Unlawful Detainment? And Seizure Of A Firearm

Submitted by: kitteh9lives 5 years ago in Misc

Quite the conundrum, is he an idiot cop baiter or just exercising his lawful rights as a citizen? Side note: Decent Cops
There are 161 comments:
Male 16
And I said, I don`t care if they lay me off either, because I told, I told Bill that if they move my desk one more time, then, then I`m, I`m quitting, I`m going to quit. And, and I told Don too, because they`ve moved my desk four times already this year, and I used to be over by the window, and I could see the squirrels, and they were married, but then, they switched from the Swingline to the Boston stapler, but I kept my Swingline stapler because it didn`t bind up as much, and I kept the staples for the Swingline stapler and it`s not okay because if they take my stapler then I`ll set the building on fire... 
0
Reply
Male 157
douche
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Buiadh

Those 30,000 were directly orderd to be killed by Lenin they were considered "dissidents" meaning whoever he disliked. As for the Russian civil war the casualties are estimated low at 5million high at 9 million. Kinda makes "Lincolns War" small time huh?
0
Reply
Male 174
That guy is a D-bag. Just looking for trouble. I know I would feel safer with him off the street.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
@Crakr - Read the thread Altaru was defending the 30,000 killed "at Lenin`s command", because a war is a war and the Russian Revolution was as much one as the American Civil War.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Altaru: The responsibility for 620,000+ deaths rests with Jefferson Davis and the rebels. The Confederates fired on Fort Sumter and laid siege to it. Lincoln tried to avoid military conflict, whereas the Confederacy was actively seeking it.

Also at the end of the war Lincoln rejected calls for revenge and stiff penalties against the southern states and very generously allowed the remaining armed militias to surrender without imprisonment and immediately asked congress for funds to rebuild the south`s destroyed infrastructure.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Altaru: [quote]Well, his decision to start a civil war....[/quote]

Hold it right there bub, Lincoln did not decide to `start a war`. The south seceded and decided to start the war against the north, right after Lincoln was elected president. The congress declared war on the south, in return. Lincoln could not declare war at the time, the war powers act wasn`t passed until 1941 during the FDR presidency.
0
Reply
Male 191
hmm.. You are carrying a gun, Police are suspicious but still can`t ask for your id? In Pakistan, if we even argue with them, the beat the poo out of people!
0
Reply
Male 174
"It`s times like these where police brutality is needed."

You`re so right, dude. This officer is the very model of a good policeman. He stays calm and reasonable while this guy just pours poo all over him.
0
Reply
Male 184
It`s times like these where police brutality is needed.

Police should be given training on how to argue and deal with these douchebags. They are not required to `cite the ordnance` that`s just stupid. They should ask the guy this:

"If someone was raping your mother and I was there but I couldn`t remember the exact legal ordnance that says rape is illegal, would you like me to go and look it up or intervene?"
0
Reply
Male 23
Ron Paul signs lol
0
Reply
Male 14,331
Huh? I think the drambuies got ahold of you now.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Don`t cry. :(
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Buiadh

Well that steers around how they got the land,castles,jewels and money in the first place but ya keep payint their tax not like you have a choice. In a socialist state royalty are the first to go poo even a real democracy they tend to embody what`s wrong with the planet.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Buiadh

So take what you pay and multiply by all who pay taxes good amount isn`t it for what?? A name? That`s far from the socialism you preach. As for tourists they don`t get to see the queen.

BTW Dram do you mean drambuie??? I can agree with that!
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]So fu­ck you, and have a sh­itty day.[/quote]

You`re welcome!! Great rebuttal spoken like someone without an argument. I bet he`s got Che Guevara wardrobe.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Also I`ve had a dram or two... apologies for the typos.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
@yusuksomuch - Pay attention to the thread instead of picking tidbits out of context please. :)

ANd yes McGovern, a proportion of my taxes goes to the royals. I`m no monarchist, but I know that the queen is good for my country from the amount of money that you Muricans pay to come and see her. I think that the rest of th hangers on besides immediate family should be kicked to touch though.

And how much of my tax money goes towads it? 65p a year. Or £1.30 if you factor in my son (as I divided it per person using the population of the UK as a basis).

I`m happy to pay that.
0
Reply
Male 1,008
Giving sole credit to Lincoln for the American Civil War and the Abuse of Native Americans is a huge reach. You can give sole credit to Lenin for killing all of those political rivals though.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]@Altaru

Ya read it wrong! You sound so smart with that name calling and inability to read![/quote]
I read what you typed. I replied to what you typed.

You then proceeded to claim it meant something totally different.

I`m saying that if that`s what you meant, back it up with a coherent argument instead of trolling.

But you won`t. You`re either a troll, or an incoherent retard.

Neither of which is worth me wasting any more time on.

So fu­ck you, and have a sh­itty day.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote] I can speak from first hand knowledge that native americans are the poorest people in my country[/quote]

Well you`re Canadian!! Lol JK. Ya most probably went to the mob but some got a bunch of money and they can sell tax free tobacco!! I`m sure we could find the same in the former USSR. You know what`s funny though for someone who seems to think socialism`s the way to go I bet Buiadh pays taxes to the royal family. How`s that for socialism??
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Ya native american got the shaft but not the entire fricking population.[/quote]
That`s not really accurate. I can speak from first hand knowledge that native americans are the poorest people in my country, and just because some bands open casinos doesn`t mean there`s less poverty and suffering. They have casinos here too but it doesn`t do much except line the band leaders` pockets. They definitely suffer to this day.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
OMGZ I LEFT OUT PUNTUATIONZZZ!!! **head explodes**
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@patchgrabber

Beats going to every town and meeting death quotas or sending them to work camps to die. Ya native american got the shaft but not the entire fricking population. Now they have casinos fomer USSR not so much.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Here`s the difference one freed people the other wound up enslaving most them.[/quote]
Freed some people, killed a bunch of natives in a war that the US provoked by breaking treaties and dicking over them on payments and telling them where they can live, hunt, and go. Land of the free...for some.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Altaru

Ya read it wrong! You sound so smart with that name calling and inability to read!
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Altaru

I seem to recall Stalin killed for much the same reason. Here`s the difference one freed people the other wound up enslaving most them.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Ya we`d be much beter off two different nations one with Slavery still possibly legal LOL![/quote]
We`ll never know.

After all, 620,000 deaths later, Lincoln accomplished the goal of forcing a disgruntled South to conform to the standards of people they didn`t agree with.

Kind of like what Lenin did.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]So you admit you read that wrong then and have to resort to being a grammar nazi on a f**king forum to try tell yourself your a know it all? U mad bro?[/quote]
I`m not admitting that I read it wrong, I`m telling you you`re a f*cktard who doesn`t know what the hell you`re saying because you can`t form a coherent sentence, let alone full argument.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Ya we`d be much beter off two different nations one with Slavery still possibly legal LOL!! What could go wrong??[/quote]
I`m sure that`s how Lenin felt regarding division of wealth and quality of life for the proletariat.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Which resulted in your 600,000 deaths remark.[/quote]
Again, Lincoln COULD (and according to Ron Paul, who the guy in this video is supporting, SHOULD) have just let the South do it`s own thing and either flourish or fail, then possibly start a war on it`s own terms.

Instead, he decided to go to war, in the end costing 600,000 people their lives over political and economic disagreements.

Lenin COULD have let those 30,000 people continue to rise against him and potentially cause problems later on.

Instead he chose to take the problem at the roots.

Please, continue.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]Well, his decision to start a civil war instead of let the South do their own thing DID cause some 620,000 deaths...[/quote]

ROFL!! Ya we`d be much beter off two different nations one with Slavery still possibly legal LOL!! What could go wrong??
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Altaru

So you admit you read that wrong then and have to resort to being a grammar nazi on a f**king forum to try tell yourself your a know it all? U mad bro?
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Riiigght cause Lincoln killed 30,000 people to become president[/quote]
Well, his decision to start a civil war instead of let the South do their own thing DID cause some 620,000 deaths...
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]Was Lincoln a good guy because he wanted to abolish slavery?[/quote]
That helps.
[quote]Or did he just want to increase federal control over the continent? [/quote]
He certainly didn`t want the South to be it`s own nation but it was about alot more than slavery. North and South had two different economies and the South felt it wasn`t being represented something that had been brewing long before Lincoln took office. Which resulted in your 600,000 deaths remark.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
@Altaru - Thanks for restoring my faith in the US. I`m glad some can keep an open mind on issues like this.
0
Reply
Male 5,413
The second police officer seemed pretty cool. This guy should`ve just been fair about this.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]As did I. Once again take your own advice and READ Altaru.[/quote]
Maybe if your arguments were coherent and in proper English I COULD read them.

Instead, you glob everything together into a massive paragraph of poor grammar and horrid spelling and expect people to understand everything you say, then bitch at them when they can`t comprehend your stupidity.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
You`re not listening to a word I`m saying, you`re wasting my time.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]@Altaru

So back to the original subject with that all said would you consider him now such a great leader. Greater than Lincoln?[/quote]
I NEVER said he was greater than Lincoln, now did I?

Lincoln suffered through failure after failure, but persisted and became a charismatic leader that, regardless of his intentions, achieved great things.

Lenin did what he thought was best for his people, but in hindsight he failed because of a bad decision (trusting Stalin).

Lincoln succeeded, Lenin failed. That says enough.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Buiadh

So the "truth" is Lenin was a beter than Lincoln. Riiigght cause Lincoln killed 30,000 people to become president and then put a man into a position to take over who killed 23 million?
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Seeing as we`re twisting history, McGovern.

Was Lincoln a good guy because he wanted to abolish slavery?

Or did he just want to increase federal control over the continent?

Also, he *caused* 600,000 deaths. Is he a bad man now?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Altaru
[quote]See what I just did? I just admitted that something that my country did was wrong.

Wasn`t hard to do, was it?[/quote]

As did I. Once again take your own advice and READ Altaru.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
*Sigh*

Difference between opinion and truth, McGovern.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Altaru

So back to the original subject with that all said would you consider him now such a great leader. Greater than Lincoln?
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Umm pretty sure I was pointing out the whole Native American genocide or are you picking what to see again?[/quote]
He wasn`t talking about that, dipsh*t, he was talking about the "supplying the South with weapons" part.

If you can`t even read, maybe it`s best if you don`t get into an argument via text over the internet.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Lenin appointed Stalin General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union which let him put all his supporters where he wanted for power.[/quote]
Because Stalin was a good politician. He put on an act, told the right people what they wanted to hear until he was in power, then did what he wanted, like the vast majority of politicians through history. It`s not the first time a liar and a cheat gained the trust of someone only to f*ck them afterwards.

It`s happened in American history too... In fact, it happens every election!

And I`m not ignoring what Lenin did. But to act like he could have had the hindsight that you have now is ignorance.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Buiadh

If you know nothing on the subject besides opinion, it`s best to keep shut mate. See how that works? LENIN PUT STALIN WERE HE ROSE TO POWER! Not such a great leader then huh?(ignoring the 30,000 people he killed with his own orders)

[quote]See what I just did? I just admitted that something that my country did was wrong. [/quote]

Umm pretty sure I was pointing out the whole Native American genocide or are you picking what to see again?
0
Reply
Male 6,737
It`s like arguing with a brick wall tbh. If you know nothing on the subject besides looking up Wikipedia on it, it`s best to keep shtum mate.

Lenin realised Stalin would be an awful leader. It was too late though and he was already destined to take power. Lenin made a mistake. He wrote his last testament which was swept under the rug by Stalin and his cronies until some time after Stalins death, in this he asks that Stalin does not take power for fear of ruining the country.

Also regards the "genocide", it was a civil war, the whites killed as many as the reds if not more. In order to continue his revolution he had to clear out anyone that would cause problems. As is the case with all revolutions, including the Murican one. Or was that a peaceful war?

Got to break eggs to make an omelette.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@McGovern: Yeah, the history tends to get forgotten. It`s true that Lincoln didn`t start the screwing over of the native americans, the US was cheating them since 1850, but Lincoln did continue the campaign against them. I`m not saying Lincoln wasn`t good in his own right, I`m just saying both Lenin and Lincoln had their good outcomes, and their bad ones. The scale of Lenin`s may be larger, but now you`re just into a heap paradox.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
It is widely documented Lincoln disapproved of slavery though.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
"Funny how the Brits like to overlook that little tidbit of info."

No, I think you`ll find that most Brits that are versed ont he subject are in agreement that it was disgracefull.

See what I just did? I just admitted that something that my country did was wrong.

Wasn`t hard to do, was it?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@patchgrabber

That was a result of 450-800 settler being killed by the Sioux and resulted in 150 dead Sioux/38 executed. Not sure what number get you the genocide title but Jackson killed waaay more moving them which resulted in this. As for abolishing slavery not sure how much he cared hard to say he`s been dead for awhile but a big part had to do with getting the British to stop suppling the Confederacy with weapons ya know pointing out the whole hypocrisy of that. Funny how the Brits like to overlook that little tidbit of info.
0
Reply
Male 1,243
While we are on the subject of communism, although there are plenty of brainwashed people who think that it is `evil` it does present a more realistic way forward for the world, the so called democracy of our capitalist society is shamefully wasteful and if not checked will be the downfall of our planet. Mind you a lot of the same communist haters would be happy for the end of the world as it would bring them closer to their god. Funny that.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Buiadh

SO that`s why he put him in a position to get that power suuure dude! Sounds like Lenins system had a flaw then wouldn`t ya say?
0
Reply
Male 1,243
Why the fu*k would a country`s laws allow people to carry guns in the street like that? You know for supposedly being a developed country the US can be really backward. Definite cop baiter, that guy sounds like a complete assh*le.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Altaru

Lenin appointed Stalin General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union which let him put all his supporters where he wanted for power. Lenin close to the time of his death decided that was bad but couldn`t accomplish anything therby paving the way for Stalin. It was the result of his own actions someone that at the point when he put Stalin in that position saw Stalin as a close ally. Besides blissfully ignoring the 30,000 people or so he killed that disagreed with him you might want to take your own advice and remove your head from your own ass.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@McGovern: No, it was Lincoln. Look up dakota war of 1862. Also Lincoln won his 1864 election by shady means, and didn`t really care much about abolishing slavery until it helped him get support. Like I said, "honest" abe told states like maryland that they could keep slaves to assure their fealty, then turned on them and said they couldn`t.
0
Reply
Male 3,212
Bottom line- cops do what they want and twist laws to do so. Whining about it accomplishes nothing. It is clear, through court decisions and government funding to expand police arsenals, that we can`t prevail upon the `authorities` to reign them in.
That leaves civil disobedience, which only provokes violence from police. You want your freedoms, you must make their response too costly.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
@McGovern1981 - Nice Wiki job there. Altaru is right, Lenin didn`t want Stalin to succeed after him. He knew that Stalins ideas were perverse to what his government stood for.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Lenin considered Stalin a loyal ally and appointed him to the office which allowed him to take control after he stepped down.[/quote]
Except that, according to every source I`ve come across, Lenin argued AGAINST Stalin assuming power...

I will agree with Buiadh here on one thing: `Muricans tend to have a very ignorant view of the world around them.

Maybe if people like you would pull your head out of your ass and see things for what they actually are, America could remain a super-power instead of degrading into a relic. Instead, you treat knowledge and reality as dangerous to your perfect little bubble of belief...
0
Reply
Male 3,482
I`m pretty sure when they get an actual CALL about someone, the situation changes a little.

We don`t know what the person who called said, we just know that someone called, reported him, and the police dispatched someone to deal with a potential problem.

If cops just brushed off every call based on the person in question "not doing anything wrong" when the cops show up, then they`d never catch any actual criminals after robberies and all.

He`s cop baiting, pure and simple.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Buiadh

Ummm Lenin considered Stalin a loyal ally and appointed him to the office which allowed him to take control after he stepped down.


See buddies!!!
0
Reply
Male 6,737
"Sorry man, your latest comment ain`t generating any confidence."

I don`t expect my comments would sway anyone to be honest. Most people in the western world, chiefly the US were given a side of the story that differs from the truth. It`s similar to the propaganda the USSR put out about the US, it`s easy to see how it`s wrong, but on the other side of the fence the perspectie is different.

I`m not a communist, but I like to verse myself in things that take my interest and the Russian revolution is one of them. I`d advise you, and anyone else with an open mind, to actually research Lenin and read some of his work. It will open your mind, you don`t have to buy into his form of government or his ideas, but you`ll see why he did what he did for the good of the country.

And Stalin =/= Lenin.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Patch
The Native American genocide was Andrew Jackson not Lincoln.
0
Reply
Male 1,871
I couldn`t idenitfy where this happened but in my state, the laws allow officers to ask for your identity any time they want. This is limited to name and city of residence and does not require photo ID.

As for carrying a weapon openly, unles there are laws from the state or local government requiring they be carried in a specific way, open carry is perfectly legal.

Exercising your right to carry a firearm does not constitute inciting a panic. Pointing the thing around and making threats does.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
yusuksomuch:[quote]equality for all[/quote]
except for those pesky native americans, I suppose. Ordering the greatest mass execution in your country`s history, and only freeing slaves in border states when pushed to weaken the confederacy.
0
Reply
Male 1,008
"You Muricans need to stop seeing the world through red,white and blue glasses and get some sense of perspective outside of your limited range of politics."

so we dont think a man who murdered thousands of political prisoners and adversaries (in a time when this was acceptable according to you) 10x better than a man who fought for equality for all in a time when equality for all was not a common concept makes us biased huh? riiiiiiight.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@Buiadh

Sorry man, your latest comment ain`t generating any confidence.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
Looked to me as though he was trolling for an illegal arrest so he could sue.

Couple of points puzzle me. Do you need a permit for open-carry or is that just the default - that anybody can openly carry firearms?

If the former then surely the cops should have the right to see the permit? I have to show my driver`s licence if stopped on a motoring matter.

Are only citizens permitted open-carry? If I, a Brit, chose to walk around this town tooled up would that be ok? How would they know I wasn`t a citizen (or indeed, wanted felon) without ID?
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Lenin dragged Russia into the 20th Century single handedly, Tzarist Russia was poor and backward, it`s people starving while the rich lived in luxury.

His revolution put the people first and had he lived longer and put more of his ideas in place then Russia would be the greater of the two latter-20th century superpowers.

He killed thousands, yes. But the death penalty was common back then. Some backwards countries still employ it today!!

He did not pave the road for Stalinism, Stalin isn`t a fraction of the man Lenin was or could have been. You Muricans need to stop seeing the world through red,white and blue glasses and get some sense of perspective outside of your limited range of politics.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@ozmose: I`ve never understood the need for *concealed* carry. Why do you need to conceal it? If you Americans want your guns so much fine whatever, that`s your problem, but imo there is no cogent argument for concealment.
0
Reply
Male 450
I ******* hate morons like this.
I have my concealed carry permit and I carry a gun. We also have open carry in Michigan, but I still keep my gun concealed. Why? Because there`s no ******* reason to let people know you have a gun on you!!! People are confused when I tell them I support gun rights, but I`d rather shoot my own **** off than join the NRA. Now you know. It`s because of idiots like this ,and Ted Nugent.
The do stupid **** just because the can. If you told them it was their god given right as an American to corn hole a seagull in the middle of the street. They`d be downtown the next day with a bag of birdseed and a tube of KY jelly.
0
Reply
Male 1,008
"Lenin was 10x the man Lincoln was, brush upon history"

oh yes, Americans are the ignorant ones, thanks for the chuckle
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]Casual mass murder seems popular in the U.S[/quote]


Uhhh nice try but that guy in Norway and the Islamic wackjob in France seem to say it`s not exclusily a U.S. thing... Well that and the whole nazi thing that happened.
0
Reply
Male 1,735
Idiot baiter, all the way.
0
Reply
Male 2,694
Was within his rights but what a tool! Hey buddy, you ain`t helping to defend your 2nd amendment rights by carrying a rifle openly in a place where the only thing to shoot is another person.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Where the hell are you Europeans getting your news/education from ?[/quote]
Must be the same source you get your information on other countries from.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
SIZT LINK IST BRRROKEN!!!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Lenin was 10x the man Lincoln was.[/quote]

No really, talk about epic fail.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
[quote]Casual mass murder seems popular in the U.S[/quote]

Where the hell are you Europeans getting your news/education from ?
0
Reply
Male 113
Casual mass murder seems popular in the U.S along with your right to demonstrate about your knowing your rights? so you can post videos on youtube? about how hard done by you are for holding a scoped rifle & pistol(auto i guess)in a public place and surprise!A copper wants to have a `chat`. Just weird to outsiders i guess
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Buiadh: [quote]Lenin was 10x the man Lincoln was.[/quote]

Lenin never freed a single slave, in fact he enslaved the Russian people into an ideology that it`s still having problems getting rid of.

Abraham Lincoln endured failure after failure and he never gave up, he tragically lost 3 sons and still kept our Union together through a mighty civil war. He also gave one the most eloquent and well known speech of any politician ever, The Gettysburg Address.

So Buiadh, that means you`re either the biggest troll to have ever lived or a dyed in the wool communist.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"Also [email protected] Lenin was 10x the man Lincoln was. Brush upon history."

Lenin was a prick who preyed on the plight of an entire country, and destroyed them.

I cannot believe you think he was great.

Everything you ever say from now on is invalid.
0
Reply
Male 670
That little punk needs to get a job and a life.
0
Reply
Male 101
Actually, if the officers wanted to do so, most states have a law which would allow them to take this douchenozzle into custody. It`s called inducing panic. It is a crime which requires a witness to testify that the actions of suspect caused them to fear for their safety.

Clearly, this guy walking around with Ron Paul signs would freak anyone out. That was probably why the PD received a call. A Ron Paul supporter walking down the street with two openly carried guns.

He could have easily met up with less reasonable offices who could have rolled up on him with lights strobing, guns or tasers out, and dropped him. They could have arrested him. Yeah, a load of lawyer money and personal time later, the charges may get thrown out by a decent judge, but do you want to be the test case?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Buiadh

Ummmm Lenin is considered to have commited a genocide to about 30,000 people and paved the way for Stalin who commited a genocide to 23 million. Ya great guy!!
0
Reply
Male 6,077
Police were called about a man with a gun. They`re obligated to investigate. If they didn`t and someone was shot it would be , in part, thier fault for ignoring the call. They exhibited amazing control under the circumstance this this guy really is a complete a-hole. He`s clearly baiting them.
0
Reply
Male 594
What a little prick, he wouldn`t even let the officer answer his questions...
0
Reply
Male 2,389
The problem with this guy, is that he`s open carrying a rifle. Well within his rights yes, but I believe he`s protesting something. If that`s the case there are certain laws about carrying firearms at a picket line, parade, riot etc.. It`s not my state in question so I don`t know the laws.

I`m all for open carry and I do every day, but I would never ever ever ever ever. Ever ever ever carry a rifle as a self defense weapon. It`s ridiculous. I think the guy is trying to make a point buy completely going about it the wrong way. Side note, I didn`t think the cops were to out of line.
0
Reply
Male 157
Back to Police Academy bros
0
Reply
Male 330
@Buiadh:

Lenin was 10x the man Lincoln was? What sort of socialist, bull crap history are you getting over there?
0
Reply
Male 5,620
I side with the cops on this one. The man had been reported as trespassing, and apparently arguing with someone else in town. He is carrying a political sign, and two firearms. I think he is suspicious, and we don`t know what the other person reported exactly. The fact that he is filming, and immediately defensive makes it even the more suspicious.

I am a conservative, and believe in gun rights. Also, I study psychology and practice psychology. I would have detained this man for questioning myself had I been in those officer`s shoes. I find no fault in their actions.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
He may well have the right to open carry, but other people are going to be alarmed by that and call the police. The cops had specific information from a member of the public that something suspicious was happening, which justifies the stop.

If they had just been driving past and had pulled over to stop him, that would probably be unlawful detention, but they were responding to a specific call.

[quote]The police in the UK have no right to demand ID without any reason. You have no legal requirement to even carry identification. [/quote]
True, but (in Scotland at least) you are required to give your correct name and address if asked - and they always ask.
That`s all you`re required to say though.

0
Reply
Male 226
Alright so, first. This is in Medford, OR, which allows open carry. He has every right to be there, he has every right to be carrying that rifle and pistol, he has every right to be holding that sign.

The cops have every right to ASK for identification and he has every right to refuse to give it. The cops also have no right to detain him or take away his firearms.

That does not mean he`s not retarded. A gun isn`t a means to make a statement, it is a tool of self defense. Using a rifle for self defense is impractical and idiotic.

People like this do more to hurt the perception of gun carriers than they do to help it. Most people don`t know a lot about the gun laws in their state. This brings into light that any crazy person could walk down the street carrying a hunting rifle. That`s not going to get supporters.

0
Reply
Male 6,737
Also [email protected] Lenin was 10x the man Lincoln was. Brush upon history.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
I think it`s ridiculous that people can behave like this.

And walking around with firearms!? Come on America, I think it`s ridiculous that a first world country would allow people to walk around with a deadly weapon. Absolutely crazy.
0
Reply
Male 559
That guy is an ass, but the cops deserve it because they are cops. All cops are bad people. No exceptions.
0
Reply
Female 2,761
and if they DIDN`T stop a random guy walking around with a gun and something happened...
0
Reply
Male 12
What an annoying little pooface
0
Reply
Male 550
Hello admins/programmers
Might there be a way to sort the comments by numbers of posts to get daily posters (i`m thinking specially of Gerry1of1) listed on top?
0
Reply
Male 270
Guy sounds like Christopher Mintz-Plasse
0
Reply
Male 1,293
Populize

P.S. "...it would of saved everyones time!"

Why am I not surprised that the kind of supine idiot that says that a man should be detained for legally carrying a firearm would make two basic, painful grammatical errors in three words?

It would HAVE saved everyone`s time if these officers had not illegally detained this man.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
The funny thing is that the police announce that they do this on every stop. That there is a policy and common practice of breaking the law and harassing private citizens.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
populize

Then you are a fool. The police in the UK have no right to demand ID without any reason. You have no legal requirement to even carry identification.

CreamK

Why? He did no-one any harm. Why should the police have any right to harass him? You are just acclimatised to the pathetic European attitude to government and to firearms. We are free people; the government should be made aware of that.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
In what way are these "decent cops"? They are ignorant, they are lying, they are harassing a person with no lawful excuse.
0
Reply
Male 1,421
What an a-hole, common sense should take over here. If cops see a man carrying two guns in the middle of town they should be within full rights to snag them away from him forever. This is just stupid and good example of a society that run by lawyers and not common sense.
0
Reply
Male 46
America is so backwards! The police are there to protect you at the end of the day! Everybody in america seems to know `Their Rights`. In the UK if the police ask for your I.D you just show them and then get on your way!. This idiot was carrying a firearm down the street of course your going to be stopped! Idiots like this that waste police time because they want an arguement wind me up! Yes they could be out there fighting real crime, If this idiot had just shown his I.D it would of saved everyones time!.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
He`s both.. mainly the first one..
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Ollie: [quote]That`s because Illinois is run by socialist thugs.[/quote]

Add the term `Gangster` in that sentence and your dead on. We are also the only state to still be defying the recent supreme court ruling regarding concealed carrying of guns.

It`s not that Illinoisans are anti-gun, except for Chicago, hunting is still very popular. We just can`t shake the liberal stranglehold Chicago has on the Springfield legislature.

It`s a shame that the `Land of Lincoln` has become the Land of Lenin.
0
Reply
Male 1,404
This is so full of fail. The subject is with in his rights in that particular state but, I call BS on the principal officer not being briefed on this individual ahead of time and I call BS on the Sargent for not taking command of the situation as well as having to be called out by the subject before stepping up. Yea the subject is within his right`s but, he is still a d-bag. This could have been handled more professionally.
0
Reply
Male 714
i thought the police could shoot a perp if he was carrying a gun. problem solved.
0
Reply
Male 145
I like how people are ridiculing the guy in the video for knowing his rights.

Ha! What a drating dumbass!
0
Reply
Male 926
This kid has a fundamental misunderstanding of criminal procedure.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]I read the link you posted, but does that guy have the right to carry around a rifle like that?[/quote]
Yes, and he still has that right even if the cops get a complaint from some hysterical idiot.
0
Reply
Male 835
This man does nt represent Oregon in any fashion. He`s a c*ntmelon and probably from east of the Cascades. Everyone on the west side hopes that the east side will just go away if we ignore them.
0
Reply
Male 314
@dingdingdong
I read the link you posted, but does that guy have the right to carry around a rifle like that?
0
Reply
Male 314
wow...
what an attention whore. Even if it was legal wth do you think will happen when you walk down a sidewalk with a rifle on your back. drating douche
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]This attention seeking idiot is lucky he wasn`t tazed on the spot, arrested, had his camera memory accidentally erased and had his guns confiscated for evidence. That is exactly what would`ve happened if he tried that here in Illinois.[/quote]
LOL! That`s because Illinois is run by socialist thugs. Okay, the guy was a total douchebag, but last time I checked, that`s not a crime. Legally, he was in the right on every single point, and he knew it. He did interrupt the cops, but only when they lied. He interrupted them so much, because they were lying so much.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
What a douche.

While he was holding them up with his bullpoo, some black kid in a hoodie got shot.
0
Reply
Male 955
And to the argument of right of privacy, if he truly wanted to remain in that realm he wouldn`t have consented to be in the paper, instead he wants to be a douchecanoe. The same people that complain about their request for ID would be up in arms about some crazy guy shooting people if they didn`t ID that one. No win situation for everyone
0
Reply
Male 2,841
Just another assclown trying to prove a point.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
What a douche.

While he was holding them up with his bullpoo, some black kid in a hoodie got shot.
0
Reply
Male 469
douchebag trouble starter. If he disagrees then take it up with the judge and sue them. All he is doing is trying to play gotcha and incite the cops so he can turn into the next "Don`t taze me bro!"
0
Reply
Male 955
The guy was being unreasonable, Cops did a good job being patient, I wish we heard more about things like this.
0
Reply
Male 1,510
Very well put @nac007. Use your rights or lose `em.
Oregon is an open carry state (not in some cities).
http://www.opencarry.org/or.html
0
Reply
2,842
ya he was a douche, but walking around with a gun isnt illegal and if you`re not driving there isnt a law saying you need to have an ID or ID your self...wither way, could have gone much worse
0
Reply
Male 35
The only problem I heard was when the second officer said we will uphold what they asked us to do. Officers it is not your job to uphold peoples requests, your job is to uphold the law, if no laws were being broken, then you should have moved on your way. However in the case of firearms while not required, I think human decency should dictate you show who you are and that you are not malicious at the least...... for now, if the police state gets any worse I may have to rethink that opinion as well.
0
Reply
Male 35
lucky man if I tried that in my state I would be beaten, hauled in, screwed over legally and wind up owing the police everything except my first born.
0
Reply
Male 12
If the man did not have the right to openly carry (according to state and local law) firearms, the police would have arrested him on the spot. If he was required to have a permit to openly carry firearms, the police would know it, and probably arrest him (not argue) for refusing to show his licence.

Since the above did not happen (open carry law varies widely across the US), it is likely that the man is within his legal rights to openly carry firearms without a licence.

That said, the police were likely acting according to their training and direction of their superiors. They don`t (and probably can`t) memorize every law and ordinance, and likely do their best to uphold the law. It is likely that some of the procedures established and trained into the officers do not mesh perfectly with all laws at all times. The man seems to be trying to bring one such inconsistency to light, and thus maintain his rights (use it or lose it style).
0
Reply
Male 483
What an annoying douche. Definitely a cop baiter. Don`t provoke police and hide behind the law...that`s a waste of everyone`s time and phenomenally immature. This guy needs to grow up.
0
Reply
Male 234
First, the man was never actually detained. He was free to walk away at any time. Second, the man mentioned Oregon and the Oregon gun law specifically states that he must have a permit to carry a pistol. If he is in Oregon, as I heard, he was breaking the law. I believe the police handled this situation very well, even when the one cop walked away and let the other step in because he was clearly getting frustrated with the man.
0
Reply
Male 612
he should be arrested for lewd conduct for walking around the town and talking to officers while a penis is obviously in his mouth.
0
Reply
Male 40,764
@Spearman: You don`t need a liscence to walk down the street. You don`t need police permission either. At least not yet...
0
Reply
Male 197
I live in Canada.
0
Reply
Male 208
I`m not sure about OR, but here in Mass (one of the toughest states on gun control), you need a license to carry any firearm. If his state requires a license to carry, then they have a right to ask for his ID based on the fact that he`s carrying. For all they know, he could have just gotten that off the street and was on his way to the local elementary school. If they see him carrying a weapon (in my state, at least), they have the right to ask for ID to make sure he`s legally allowed to be in possession of that firearm. Saying otherwise is like saying that police don`t have a right to ask for your driver`s license when they pull you over for speeding - they need to make sure you`re legally allowed to be driving in the first place, before anything else.
0
Reply
Male 453
Gun troll
0
Reply
Male 17,511
I feel this guy is walking a thin line here and he knows it. This guy was baiting the officers, and the public, to get this video footage and potentially file a lawsuit.

This attention seeking idiot is lucky he wasn`t tazed on the spot, arrested, had his camera memory accidentally erased and had his guns confiscated for evidence. That is exactly what would`ve happened if he tried that here in Illinois.
0
Reply
Male 39,929

What was dat? Pwobabwy some woser attention whore.
0
Reply
Male 1,510

Some state don`t require firearm licenses.
0
Reply
Male 761
He`s walking around with a rifle and a pistol and thinks cops have no right to get his ID?? He needs to have license for those, so the cops have every right to see it.
0
Reply
Male 2,172
Idiot cop baiter. He keeps cutting the cop while he`s talking.

That guy was obviously making a lot of people anxious and it`s a good thing he was removed from the street.
0
Reply
Male 141
I hope that dude gets shot in the ass by an accidental discharge of a lawfully carried firearm.
0
Reply
Male 110
@5Cats You are totally correct. The "can I see your ID" line is a total excuse to violate our right to privacy, again, like I posted earlier, a police officer has NO right to ask for your ID unless they are detaining you/stopping you for breaking the law. If you have done nothing illegal or given them probable cause, which this man has not done. Carrying a firearm in public out in the open is not a crime. Now if he were concealing said firearm, then they would have a reason to check his ID/license. But even asking for his ID is illegal under the law. Just one SMALL example of the police violating our rights and us letting them. Basically. When an officer asks you if you "consent to them searching you/your property" they have no probable cause/reason to legally do so, so they ask you if they can, if you say no, which you are fully in your legal rights to do, they will badger you until you agree, thus giving them permission to violate your rights. Example 2 o
0
Reply
Male 3,431
Films like this just piss me off.
0
Reply
Male 110
@rick_s They do not have a right to see your ID unless they are detaining you, which they don`t have the right to do for a lawful act or if they "contact" you. He is protesting the fact that they are detaining him at all and breaking the law in doing so. Which is not his job, like the gentleman says.
0
Reply
Male 1,510
Gun laws are different in every state. I think he is legally able to walk around with an open carry gun here. No license required. As long as it is not concealed, he`s allowed to carry. That`s the law for his state/city, and the cops shouldn`t have taken the guns off him and asked for his ID without obvious evidence of a crime.

Where I live now, I`m able to walk around outside with a loaded/holstered pistol. With no license required. I don`t, but I can. Also, most stores have signs stating no weapons, so I wouldn`t be able to enter them.
0
Reply
Male 30
This loser is right, sort of. You do not have to present any form of legal identification to the police, ie drivers license or pass port, but you do have to tell them your name so that they may have your name for their reports and to check for warrants. And of course this idiot brings race into it.

I am indeed a supporter of Ron Paul, but this guy walking around with the signs, guns, and of course a video camera gives us all a bad name and I would likely punch him if I saw him.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
Spammers are back i see
0
Reply
Male 40,764
The police violate our rights on a regular basis, it`s considered `normal` to violate these days.

Criminals have more rights than honest citizens.
0
Reply
Male 226
Ahh I do love seeing laws and amendments meant to protect people getting abused by lowlifes.

He was obviously carrying around the rifle to cause trouble. "You know who I am" he says. He wanted this. Well, not this, he wanted a scene to try to make a statement.

Also lol Ron Paul supporter.
0
Reply
Male 168
Just beat the poo out of him while yelling stop resisting that usually works.
0
Reply
Male 3,332
I hate when people argue by talking over the other person. And, I can tell you what right the cops had to see your ID. You`re carrying a fire arm. You must be licensed to carry a fire arm. It`s your right to carry one when you have the license for it. The cops have the right to ask you for said license.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
So, if someone complains about another person exercising his constitutional rights, that gives the cops the authority to violate those rights. Does that pretty well describe this situation.
0
Reply
Male 321
This guy is a dumbass, and these cops were great and very patient.
0
Reply
Male 101
Respect to that cop as well, glad to see he kept his cool
0
Reply
Male 101
Welcome to America!
0
Reply
Male 373
Tool.
0
Reply
Male 65
this guy is a fool.....
0
Reply
Female 8,043
Link: Unlawful Detainment? And Seizure Of A Firearm [Rate Link] - Quite the conundrum, is he an idiot cop baiter or just exercising his lawful rights as a citizen? Side note: Decent Cops
0
Reply