Police get OWNED by guy who know's his rights.. For concealed or open carry people!!

[DFarcher]

This should be renamed "attention whore acts stupid and records himself doing it"....lol

Correct!

 

[Isha's Pa Pa]

 

[twoguns?]

well thanks , dont mind if i do

 

[Murph]

This video is a repost, the original video is titled "Detained for Open Carry, Portland, Maine 26MAY2012" by a user called Boyscout399

A quick response to some of the comments

This Open Carry guy isn't an attention whore, he has stopped for Open Carry in May 2008, & arrested for concealed carry of 3 pockets knives, charges were dropped. He continues to Open Carry & he gets 'investigated' maybe a couple of times a year

When he saw he was being approached by a LEO he turned on his video app on his phone
He says the LEO gave him plenty of time to do so before initiating the detainment

When OC says I don't consent to any searches or seizures, he is protesting the LEOs pulling OCs sidearm out of it's holster, without the LEO having a warrant or reasonable suspicion of any crime

The law OC quotes about giving his ID is Maine statute Title 17-A Section 15-A which states that you only need to give your ID if being issued a summons to a crime, by making a refusal to ID yourself a class E crime.

If he gave the LEO his ID or even his name, he turns a probable 4thA protection violation into a 'voluntary consent' stop & gives the LEO the right to hold him for 2 hours while 'verifying' his ID.

Generally, LEOs need to have some evidence you're committing a crime before they can 'investigate' you. Assuming your a criminal a requiring you to prove you're not is antithetical to the way the legal system is supposed to work here in the US

The LEO freely admits that he doesn't have any reason to stop the OC other than Carrying Openly, IANAL but the case law the OC quotes are pretty much on point.

The thing that stands out to me is that the LEO didn't think the OC was a criminal, or he would have preserved the evidence the OC was Carrying a gun

By grabbing the OCs sidearm without reasonable suspicion or probable cause of any crime, & without a warrant, I think the gun would be inadmissible as evidence.

It seems to me the LEO wanted to know who the OC was (understandable), but didn't consider the OC to be a criminal threat, & thought the OC would cooperate since the LEO saw the OC as law abiding citizen

Which probably would have worked without the seizure at the very beginning=)

 

[furlong222]

am with you on this one....

I guess I'm the other end of the spectrum. I don't believe in the police making up their own rules. I don't believe an open carry person should be subjected to such police scrutiny simply because he is open carrying... and I appreciate a law abiding citizen who know's his rights...

and I appreciate an officer who know's his limitations within the law and know's when his crossing of lines is being haulted by a law abiding citizen and letting the matter go.. Rather than trying to beat the guy to death.. just because he feel's "he's" the only authority that matters. SO weird how people see so many different things... while looking at the same subject..

 

[Singularis]

A person is not an "attention whore" for refusing to answer questions he is not legally obligated to, and for sticking up for his own rights. What would be "stupid" would be to stand up for your rights like this WITHOUT filming the incident. While I'm sure JBT's prefer people to comply with their every "request," I do not consider it rude to decline such a request in just as polite a manner in which it was made. I'd say the victim was actually very cordial, considering how he was having force initiated against him when he was minding his own business and harming absolutely no one, besides the fact that he wasn't breaking any laws or could even be reasonably suspected of doing so. In fact, he didn't defend his rights nearly as strongly as he could have... I don't know what the law is in Oregon or wherever that was, but here in Oklahoma an unlawful stop, arrest, search, or seizure is legally considered nothing more than an assault, and a person is legally privileged to defend against it with reasonable force. That is a privilege which should be exercised more often. There needs to be a consequence for such violations.

 

[CharlieMurphy]

You have the right to travel unmolested, so unless you are appear to be breaking the law then the action should be voluntary.

I think this situation was handled well by all parties. Them problem is with LEOs who think people asserting their rights are challenging their power and people out to make life hard for LEOs.

 

[henschman]

It was handled well by the supervisor, who immediately let him go. It was not handled well by the officer making initial contact, who detained him without reasonable suspicion, committed assault and battery, and seized his property without legal justification.