Video: Citizen is detained for open carry.

[SMS]

Personally I wouldn't have been as intimidated as the officer and his supervisor were in this case.

Michael Brown

I would've just shown my ID and moved along, but this guy was obviously a crusader.

I'm curious though MB, you say you wouldn't have been intimidated....as the responding officer or supervisor, what would your course of action have been (operating under that jurisdiction, where open carry without a permit is legal)?

 

[Michael Brown]

However, Tulsa PD has already said they will be stopping and checking permits on those seen OCing.

I have not been advised that I am supposed to be doing this.

From whom did you hear this?

Michael Brown

 

[Michael Brown]

I'm curious though MB, you say you wouldn't have been intimidated....as the responding officer or supervisor, what would your course of action have been (operating under that jurisdiction, where open carry without a permit is legal)?

If it's legal, it's legal and I probably wouldn't worry about it.

If it's me stopping you then I have a reason other than simply the exposed firearm i.e. section of town as in Illinois vs. Wardlow or Hodari vs. California or behaviors that would create suspicion.

Actions that are otherwise legal (i.e. Terry) can still arouse police suspicion.

My point is that if someone wants to debate 4th Amendment issues with me, they better know what they're talking about because I do. I won't allow someone to control the conversation during my stop because if I've stopped you, I KNOW I had a legal reason to do so despite what the person being stopped may think.

I also don't HAVE to articulate the reason for the stop until I'm ready if I feel that revealing the reason will compromise the effectiveness of the investigation.

I will not debate legal issues with someone I've stopped, such as this individual's misunderstanding of the Terry case. I will listen to their point, if they have one to make, but I will not engage in this back and forth like that officer did. That's what courts/IA investigators are for. If someone believes I have done something wrong, I direct them to those resources. I don't worry about either of those because I know I'm correct and on solid legal ground.

My guess is that all the things the officer said i.e. public safety concern etc are really a cover for his lack of knowledge in this area.

I don't get intimidated by legal issues because I know the rules of the road; This officer was intimidated because he could not effectively articulate his reason for the stop, which he may or may not have been able to justify.

I don't ever have to worry about that.

Michael Brown

 

[piston10]

If it's legal, it's legal and I probably wouldn't worry about it.

If it's me stopping you then I have a reason other than simply the exposed firearm i.e. section of town as in Illinois vs. Wardlow or Hodari vs. California or behaviors that would create suspicion.

Actions that are otherwise legal (i.e. Terry) can still arouse police suspicion.

My point is that if someone wants to debate 4th Amendment issues with me, they better know what they're talking about because I do. I won't allow someone to control the conversation during my stop because if I've stopped you, I KNOW I had a legal reason to do so despite what the person being stopped may think.

I also don't HAVE to articulate the reason for the stop until I'm ready if I feel that revealing the reason will compromise the effectiveness of the investigation.

I will not debate legal issues with someone I've stopped, such as this individual's misunderstanding of the Terry case. I will listen to their point, if they have one to make, but I will not engage in this back and forth like that officer did. That's what courts/IA investigators are for. If someone believes I have done something wrong, I direct them to those resources. I don't worry about either of those because I know I'm correct and on solid legal ground.

My guess is that all the things the officer said i.e. public safety concern etc are really a cover for his lack of knowledge in this area.

I don't get intimidated by legal issues because I know the rules of the road; This officer was intimidated because he could not effectively articulate his reason for the stop, which he may or may not have been able to justify.

I don't ever have to worry about that.

Michael Brown

Out of respect for LE I would just show my permit and thank the officer for his hard work. I have found being nice to an officer can get me a lot farther than acting like a know it all D bag. That's if it were to happen here in OK.

 

[mugsy]

I dont agree with this at all, in fact a right pretty much means the exact opposite. You dont need any justification or reasoning to exercise a right in an appropriate fashion. Who decides if its "justifiable", the cops, politicians, or the citizens?

If your view was correct I would love to see tabloids and people with big mouths to put a cork in it.

Beast,


MLR was pointing out the police officer (and those who approach OC-ers in a similar manner) think that way, not that he (MLR) agrees with that line of thought.

VR,

John

 

[tran]

Out of respect for LE I would just show my permit and thank the officer for his hard work. I have found being nice to an officer can get me a lot farther than acting like a know it all D bag. That's if it were to happen here in OK.

I agree but, that thing we call respect goes both ways!

 

[CODE_3]

If it's legal, it's legal and I probably wouldn't worry about it.

If it's me stopping you then I have a reason other than simply the exposed firearm i.e. section of town as in Illinois vs. Wardlow or Hodari vs. California or behaviors that would create suspicion.

Actions that are otherwise legal (i.e. Terry) can still arouse police suspicion.

My point is that if someone wants to debate 4th Amendment issues with me, they better know what they're talking about because I do. I won't allow someone to control the conversation during my stop because if I've stopped you, I KNOW I had a legal reason to do so despite what the person being stopped may think.

I also don't HAVE to articulate the reason for the stop until I'm ready if I feel that revealing the reason will compromise the effectiveness of the investigation.

I will not debate legal issues with someone I've stopped, such as this individual's misunderstanding of the Terry case. I will listen to their point, if they have one to make, but I will not engage in this back and forth like that officer did. That's what courts/IA investigators are for. If someone believes I have done something wrong, I direct them to those resources. I don't worry about either of those because I know I'm correct and on solid legal ground.

My guess is that all the things the officer said i.e. public safety concern etc are really a cover for his lack of knowledge in this area.

I don't get intimidated by legal issues because I know the rules of the road; This officer was intimidated because he could not effectively articulate his reason for the stop, which he may or may not have been able to justify.

I don't ever have to worry about that.

Michael Brown

Nice!

 

[jcizzle]

I have not been advised that I am supposed to be doing this.

From whom did you hear this?

Michael Brown

I can't remember the story where I read that was the Tulsa police chief's intentions but here is a story mentioning the MWC chief stating that intention as well.
http://m.newsok.com/oklahoma-law-enforcement-prepares-for-open-carry-law/article/3676047/?page=1

 

[Michael Brown]

I can't remember the story where I read that was the Tulsa police chief's intentions but here is a story mentioning the MWC chief stating that intention as well.
http://m.newsok.com/oklahoma-law-enforcement-prepares-for-open-carry-law/article/3676047/?page=1

When you do, let me know because I haven't heard anything like this and if it's something I'm supposed to be doing I should probably know about it.

Since you specifically stated that the TULSA Police intend to do this, I thought you might be able to substantiate your statement. MWC is not Tulsa and rumors do not help Police-Community relations.

All that said, I do not anticipate being given any type of order like this.

Michael Brown

 

[SMS]

Good insight as usual MB. It sounded like this officer's sole reason for stopping him was because of a call regarding a man walking with a gun...or like you said he just didn't know what to do.

How much leeway do officers have once they've been dispatched? Are his hands tied and he's required to make contact even though the subject doesn't appear to be doing anything illegal?