PDA

View Full Version : Open Carry Police Encounter (Video) - Oceanside 3


CitaDeL
01-25-2011, 3:20 PM
IkQ-pbDhfHE

gobler
01-25-2011, 3:37 PM
[sniff, sniff] I detect a violation of the 4th A, and a hint of a law suit ....

safewaysecurity
01-25-2011, 3:42 PM
Everytime I see a 12031 check I keep screaming in the back of my head " You realize that the gun can be loaded in under 2 seconds and checking if it's loaded does not accomplish anything or make anyone safer"

This is why everytime i see an officer performing an (e) check it's pretty clear they just like to trample over peoples rights and hate that a free american has the right to own and carry a firearm.

vantec08
01-25-2011, 3:46 PM
It doesnt have jack squat to do with safety . .. its about authority, pure and simple.

eaglemike
01-25-2011, 3:47 PM
Handcuffs!!!! Just wow!!!! :mad:

Ogolden1
01-25-2011, 3:58 PM
[sniff, sniff] I detect a violation of the 4th A, and a hint of a law suit ....

:kest: ... Cuffed him up for the e-check!

Window_Seat
01-25-2011, 4:09 PM
:kest: ... Cuffed him up for the e-check!

Yes... I do predict some kind of action. I didn't take 3 hours like some of these have.

Jason Davis?

Erik.

PsychGuy274
01-25-2011, 4:13 PM
Wow...really? Being placed in handcuffs for an e-check?

This is a spoof video, right?

Please tell me this is a spoof video. :mad:

eaglemike
01-25-2011, 4:37 PM
I really hope Jason/CGF or someone can stick it to OPD for this one. Putting a law-abiding citizen in cuffs? This is so full of fail......

Hopalong
01-25-2011, 4:39 PM
Overdone, and silly.

Ogolden1
01-25-2011, 5:07 PM
OK, I found some more background info on this stop:

UOCer says: I Unknowingly walked into the aftermath of a bank robbery!

Went on my usual walk today. On the way I decided to stop and get a burger at McDonald's at the corner of College BLVD and Oceanside BLVD. I learned after this encounter with the OPD that a white male had just robbed the Chase Bank that is next to the McDonald's. So for this I think that I will let the fact that they did handcuff me briefly slide this time beings that I did fit the physical description of their suspect. However the officer did take out my mags and inspect them. All in all not too bad of an experience I have certainly seen much worse!

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?86005-Unknowingly-walked-into-the-aftermath-or-a-bank-robbery

Given this additional info, I would say that was a success!

PsychGuy274
01-25-2011, 5:08 PM
OK, I found some more background info on this stop:

UOCer says: I Unknowingly walked into the aftermath of a bank robbery!

Went on my usual walk today. On the way I decided to stop and get a burger at McDonald's at the corner of College BLVD and Oceanside BLVD. I learned after this encounter with the OPD that a white male had just robbed the Chase Bank that is next to the McDonald's. So for this I think that I will let the fact that they did handcuff me briefly slide this time beings that I did fit the physical description of their suspect. However the officer did take out my mags and inspect them. All in all not too bad of an experience I have certainly seen much worse!

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?86005-Unknowingly-walked-into-the-aftermath-or-a-bank-robbery

Given this additional info, I would say that was a success!

OK, fair enough. Knowing that, this was a good stop that could have been horrible.

choprzrul
01-25-2011, 5:11 PM
Hmmm....not sure one this one. Who would rob a bank and then casually stroll around the corner wearing an unloaded handgun in plain sight? Not sure OP fits the modus operandi of a bank robber.

.

erratikmind
01-25-2011, 5:19 PM
OK, I found some more background info on this stop:

UOCer says: I Unknowingly walked into the aftermath of a bank robbery!

Went on my usual walk today. On the way I decided to stop and get a burger at McDonald's at the corner of College BLVD and Oceanside BLVD. I learned after this encounter with the OPD that a white male had just robbed the Chase Bank that is next to the McDonald's. So for this I think that I will let the fact that they did handcuff me briefly slide this time beings that I did fit the physical description of their suspect. However the officer did take out my mags and inspect them. All in all not too bad of an experience I have certainly seen much worse!

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?86005-Unknowingly-walked-into-the-aftermath-or-a-bank-robbery

Given this additional info, I would say that was a success!

Thank you for adding the additional information. The UOCer seems to have a good/fair head.

Decoligny
01-25-2011, 7:22 PM
The problem is that the LEO was in no way making any assumption that the UOCer was a suspect in a bank robbery, so there was no reason to cuff him. He simply cuffed him asked for ID, did an e-check, and then for some unknown reason checked his full magazines. If the LEO was on the lookout for a fugitive bank robber he would have approached the UOCer and done a full on felony stop. He would have demanded the UOCer identify himself as part of the investigation of a crime, bank robbery.

Just because a crime happened in the vicinity does not make this any less a pure violation of this guy's rights.

Asrielja
01-25-2011, 9:05 PM
I feel the police acted professionally, and politely. They informed him that he was not under arrest, and he stayed calm. You have to put yourself in the police mans shoes, i feel i would have taken the same actions. Also the situation at hand seem to have justify there actions.

Its just nice to see that police are actively doing there job in a polite manner, this could have easily gone sour.

I used to do some volunteer work with the Sheriffs and i totally understand handcuffing the person in this video. It was to rule out any possibility of any body miss communication, control of the situation, and overall safety.

The only bad i really see in this video is i feel the officer should have explained the reason for the search(unless it wasnt in the video)

WDE91
01-25-2011, 9:24 PM
no bueno^^^

Asrielja
01-25-2011, 10:40 PM
lets be honest, do we really think this officer was searching this man with less then legitimate intent. My previous statement is of course my opinion, and im aware most will probably not agree. I just feel that i can trust my local police.

N6ATF
01-25-2011, 10:53 PM
The problem is that the LEO was in no way making any assumption that the UOCer was a suspect in a bank robbery, so there was no reason to cuff him. He simply cuffed him asked for ID, did an e-check, and then for some unknown reason checked his full magazines. If the LEO was on the lookout for a fugitive bank robber he would have approached the UOCer and done a full on felony stop. He would have demanded the UOCer identify himself as part of the investigation of a crime, bank robbery.

Just because a crime happened in the vicinity does not make this any less a pure violation of this guy's rights.

:iamwithstupid:

Manic Moran
01-25-2011, 10:54 PM
Hmmm....not sure one this one. Who would rob a bank and then casually stroll around the corner wearing an unloaded handgun in plain sight? Not sure OP fits the modus operandi of a bank robber.

.

Easy. A bank robber who knows that strolling around casually whilst wearing an unloaded handgun is the next-to-last person the police would suspect!

NTM

Dhena81
01-25-2011, 10:58 PM
Really you can be cuffed then and feel ok about it I wouldn't.

N6ATF
01-25-2011, 11:18 PM
Easy. A bank robber who knows that strolling around casually whilst wearing an unloaded handgun is the next-to-last person the police would suspect!

NTM

Actually, bank robbers would be better off dressing like gangstas, as UOCers (and other law-abiding citizens) appear to be higher up on the priority list for some police than actual criminals.

12voltguy
01-26-2011, 6:38 AM
Really you can be cuffed then and feel ok about it I wouldn't.

some are ok with it.....
http://www.uncoverage.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/633564940352646100-sheeple.jpg

outkast353
01-26-2011, 7:56 AM
So when you UOCers walk around are you checked by every police officer that sees you? if so it's like UOC is not really legal. I imagine it would be like every time you drive your car you are pulled over and asked for license and registration.

meangreen46
01-26-2011, 8:17 AM
Hmmm....not sure one this one. Who would rob a bank and then casually stroll around the corner wearing an unloaded handgun in plain sight? Not sure OP fits the modus operandi of a bank robber.

.

What is the MO of a Bank Robber? If you know, I'm sure the FBI has a job opening. ;)

FWIW - The video does not show the initial contact made by the officer. In other words, we don't know if he told the UOCer that there was a bank robbery and he fit the decription. The officer acted professionally....plain and simple.

gravedigger
01-26-2011, 8:23 AM
Handcuffs!!!! Just wow!!!! :mad:

Not at all surprising act by the Oceanside (CA.) Police Department. OPD operates like the IRS, using intimidation, embarrassment, and cutting-edge abuse of authority under color of the badge on a routine basis. I am surprised that they didn't face plant him into the pavement though.

QQQ
01-26-2011, 8:32 AM
Usually this situation would make me sad for a while.

But...If he met the physical description of the robbery suspect, I would be disappointed if the officers had NOT stopped him. And I'm glad to see that the UOCer was on his way with his property in a few seconds.

FredoSD
01-26-2011, 9:54 AM
The only problems I have with the video are 1) being cuffed, if he was being checked to make sure he was not the bank robber then more cops would have been there.
2) The camera man did a fairly crappy job :D

Decoligny
01-26-2011, 9:56 AM
Usually this situation would make me sad for a while.

But...If he met the physical description of the robbery suspect, I would be disappointed if the officers had NOT stopped him. And I'm glad to see that the UOCer was on his way with his property in a few seconds.

If he met the physical description of the bank robber, I would think that the LOE would NOT have allowed the UOC to not identify himself.

I would also think that if he met the physical description of the bank robber, and the LEO was looking for the bank robber, and the LEO actually thought the OP could be the bank robber, and the OP was armed, then the LEO would have approached with gun drawn, would have proned out the suspected bank robber, and an actual investigation would have been done.

The LEO simply walked up, cuffed him, did an e-check, asked for ID, got told no, illegally searched the OP by "examining" the mags (not part of an e-check), then un-cuffed the OP and left.

No indication that the bank robbery was even a consideration in this e-check.

Hunt
01-26-2011, 10:07 AM
Everytime I see a 12031 check I keep screaming in the back of my head " You realize that the gun can be loaded in under 2 seconds and checking if it's loaded does not accomplish anything or make anyone safer"

This is why everytime i see an officer performing an (e) check it's pretty clear they just like to trample over peoples rights and hate that a free american has the right to own and carry a firearm.

it's all about obedience, in order to have an efficient livestock management program the livestock must be manageable. If the cattle get out of line taze them.

dantodd
01-26-2011, 10:13 AM
lets be honest, do we really think this officer was searching this man with less then legitimate intent. My previous statement is of course my opinion, and im aware most will probably not agree. I just feel that i can trust my local police.

Are you familiar with the contents of the 4th amendment?

MontClaire
01-26-2011, 10:28 AM
Everytime I see a 12031 check I keep screaming in the back of my head " You realize that the gun can be loaded in under 2 seconds and checking if it's loaded does not accomplish anything or make anyone safer"

This is why everytime i see an officer performing an (e) check it's pretty clear they just like to trample over peoples rights and hate that a free american has the right to own and carry a firearm.

What he said. Another thing I don't like is that he put handcuffs on a citizen. If he is so scared then maybe should find another career path. PD needs to hire brave people.

dantodd
01-26-2011, 10:53 AM
What he said. Another thing I don't like is that he put handcuffs on a citizen. If he is so scared then maybe should find another career path. PD needs to hire brave people.

If your definition of brave is to not handcuff an unarmed person I think your threshold is unreasonably low.

Sgt5811
01-26-2011, 11:16 AM
This is frickin hilarious. Instead of tempting fate, and I understand that everyone thinks they are making a statement, but don't you think it would be a much nicer situation if LEO's never saw your weapon and had no reason to stop you? I know, I know, everyone wants to be "law abiding citizens" but I have to tell you, all this UOC crap does is invite negative attention to gun rights activists and make both the officer and the UOC'er look stupid. Two wrongs don't make a right. You are not fighting for your rights, you are just digging a deeper hole. Perfect world scenario, those that apply for CCW's get them. I know this is S.D. county, but did you apply? As a LEO, the officer can do a lot of stuff to protect himself and others. Officer safety is number one.

As to what Montclair posted, ARE YOU SERIOUS??? Officers have the right to be apprehensive and PD's do hire brave people. Even the most timid officer has already persevered through more hardship and had to endure more than most people will ever face. If it was easy, anyone could do it. Ever thought of that?

I also watched a follow up link of an OPD UOC encounter and much to my surprise, was my first chief investigator from the Marine Corps. That guy was the most passionate and staunch supporter of people's rights that I ever met, not to mention that he is an adjuct law professor at a local college. Officer Lyons states during the encounter that he is a big supporter of carry rights and even says to the camera and the folks watching on youtube his name and badge number and proclaims "God bless America!" That guy will always be an officer for others to emulate and OPD is a better force with him on board.


Now, I can't realy say that for Officer Trescott (formerly SgtMaj)...

Flame on..

sandman21
01-26-2011, 12:03 PM
I also watched a follow up link of an OPD UOC encounter and much to my surprise, was my first chief investigator from the Marine Corps. That guy was the most passionate and staunch supporter of people's rights that I ever met, not to mention that he is an adjuct law professor at a local college. Officer Lyons states during the encounter that he is a big supporter of carry rights and even says to the camera and the folks watching on youtube his name and badge number and proclaims "God bless America!" That guy will always be an officer for others to emulate and OPD is a better force with him on board.


Now, I can't realy say that for Officer Trescott (formerly SgtMaj)...

Flame on..

Well since he said it he must be a supporter, :rolleyes: to bad he forgot about the 4A, or the fact that UOC is covered by the 1A not the 2A.

Sgt5811
01-26-2011, 12:19 PM
Well since he said it he must be a supporter, :rolleyes: to bad he forgot about the 4A, or the fact that UOC is covered by the 1A not the 2A.

Too bad you don't wear a badge and keep people safe so that they can post sarcastic comments on a web forum.

And, please show me some current or pending litigation or case law that shows where UOC is covered under the 1st amendment. Until there is case law that prevents LE from excersizing the California penal code, they can continue to implement the (e) check. I'm not supporting the check, but I'm not supporting UOC either.

CCW reform is needed to prevent this situation from ever occuring in the first place. LEO's do respect CCW permits and your reply prior to an (e) check would be "yes it loaded." But of course that won't happen because nobody would ever know that you were carrying a firearm anyways, hence "concealed."

CABilly
01-26-2011, 12:45 PM
The bank robbery most likely will provide just enough plausible deniability for the officer if he were to be accused of a 4A violation.

The Shadow
01-26-2011, 1:06 PM
This is frickin hilarious. Instead of tempting fate, and I understand that everyone thinks they are making a statement, but don't you think it would be a much nicer situation if LEO's never saw your weapon and had no reason to stop you? I know, I know, everyone wants to be "law abiding citizens" but I have to tell you, all this UOC crap does is invite negative attention to gun rights activists and make both the officer and the UOC'er look stupid. Two wrongs don't make a right. You are not fighting for your rights, you are just digging a deeper hole. Perfect world scenario, those that apply for CCW's get them. I know this is S.D. county, but did you apply? As a LEO, the officer can do a lot of stuff to protect himself and others. Officer safety is number one.

As to what Montclair posted, ARE YOU SERIOUS??? Officers have the right to be apprehensive and PD's do hire brave people. Even the most timid officer has already persevered through more hardship and had to endure more than most people will ever face. If it was easy, anyone could do it. Ever thought of that?

I also watched a follow up link of an OPD UOC encounter and much to my surprise, was my first chief investigator from the Marine Corps. That guy was the most passionate and staunch supporter of people's rights that I ever met, not to mention that he is an adjuct law professor at a local college. Officer Lyons states during the encounter that he is a big supporter of carry rights and even says to the camera and the folks watching on youtube his name and badge number and proclaims "God bless America!" That guy will always be an officer for others to emulate and OPD is a better force with him on board.


Now, I can't realy say that for Officer Trescott (formerly SgtMaj)...

Flame on..

Too bad you don't wear a badge and keep people safe so that they can post sarcastic comments on a web forum.

And, please show me some current or pending litigation or case law that shows where UOC is covered under the 1st amendment. Until there is case law that prevents LE from excersizing the California penal code, they can continue to implement the (e) check. I'm not supporting the check, but I'm not supporting UOC either.

CCW reform is needed to prevent this situation from ever occuring in the first place. LEO's do respect CCW permits and your reply prior to an (e) check would be "yes it loaded." But of course that won't happen because nobody would ever know that you were carrying a firearm anyways, hence "concealed."

If a person says they support the second amendment, does it make it true ? So far, the only public officials that I'm aware of that truly support the second amendment are those, like Gerald R. Fox, District Attorney for Jackson county, Wisconsin. (http://volokh.com/2010/07/02/jackson-county-wisconsin-district-attorney-takes-broad-view-of-the-second-amendment/) Or how about those legislators in Arizona, that released their grip from the second amendment, and now the law abiding citizens can carry their firearms in whatever fashion they choose.

Understand this, 12031e allows a law enforcement officer to check the firearm to see if it's loaded, it doesn't mandate that s/he check the firearm. When law enforcement officers in California cease doing e checks just because they can, then I will agree that they are pro second amendment. Until then, merely saying that someone supports the second amendment, doesn't make it so.

CitaDeL
01-26-2011, 2:27 PM
Officer safety is number one.

The job of 'Peace officer' is a voluntary vocation. They are neither compelled to serve the state, nor obligated to protect individuals from harm. If they were looking for a safe occupation, I would say they need to seek other employment. Their safety is not constitutionally assured, and is secondary to preserving the rights of others. If a person employed as a peace officer thinks for a moment that they are entitled to unjustifiably impair someone's liberty to ensure they are not harmed, I'm afraid they are a poor candidate for the station they hold.

eaglemike
01-26-2011, 2:32 PM
Too bad you don't wear a badge and keep people safe so that they can post sarcastic comments on a web forum.

And, please show me some current or pending litigation or case law that shows where UOC is covered under the 1st amendment. Until there is case law that prevents LE from excersizing the California penal code, they can continue to implement the (e) check. I'm not supporting the check, but I'm not supporting UOC either.

CCW reform is needed to prevent this situation from ever occuring in the first place. LEO's do respect CCW permits and your reply prior to an (e) check would be "yes it loaded." But of course that won't happen because nobody would ever know that you were carrying a firearm anyways, hence "concealed."
The e check DOES NOT give him any authority to do ANYTHING other than verify the arm is unloaded. Played with magazines?? He violated the 4a, because he went beyond his limits. Period. Cuffs?? This one might play out nicely if the shoe was on the other foot.

gbp
01-26-2011, 2:47 PM
i watched less than 0.7 seconds before i hit the stop button.
what they cant even get it right side up?

RollingCode3
01-26-2011, 3:05 PM
What he said. Another thing I don't like is that he put handcuffs on a citizen. If he is so scared then maybe should find another career path. PD needs to hire brave people.

:iamwithstupid: :rolleyes:

J.D.Allen
01-26-2011, 3:24 PM
I feel the police acted professionally, and politely. They informed him that he was not under arrest, and he stayed calm. You have to put yourself in the police mans shoes, i feel i would have taken the same actions. Also the situation at hand seem to have justify there actions.

Its just nice to see that police are actively doing there job in a polite manner, this could have easily gone sour.

I used to do some volunteer work with the Sheriffs and i totally understand handcuffing the person in this video. It was to rule out any possibility of any body miss communication, control of the situation, and overall safety.

The only bad i really see in this video is i feel the officer should have explained the reason for the search(unless it wasnt in the video)

Oh for crying out loud! *facepalm* only in the good ol' PRK do the sheeple get THIS docile in the face of "authority".

Dude wake up!!! He handcuffed him for not doing anything illegal. You seriously don't see a problem with that? You want a cop to handcuff you while you're stopped in a car so he can check your driver license? Completely ridiculous! :banghead:

Mstrty
01-26-2011, 3:31 PM
The magazine check was part of his phishing expedition. If they had been 11+ round magazines the officer would have said something like. So your one of those lucky guys with a hi-cap magazine, hoping for a yea, my brother gave them too me last year.
While it is a violation of the 4th it is not that uncommon for LEO's to attempt to get incriminating evidence under the guise of "serve and protect".

N6ATF
01-26-2011, 3:32 PM
Cops should just handcuff and stripsearch everyone at a bank days after it has been robbed, just in case they were planning to rob it again. :rolleyes:

SickofSoCal
01-26-2011, 3:40 PM
Why check magazines?

The Shadow
01-26-2011, 9:17 PM
I feel the police acted professionally, and politely. They informed him that he was not under arrest, and he stayed calm. You have to put yourself in the police mans shoes, i feel i would have taken the same actions. Also the situation at hand seem to have justify there actions.

Its just nice to see that police are actively doing there job in a polite manner, this could have easily gone sour.

I used to do some volunteer work with the Sheriffs and i totally understand handcuffing the person in this video. It was to rule out any possibility of any body miss communication, control of the situation, and overall safety.

The only bad i really see in this video is i feel the officer should have explained the reason for the search(unless it wasnt in the video)

The California Penal code says:

"849. (a) When an arrest is made without a warrant by a peace
officer or private person, the person arrested, if not otherwise
released, shall, without unnecessary delay, be taken before the
nearest or most accessible magistrate in the county in which the
offense is triable, and a complaint stating the charge against the
arrested person shall be laid before such magistrate.
(b) Any peace officer may release from custody, instead of taking
such person before a magistrate, any person arrested without a
warrant whenever:
(1) He or she is satisfied that there are insufficient grounds for
making a criminal complaint against the person arrested.
(2) The person arrested was arrested for intoxication only, and no
further proceedings are desirable.
(3) The person was arrested only for being under the influence of
a controlled substance or drug and such person is delivered to a
facility or hospital for treatment and no further proceedings are
desirable.
(c) Any record of arrest of a person released pursuant to
paragraphs (1) and (3) of subdivision (b) shall include a record of
release. Thereafter, such arrest shall not be deemed an arrest, but a
detention only."

So maybe we should just let the police do this to everyone, just in case they might be doing something wrong. I mean afterall, it is for the public good, isn't it ?

Hunt
01-26-2011, 11:29 PM
The job of 'Peace officer' is a voluntary vocation. They are neither compelled to serve the state, nor obligated to protect individuals from harm. If they were looking for a safe occupation, I would say they need to seek other employment. Their safety is not constitutionally assured... officer safety a lot of hype I've seen studies that show jobs like roofing and fisherman are much more dangerous. But we have to put up with the ususal double standard for those involved with the State or protecting State interest. Tons and tons of info on this issue if you look for it

Veggie
01-26-2011, 11:51 PM
bullsh**. suit their butts.

Bobula
01-26-2011, 11:53 PM
I still don't get UOC...

ropewalker1
01-27-2011, 12:36 AM
Actually , in law enforcement as in the Judicial System et al , It's like the wild west .
No uniformity of Justice and/or Enforcement . What does " equal justice , under the law "
mean ? All LEO's are as individual as You or I , some feel less comfortable with a perceived threat than do other's . Some are friendlier than other's . Some are more
understanding than other's . Some are more respectful of individual rights than other's .
Federal Law and recognition of Citizen Rights , are applicable to " Federal Enforcement "
not necessarily State or Local law . State by State and Municipality by Municipality ,
diversity of Law and Enforcement can be staggering . If I were an Enforcement Official ,
I'd simply ask to see CCW , if verifiable , I'd just say , " thank You , have a nice day ".
It pays to know the Rules of the road , where You drive . So to speak . Be Well .

pitchbaby
01-27-2011, 1:24 AM
Cuffs, Mag Check... this LEO has got some cojones.

Shinobi'sZ
01-27-2011, 7:37 AM
lets be honest, do we really think this officer was searching this man with less then legitimate intent. My previous statement is of course my opinion, and im aware most will probably not agree. I just feel that i can trust my local police.

The officer clearly stated that he was not searching the guy...listen more carefully and understand what is happening. An LE can place somebody in cuffs anytime they feel it necessary for their safety, and it is discretionary and not just when making an arrest, and obviously is something they are trained to do if being placing someone under arrest.

This cop clearly stated in a nice way, you are not under arrest, I am not searching you, I am checking your weapon to insure that it is not loaded. It's about as straight forward as it gets. He even informed him when he was uncuffing him. The UOC'er could have had a bag of meth in his pocket and the cop still would not have known...it is'n't like he gave him a pat down because he didn't search him.

I don't see anything wrong with it from an officer safety perspective, would I like it myself..."hell no" but when you have 11 cops getting shot in a 24 hour period across this country why not be safe...most cops want to go home to their families and only a handful of them are idiots. It's actually better when their are two of them because it can keep them in check as well.

eaglemike
01-27-2011, 8:50 AM
The officer clearly stated that he was not searching the guy...listen more carefully and understand what is happening. An LE can place somebody in cuffs anytime they feel it necessary for their safety, and it is discretionary and not just when making an arrest, and obviously is something they are trained to do if being placing someone under arrest.

This cop clearly stated in a nice way, you are not under arrest, I am not searching you, I am checking your weapon to insure that it is not loaded. It's about as straight forward as it gets. He even informed him when he was uncuffing him. The UOC'er could have had a bag of meth in his pocket and the cop still would not have known...it is'n't like he gave him a pat down because he didn't search him.

I don't see anything wrong with it from an officer safety perspective, would I like it myself..."hell no" but when you have 11 cops getting shot in a 24 hour period across this country why not be safe...most cops want to go home to their families and only a handful of them are idiots. It's actually better when their are two of them because it can keep them in check as well.
It doesn't matter what he says in this case - it's what he does. He doesn't have authority to do any kind of search - yet he does touch the magazines.
If there is a line preventing certain conduct, it should be respected by both parties. He crossed the line. It's not a huge deal in this circumstance - except where does it stop. Either there is a line or there isn't.

Shinobi'sZ
01-27-2011, 8:58 AM
It doesn't matter what he says in this case - it's what he does. He doesn't have authority to do any kind of search - yet he does touch the magazines.
If there is a line preventing certain conduct, it should be respected by both parties. He crossed the line. It's not a huge deal in this circumstance - except where does it stop. Either there is a line or there isn't.

The searching of the magazines is a questionable action as the PC states that LE has the right to inspect the weapon. So the searching of the mags could be called into question. But what are the damages that the OUCers could sue for that the officer checked his magazines as part of the weapons check?

He didn't get put in the car or taken downtown, he was briefly detained for an officer to perform his duty.

Good luck with trying to win this one. I don't think an attorney will touch it.

BoxesOfLiberty
01-27-2011, 9:14 AM
But what are the damages that the OUCers could sue for that the officer checked his magazines as part of the weapons check?

The "verification" of the magazines is an unlawful search without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion.

It is a blatant violation of (4th A.) civil rights under color of authority.

Granted, it may seem like a relatively minor thing, but one must ask whether there can be a minor violation of civil rights.

eaglemike
01-27-2011, 9:18 AM
The searching of the magazines is a questionable action as the PC states that LE has the right to inspect the weapon. So the searching of the mags could be called into question. But what are the damages that the OUCers could sue for that the officer checked his magazines as part of the weapons check?

He didn't get put in the car or taken downtown, he was briefly detained for an officer to perform his duty.

Good luck with trying to win this one. I don't think an attorney will touch it.
I'm guessing you don't see it - but the officer exceeded his authority. I didn't suggest filing a suit, BTW. :)
When is it ok to cuff or note cuff? If left totally up to the officer's interpretation of his need for safety, this becomes a slippery slope.

Shinobi'sZ
01-27-2011, 9:18 AM
The "verification" of the magazines is an unlawful search without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion.

It is a blatant violation of (4th A.) civil rights under color of authority.

Granted, it may seem like a relatively minor thing, but one must ask whether there can be a minor violation of civil rights.

This is why a corrected part of what I stated in that the searching of the magazines was questionable.

I still don't think there is any case here that would be worth pursuing. At best the citizen could make a complaint at the LEA to the Chief and help the agency to correct some procedures.

dfletcher
01-27-2011, 9:27 AM
I'm not too hot on open carry in general. Like anything else it can be a benefit or a problem. But note the very matter of fact way in which the cop dealt with this fellow. Yes, he cuffed him, however the tenor of the entire interaction was very casual and - well, close to boring. Mentally the cop accepts "this is no big deal" and dispenses with it in much the same manner as a traffic stop. Again, the cuffs may be not warranted but in a "one step at a time" world isn't a) having the police properly trained and b) having them intellectually accept the situation as normal two fairly good results?

Granted Oceanside isn't the Tenderloin on a Friday night, but it seems the police are becoming acclimated to the routine?

goldrush
01-27-2011, 9:33 AM
This is why everytime i see an officer performing an (e) check it's pretty clear they just like to trample over peoples rights and hate that a free american has the right to own and carry a firearm.

+1, Sir. Dead on.

Shinobi'sZ
01-27-2011, 9:59 AM
+1, Sir. Dead on.

Dead on huh...how many cops do you know? How many times have you seen this happening in person?

Bottom line is that most of the time Cops think they are doing their jobs correctly. Every now and then you get one that is just an idiot. But I would say that a comment like cops are wanting to just trample people's rights, is one that is probably coming from a criminal or somebody that has something to hide. Because I know a lot of LEOs and worked with them in the past and most do not feel this way at all. Mistakes are made more as a result of not having the training that is needed to understand correctly. If they were flawless we would not need Attorneys to interpret the language of the law.