movements. Other officers also responded, and at least one drew her weapon. The man who was stopped remained calm throughout the interaction and was eventually permitted to depart. The full 18-minute video of the stop is here. A local news article about the stop is here. It has generated quite a bit of controversy. Were the officer’s actions lawful and justified by public safety concerns? Or was it an unjustified response to lawful open carry? This post breaks down the legal issues.

Remainder of discussion is at this link.
Click to expand...

Just listen to the how the police keep telling them that they will get shot in the head, or if he saw the guy in a gas station he would "CAP HIM."
 
Honestly, those guys were looking for a 'reaction' and they got one. We live in a very dangerous world and you really can't blame the cops for questioning these dudes, especially when people have complained.

As the cop says at the end, "What an awesome opportunity for a learning experience."

I'm about as pro second amendment as anyone but, there was no violation of Constitutional rights here.
 
911 should be instructed to inform callers that citizens are allowed to open carry.
And then ask if they were actually doing something wrong that the police can respond to.


Outrageous?
Somewhat in places, but more like unnecessary and inappropriate.

I have no problem if they come upon them and want to see if they are a threat.
The manner in which they did so leaves a bad taste.

The guys actions were not egregious.
The cop should shut his mouth and just do his job.
Not try to indoctrinate others to his belief.
 
Last edited:
The logic expressed by the moron "pro 2A" officer is that open carry somehow hurts the 2A, while knowing that expensive CCW permits are simply constitutional rights rental agreements. In other words, you must pay the state for the "privilege" of carrying concealed or face harassment (or execution?) for open carry.

The officer further screws up since he should knows that shooting someone in the head (for open carry) if they were at a gas station, instead of on a sidewalk, is illegal. The officer should be suspended, at a minimum, for making that statement.
 
WCH said:
Honestly, those guys were looking for a 'reaction' and they got one. We live in a very dangerous world and you really can't blame the cops for questioning these dudes, especially when people have complained.

As the cop says at the end, "What an awesome opportunity for a learning experience."

I'm about as pro second amendment as anyone but, there was no violation of Constitutional rights here.
Click to expand...

The officer stating that he would shoot the citizen in the head if he was at a gas station is constitutional?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The officer stating that he would shoot the citizen in the head if he was at a gas station is constitutional?
Click to expand...

Well, they are Yankees so, I just assumed he was being over-the-top for theatrical effect. ;)

BTW: where in the Constitution does it say cops can't say such things?

I mean, "Get down on the ground MoFo or I'll blow your ****ing head off" seems pretty common these days.
 
Excon said:
911 should be instructed to inform callers that citizens are allowed to open carry.
And then ask if they were actually doing something wrong that the police can respond to.
Click to expand...
Exactly.


Excon said:
Outrageous?
Somewhat in places, but more like unnecessary and inappropriate.
Click to expand...
The outrageous parts were pulling a gun on the two boys and continually speaking of shooting them in the head. That was outrageous and uncalled for.

Excon said:
I have no problem if they come upon them and want to see if they are a threat.
The manner in which they did so leaves a bad taste.
Click to expand...
This was discussed in the article I posted after the video. The police have every right to investigate after they get a call. What they do not have a right to do is to assume something illegal is going on just because a person is legally carrying a weapon. There are many examples, on YouTube, of officers reacting the correct way... this is not one of them.

Excon said:
The guys actions were not egregious.
The cop should shut his mouth and just do his job.
Not try to indoctrinate others to his belief.
Click to expand...

Again, exactly.
 
WCH said:
Well, they are Yankees so, I just assumed he was being over-the-top for theatrical effect. ;)

BTW: where in the Constitution does it say cops can't say such things?

I mean, "Get down on the ground MoFo or I'll blow your ****ing head off" seems pretty common these days.
Click to expand...

The execution of a citizen for open carry on commercial property is constitutional? Now I can see the need for that if they wandered within 1,000 feet of a school that, being a felony while armed, is deserving of immediate execution. ;)
 
WCH said:
Honestly, those guys were looking for a 'reaction' and they got one. We live in a very dangerous world and you really can't blame the cops for questioning these dudes, especially when people have complained.
Click to expand...
Of course the cops have a right question them. They did not have the right to pull a gun them, or force them to show ID, or to detain them without probable cause, or to do most of what the cops did in this instance.

WCH said:
As the cop says at the end, "What an awesome opportunity for a learning experience."
Click to expand...
The cop is the one that needed to learn a lesson from this. He violated these guys rights.

WCH said:
I'm about as pro second amendment as anyone but, there was no violation of Constitutional rights here.
Click to expand...
He did violate their rights.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The logic expressed by the moron "pro 2A" officer is that open carry somehow hurts the 2A, while knowing that expensive CCW permits are simply constitutional rights rental agreements. In other words, you must pay the state for the "privilege" of carrying concealed or face harassment (or execution?) for open carry.

The officer further screws up since he should knows that shooting someone in the head (for open carry) if they were at a gas station, instead of on a sidewalk, is illegal. The officer should be suspended, at a minimum, for making that statement.
Click to expand...

Emphasis added by me.

If he had said that to me, I would be having him charged with communicating threats at the very least.
 
Overall, I think the officers handled the situation well. The two kids were looking for a reaction and they got one. The only thing I disagreed with the officer on, was his constant use of egregious. I do not believe the act of openly carrying a long gun (in and of itself) is egregious.
 
BasicGreatGuy said:
Overall, I think the officers handled the situation well. The two kids were looking for a reaction and they got one. The only thing I disagreed with the officer on, was his constant use of egregious. I do not believe the act of openly carrying a long gun (in and of itself) is egregious.
Click to expand...

Do you feel that it was appropriate for the officers to pull a gun on these guys? They hadn't broken any laws? What about demanding ID? The law sates that an officer cannot demand ID unless they suspect or know a crime has been committed (a Terry stop).

If we let our rights be taken from us, we deserve what we get. No rights at all.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The execution of a citizen for open carry on commercial property is constitutional? Now I can see the need for that if they wandered within 1,000 feet of a school that, being a felony while armed, is deserving of immediate execution. ;)
Click to expand...

IIRC they were referring to some sort of school or gathering of young people. Might of been who complained.

There some incidences in San Antonio where this happened in some local businesses. The cops intervened in those events also.

Some folks just lose it when they see someone with a gun in plain view. Probably what my neighbors think when we're loading up the truck to go to the range or hunting.
 
WCH said:
IIRC they were referring to some sort of school or gathering of young people. Might of been who complained.

There some incidences in San Antonio where this happened in some local businesses. The cops intervened in those events also.

Some folks just lose it when they see someone with a gun in plain view. Probably what my neighbors think when we're loading up the truck to go to the range or hunting.
Click to expand...

Most states have a law prohibiting carrying a weapon within 1000 feet of a school. That is what he was referring to in the video. Also, if a person has a CCW, they are not restricted to the 1000 foot law, which they also mention in the video.
 
WCH said:
IIRC they were referring to some sort of school or gathering of young people. Might of been who complained.

There some incidences in San Antonio where this happened in some local businesses. The cops intervened in those events also.

Some folks just lose it when they see someone with a gun in plain view. Probably what my neighbors think when we're loading up the truck to go to the range or hunting.
Click to expand...

I believe the talk about the school (admin building nearby?) was an attempt to charge them with a felony (being armed within 1,000 feet of a school). That federal law is getting quite common at the state/local level, but I have yet to see what happens if one lives in such a "gun free zone" when they walk off of their property, perhaps to get to their car parked on the street. In Texas it is legal to drive by a school (your car is considered your private property) while armed but not to walk by it (without a CHL).

Fix The Gun Free School Zone Act | Practical Tactical Training LLC
 
Beaudreaux said:
Most states have a law prohibiting carrying a weapon within 1000 feet of a school. That is what he was referring to in the video. Also, if a person has a CCW, they are not restricted to the 1000 foot law, which they also mention in the video.
Click to expand...

In this day and time, IMO this is the way to support your second amendment rights, not playing chicken with the local cops. I don't know about where you live but, around here, the cops actually shoot people dead. Regularly.

Armed protest at Alamo ends quietly - San Antonio Express-News
 
Beaudreaux said:


Just listen to the how the police keep telling them that they will get shot in the head, or if he saw the guy in a gas station he would "CAP HIM."
Click to expand...


The LEOs were professional, courteous and right. Kids that do this **** really do cause more harm than good for 2nd Amendment rights. If this is the result of open-carry laws, then I think we should rethink open carry. There. They did their jobs: Down with open carry.
 
As I type this I am sitting exactly one block west of our neighborhood elementary school.

As the crow flies, I am reasonably certain the little school is less than 1000 feet away.

But I do believe my home was here first.

I wonder how that affects me and my personal gun rights?
 
WCH said:
In this day and time, IMO this is the way to support your second amendment rights, not playing chicken with the local cops. I don't know about where you live but, around here, the cops actually shoot people dead. Regularly.

Armed protest at Alamo ends quietly - San Antonio Express-News
Click to expand...

There seem to be two ways to get laws that violate constitutional rights changed: 1) raise enough of a public stink to get the legislation changed/repealed by the elected morons or 2) to sue/challenge the law in court to get the law invalidated. The guys in the video were likely trying both paths, by getting publicity posting their video online and by being prepared to take any arrest to court.
 
Captain America said:
As I type this I am sitting exactly one block west of our neighborhood elementary school.

As the crow flies, I am reasonably certain the little school is less than 1000 feet away.

But I do believe my home was here first.

I wonder how that affects me and my personal gun rights?
Click to expand...

There is an exception made for private property, but once you leave that private property you would likely be subject to arrest.

Fix The Gun Free School Zone Act | Practical Tactical Training LLC
 
MaggieD said:
The LEOs were professional, courteous and right. Kids that do this **** really do cause more harm than good for 2nd Amendment rights. If this is the result of open-carry laws, then I think we should rethink open carry. There. They did their jobs: Down with open carry.
Click to expand...

Then decriminalize concealed carry. ;)
 
Beaudreaux said:
Do you feel that it was appropriate for the officers to pull a gun on these guys? They hadn't broken any laws? What about demanding ID? The law sates that an officer cannot demand ID unless they suspect or know a crime has been committed (a Terry stop).

If we let our rights be taken from us, we deserve what we get. No rights at all.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the officer holding her gun in such a manner. From what I saw, the gun was not actually pointed at either kid. The officers were upfront with the two kids with what they were doing and why. The officer asked for identification and Charles declined. Officer acknowledged the kid did not have to provide identification at that point in time. Charles subsequently provided enough information whereby the officer could ascertain, that he didn't have any warrants etc.

Once the police determined the boys were clean and acting within the law, they let them go on their way. Outside of using logical fallacy in their argument, I saw no actual violation of any rights. If the police continued to detain the two gentlemen after clearance, there would have been a problem, in my opinion.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Then decriminalize concealed carry. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, I don't understand this statement, TTWTT. Concealed carry isn't against the law in Wisconsin.

I think law enforcement should find a way to deal with this. It's dangerous for the guys making their stupid statement; it's dangerous for the public at large; it's wasting public resources; it's mocking the Second Amendment. Not exercising it. And it makes people like me, who support the Second Amendment, think twice -- and look for ways to stop this irresponsible behavior.

BasicGreatGuy said:
I have no problem with the officer holding her gun in such a manner. From what I saw, the gun was not actually pointed at either kid. The officers were upfront with the two kids with what they were doing and why. The officer asked for identification and Charles declined. Officer acknowledged the kid did not have to provide identification at that point in time. Charles subsequently provided enough information whereby the officer could ascertain, that he didn't have any warrants etc.

Once the police determined the boys were clean and acting within the law, they let them go on their way. Outside of using logical fallacy in their argument, I saw no actual violation of any rights. If the police continued to detain the two gentlemen after clearance, there would have been a problem, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I think anyone open carrying anywhere should have to provide proof of their right to open carry a long gun in public. It is bizarre behavior. The fact that he wouldn't give his name, in my mind, is reason enough to take him into the station and spoil his day.

Every responsible gun owner on this forum should think that way, in my opinion. It's in their own self-interest.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom