OPEN CARRY VIDEO

[wkd4496]

I liked this video in what's related

awesome!!!

[socalryan]

What is with these "Am I free to go" rebels with a video camera? Are they just looking for fame and internet glory?

If you going to go challenge LE with a chip on your shoulder, its not smart.

No, they are testing the system...and rightfully so.

First, I do not agree with what this guy did. But I fully support his right to do so.

Most in this country seem to have the notion that we need to fear and respect law enforcement. The fact is that the law enforcement officers are the employees of the taxpayers. If you are a taxpayer, you pay for law enforcement. It really is that simple. While respect should certainly be mutual...every taxpaying citizen has a right and a duty to question the actions of law enforcement and hold them accountable for their actions.

Clearly the guy in the video wanted to test the system. MANY of the great civil rights cases in this country have been test cases. It is nothing new and nothing uncommon to the legal system. This guy knew the laws and knew his rights. He took a risk here, and I'm sure he knew the potential consequences. As evidenced by the reactions of both officers in the vid, the guy acted in a completely lawful manner. The last few seconds of the clip with the man walking away from the officers really say it all.

[socalryan]

While I dont wholly support this persons activist methodology, I think most of the posters on this thread have missed one supremely salient point.

The open carrier was not arrested because there was no crime commited.

Further, he stuck to his ground by not volunteering to be the subject of an investigation of a non-crime. If we can disregard the rather douchey opening of the video, where he makes his presence known to the officer- we learn a very important technique in defending our rights. Officer McFriendly is not entitled to the open carriers identity without reasonable suspicion that a crime is afoot. Whether or not the open carrier is a 'prohibited person' is irrelevant until a crime has been commited. These officers did lie in an effort to get the open carrier to voluntarily comply to a search... and their bluff was called.

Quoted for being very well said.

[J-cat]

No, they are testing the system...and rightfully so.

First, I do not agree with what this guy did. But I fully support his right to do so.

Most in this country seem to have the notion that we need to fear and respect law enforcement. The fact is that the law enforcement officers are the employees of the taxpayers. If you are a taxpayer, you pay for law enforcement. It really is that simple. While respect should certainly be mutual...every taxpaying citizen has a right and a duty to question the actions of law enforcement and hold them accountable for their actions.

Clearly the guy in the video wanted to test the system. MANY of the great civil rights cases in this country have been test cases. It is nothing new and nothing uncommon to the legal system. This guy knew the laws and knew his rights. He took a risk here, and I'm sure he knew the potential consequences. As evidenced by the reactions of both officers in the vid, the guy acted in a completely lawful manner. The last few seconds of the clip with the man walking away from the officers really say it all.

Testing the system can be done in an intelligent way without compromising the safety of others. Distracting cops while they are on a traffic stop is idiotic.

[socalryan]

Testing the system can be done in an intelligent way without compromising the safety of others. Distracting cops while they are on a traffic stop is idiotic.

Again, I do NOT support the way the cameraman made the initial contact with the officer. I agree that, in general, it is not wise to interrupt an officer who is doing his/her job.

The second contact was initiated by the officer. From there, the cameraman demonstrated an outstanding knowledge of the law, as well as the limits of the government's authority. He did it politely and intelligently. I am certain that both officers (and possibly the entire department) learned a valuable lesson about interacting with an informed citizen as a result of the cameraman's actions.

[Average Joe American]

Whats the difference between a ruse and a lie when interviewing a contact?

[corrupt]

Deception, ruse, lie, it's all the same it doesn't matter.

[RideIcon]

the guy video taping has conjones grandes...

Seriously, had it not been for the camera he would probably be pulling taser prongs out of his back

[J-cat]

The second contact was initiated by the officer. From there, the cameraman demonstrated an outstanding knowledge of the law, as well as the limits of the government's authority. He did it politely and intelligently. I am certain that both officers (and possibly the entire department) learned a valuable lesson about interacting with an informed citizen as a result of the cameraman's actions.

The second contact was initiated by the officer because of the first contact. They were baiting the officer. Their intent was to force a contact. Their business was to attract attention. I have a job. Obviously, they don't.

[Coltlover]

Those cops got owned!!!