Cool LEO UOC encounter

[tenpercentfirearms]

No....the cop did a good job, but the disdain for a guy who didn't want to give any information to the cop is quite frightening.

It isn't disdain. The guy looked like a tongue tied goof and the cop just rolled with it. Cops will only let you get away with what you let them get away with. This cop did magnificent job of handling the UOCer without violating the good citizen's rights.

Cops have the right to come up and talk to you. If you don't like it, then dismiss yourself. If you don't, then that is on you.

[USMC 82-86]

Disdain

1. to look upon or treat with contempt; despise; scorn.
2. to think unworthy of notice, response, etc.; consider beneath oneself: to disdain replying to an insult.


The people here talking crap about him are disturbing......he is not.

I think everyone recognizes his right to carry and he was within his rights in this case. I think people also were not showing disdain for the individual but suggest that there was no need for the attitude. The LEO was being very reasonable and understood the rights of the individual. I think that was what triggered the reaction by the members here, you had a situation of a person within their rights and a officer who understood that right and still the attitude. I believe that we as members just wonder if you take that attitude with a good officer, how would it play out with a officer that is a little less understanding? Being within your rights doesn't mean you have to have a attitude to get the point across to the officer. Everybody I believe is aware we communicate by eye contact, words, tone and body posture. You can have 3 people say the same thing and will probably get different feedback from each person as to what they heard whether it is anger, cooperative, confrontational, happiness or sadness. The individual was within his rights no doubt, but he did have a tone that was not necessary in this particular incident.

[Peter W Bush]

No....the cop did a good job, but the disdain for a guy who didn't want to give any information to the cop is quite frightening.

........Seriously?? The guy was acting kind of like a douche bag. He seemed like a lost moron, IMO. The cop was much cooler than him. Your comments are really making me have some disdain for UOCers in general. I HATE people who love playing victim.

[jl123]

........Seriously?? The guy was acting kind of like a douche bag. He seemed like a lost moron, IMO. The cop was much cooler than him. Your comments are really making me have some disdain for UOCers in general. I HATE people who love playing victim.

I'm not a UOCer.

The guy obviously wasn't a pro in dealing with cops. He shouldn't have to be.

[Peter W Bush]

I'm not a UOCer.

The guy obviously wasn't a pro in dealing with cops. He shouldn't have to be.

Hell ya dude anarchy rulez

[sacshooter1]

I think the UOC guy had run the scenario through his head many times and just couldn't remember the cool sounding speech he had come up with for his youtube video. As far as the quick pat of the guy's ankle, that is perfectly ok as a Terry Cursory Search. The officer did not manipulate anything, just a quick pat to check for a possible concealed weapon without detaining the guy in any way. If you are going to UC, just be prepared to talk to the cops for a minute and try to carry on an intelligent dialogue so you don't sound like a moron on your own video.

[Wall Flower]

A pat is a search. A search requires consent or reasonable suspicion of a crime.

[sandman21]

It isn't disdain. The guy looked like a tongue tied goof and the cop just rolled with it. Cops will only let you get away with what you let them get away with. This cop did magnificent job of handling the UOCer without violating the good citizen's rights.
Cops have the right to come up and talk to you. If you don't like it, then dismiss yourself. If you don't, then that is on you.

Well expect for his 4A rights, you would be right.

I think the UOC guy had run the scenario through his head many times and just couldn't remember the cool sounding speech he had come up with for his youtube video. As far as the quick pat of the guy's ankle, that is perfectly ok as a Terry Cursory Search. The officer did not manipulate anything, just a quick pat to check for a possible concealed weapon without detaining the guy in any way. If you are going to UC, just be prepared to talk to the cops for a minute and try to carry on an intelligent dialogue so you don't sound like a moron on your own video.

Trying reading Terry again, the UOC does not meet the requirements.


Better UOC than some not even close to good.

[todd2968]

There needs to be way more people that open carry. Not in a big group just every day from here to there, and allow the public to get used to it and stop calling the police. Public calls cops have to respond, could be nut job with a gun walking down the street or you just exercising your right.
You gotta see it from his side on that call someone mad at the world about to shoot people or I'M ABOUT TO BE ON YOUTUBE.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Well expect for his 4A rights, you would be right.

How did he violate his rights? Specific examples please.

Asking if he had any weapons down there? I didn't hear the UOCer say, "I don't consent to searches." I didn't hear the UOCer ask to excuse himself. The UOCer should have been in control, but he wasn't. And he wasn't because that cop had skills.

If you are going to play the UOC game, step it up.

[jl123]

How did he violate his rights? Specific examples please.

Asking if he had any weapons down there? I didn't hear the UOCer say, "I don't consent to searches." I didn't hear the UOCer ask to excuse himself. The UOCer should have been in control, but he wasn't. And he wasn't because that cop had skills.

If you are going to play the UOC game, step it up.

The mere presence of a gun is not probable cause to search someone. 12031e (or whatever the echeck law is) is a search. His rights are being violated by being stopped and searched.

[tenpercentfirearms]

The mere presence of a gun is not probable cause to search someone. 12031e (or whatever the echeck law is) is a search. His rights are being violated by being stopped and searched.

However, is the 911 call, "man with a gun"? Also, what about Terry? Does the officer get permission when he asks, "Do you have anything down here?" The UOCer did not deny permission, so was he consenting?

[sandman21]

How did he violate his rights? Specific examples please.
Asking if he had any weapons down there? I didn't hear the UOCer say, "I don't consent to searches." I didn't hear the UOCer ask to excuse himself. The UOCer should have been in control, but he wasn't. And he wasn't because that cop had skills.
If you are going to play the UOC game, step it up.

However, is the 911 call, "man with a gun"? Also, what about Terry? Does the officer get permission when he asks, "Do you have anything down here?" The UOCer did not deny permission, so was he consenting?

Let's start with 12031e, the LEO extends the "inspection" allowed by 12031e longer than it takes to perform the inspection. The LEO seizes the firearm and magazine at this point he has also seized the UOC, he then performs a Terry search, all without RAS. Consent is an exception to the 4A it is on the LEO to obtain consent before performing the search, asking "anything else on you?" then moving onto the inspection and asking a bunch of other questions can hardly be considered consent, should he had made to known that he did not sure, but then the same people whining about him not knowing what to do would call him a douche for invoking his rights clearly.

A 911 about a completely legal activity is meaningless. Terry requires RAS the mere presence of the firearm does not give it to the LEO.

There is also the fact that 12031e is a violation of the UOC and all gun owners rights.

[Modimo]

That was refreshing to see among these UOC video's. Cool cop!

[KylaGWolf]

They make it a point not to carry ID so that the cops can't ILLEGALY run their IDs.

Jl not all that open carry avoid carrying ID. I do but then again I am disabled and have to be able to prove that if I get questioned about my placard for my car. Also NOT all open carriers pull attitude in a stop. I have been stopped only one time and it was a BAD encounter. My fourth amendment rights were violated not once but twice in that encounter. Do I think that all LEO are the same way no I do not. My grandfather was both a police officer and a police chief. I was also raised around many that were police officers and respect them. I find it funny that people seem to lump all the people of a category together no matter what that category is.

In this case the officer did a good job. I would love to see more officers do that. I know officers of local departments here that that believe no one but officers and military should have guns period. Some of these officers do not know a whole lot of the law when it comes to open carry or ccw for that matter. To officers that are pro gunnie and will even go shooting with you on a regular basis. Of course the first doesn't surprise me since there are departments across the country that have very little if any qualification sessions for their officers with their weapons once they get hired on the force.