Cool LEO UOC encounter

[Sturnovik]

That Officer did excellent.

[Lead Waster]

So what would the reaction be to this video if the UOCer was a gangbanger?

[Coded-Dude]

So what would the reaction be to this video if the UOCer was a gangbanger?

pfffft. gangbangers don't open carry. they have their own special ccw; its called a complete and total disrespect for the law.

[SickofSoCal]

Cool?

Please enlighten me as to what was "cool" about it. I think we are far too used to seeing our rights abused in the state.

[Yaki]

I saw a cop speed talking as they do. The oc'er didn't act rude just said he didn't need to give his name. I wish he would've been more assertive but I wasn't in his shoes so not for me to judge. Now that he has this encounter under his belt maybe he will assert his rights better and maybe shuck and jive for mr. officer to appease the critics here.

And before I get called a cop hater my mom was one and i have 2 cousins that are. Better than that I have a cousin who works at remington

[sacshooter1]

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


Since the officer only pats the guy's lower leg and doesn't place him in a standing modified search position it leads me to believe that the officer does have some articulable fact (ie a bulge in the guys pant leg, the guys body language etc..) that would lead the officer to believe that the guy MAY have a weapon hidden at a particular location on his person. But, I wasn't there, so maybe you're correct and that nice officer was just abusing his authority to keep himself and the public safe. The UOC guy was never told he had to stay where he was, move to another location or physically restrained by the officer. The UOC never contested the quick pat of his leg and overall after the officer checked to see if the weapon was loaded the stop was consensual as the UOC guy decided to stick around and film himself some more.

[USMC 82-86]

If I am understanding some of the post against the LEO. Let me ask if you call for a LEO to check out someone hanging around a kids park that in your opinion doesn't belong there. Is it okay for the LEO to drive by and just decide he doesn't need to investigate the person? The UOCer was within his right to carry we all know and are aware of that fact. Let's face it we live in Ca. most people are probably not aware that this is legal. Most LEO who respond are going to show a little concern or authority until the situation in deemed safe period. I am all for our rights but until Ca becomes like Arizona and this is the norm both civilian and LE will question most people who exercise this right. Cooperation will almost always make the situation go a little smoother. If we can't see that this officer did a great job in this encounter, it is hard for me to understand what is acceptable to those who oppose the way he handled the stop. I think it will be hard to find a LEO handle it better that this officer did. The UOCer by the way did seem more confrontational in his tone. I am surprised honestly he was allowed to proceed without giving his name at least to make certain he owned the gun legally. I know some are going to blow a top over that comment. But If we don't expect to stop someone just to confirm all is legal, what happens when gangbangers get wind that they can carry open don't have to worry about proving who they are or that they own the gun legally. That is scary. What if your child or wife, GF comes in the living room and says there is a man at the door with a gun on his hip, are you going to give that individual the courtesy that they may just be a UOCer? Is this acceptable? Is he within his rights even if he is walking through your neighborhood? It is just a matter of safety for the UOCer and the officer.

[sandman21]

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


Since the officer only pats the guy's lower leg and doesn't place him in a standing modified search position it leads me to believe that the officer does have some articulable fact (ie a bulge in the guys pant leg, the guys body language etc..) that would lead the officer to believe that the guy MAY have a weapon hidden at a particular location on his person. But, I wasn't there, so maybe you're correct and that nice officer was just abusing his authority to keep himself and the public safe. The UOC guy was never told he had to stay where he was, move to another location or physically restrained by the officer. The UOC never contested the quick pat of his leg and overall after the officer checked to see if the weapon was loaded the stop was consensual as the UOC guy decided to stick around and film himself some more.

The LEO had no RAS that a crime had, was being, or was about to be committed, therefore he had no legal basis to stop and search the UOC. DeLong allows an inspection of the weapon but only an inspection to verify the firearm is not loaded. The LEO seizes the weapon and mag. with no RAS or PC, at this point the UOC since he is not free to leave. So yes the UOC 4A rights were violated. He definiatly protected himself and the public at large by stopping someone who did nothing wrong, thats really taking a bite out of crime.

If I am understanding some of the post against the LEO. Let me ask if you call for a LEO to check out someone hanging around a kids park that in your opinion doesn't belong there.

Is it one of "those people"?

Is it okay for the LEO to drive by and just decide he doesn't need to investigate the person?

Sure if the LEO feels the caller is a moron just by a quick look, if the LEO stops and watches that's fine as well. However, if the LEO seizes or search the person they better have RAS or PC. LEO has no duty to protect anyone from a crime.
Warren v. District of Columbia

The UOCer was within his right to carry we all know and are aware of that fact. Let's face it we live in Ca. most people are probably not aware that this is legal. Most LEO who respond are going to show a little concern or authority until the situation in deemed safe period. I am all for our rights but until Ca becomes like Arizona and this is the norm both civilian and LE will question most people who exercise this right. Cooperation will almost always make the situation go a little smoother. If we can't see that this officer did a great job in this encounter, it is hard for me to understand what is acceptable to those who oppose the way he handled the stop.

He was within his rights not to be searched and seized will walking down the street. Would you be fine with a LEO seizing any black person they saw?

I think it will be hard to find a LEO handle it better that this officer did.

This is a great encounter, this is how it should be, or I can go find some that do the inspection and that's it. Those would be better than this one.


or not even showing up

The UOCer by the way did seem more confrontational in his tone. I am surprised honestly he was allowed to proceed without giving his name at least to make certain he owned the gun legally. I know some are going to blow a top over that comment. But If we don't expect to stop someone just to confirm all is legal, what happens when gangbangers get wind that they can carry open don't have to worry about proving who they are or that they own the gun legally. That is scary. What if your child or wife, GF comes in the living room and says there is a man at the door with a gun on his hip, are you going to give that individual the courtesy that they may just be a UOCer? Is this acceptable? Is he within his rights even if he is walking through your neighborhood? It is just a matter of safety for the UOCer and the officer.

Yes AZ has a huge problem with gangbangers open carrying along with all those other states that have open carrying..............

In CA you do not have to give your name unless you are being citied or arrested, the LEO would have violated more of the UOC rights if we demanded his name. I don't think people should give up their rights because people are scared because someone could easily be scared of you......

[sacshooter1]

The LEO had no RAS that a crime had, was being, or was about to be committed, therefore he had no legal basis to stop and search the UOC. DeLong allows an inspection of the weapon but only an inspection to verify the firearm is not loaded. The LEO seizes the weapon and mag. with no RAS or PC, at this point the UOC since he is not free to leave. So yes the UOC 4A rights were violated. He definiatly protected himself and the public at large by stopping someone who did nothing wrong, thats really taking a bite out of crime

I must have missed the part of the video when the guy was detained after he was given his gun back. Or when the guy asked if he was free to leave and was told no by the officer. I don't think that handling the gun to make sure it is not loaded qualifies as seizing it, especially when the cop tries to hand it back and the guy asks the cop to reholster it for him, which the cop does. The UOC'r decided to stick around and film some more of his own free choice.

[USMC 82-86]

If the officer stops someone to do the inspection, he has still made a stop on someone who has not broke a law correct? He is able to do the inspection correct? He had to make the stop to conduct the inspection, so is he not able to also insure his safety during the stop?

My comment regarding open carry by gangbangers was for here in Ca. I stated in Arizona it is the norm and also their open carry is also a loaded weapon. I am glad we have the right to carry here. I helped defend the constitution. I am just saying people here in the state will have a certain unease when they see people exercising this right, maybe in time it will become the norm. As far as the remark about would it be fine for LEO to sieze any black person they see? No it would not be fine but I don't want them to not be able to stop them just because they are black either. You avoided my last question regarding an armed person coming to your door would you treat them as a UOCer?

[sandman21]

I must have missed the part of the video when the guy was detained after he was given his gun back. Or when the guy asked if he was free to leave and was told no by the officer. I don't think that handling the gun to make sure it is not loaded qualifies as seizing it, especially when the cop tries to hand it back and the guy asks the cop to reholster it for him, which the cop does. The UOC'r decided to stick around and film some more of his own free choice.

The LEO seizes the firearm and mag and does not return it for over a mintue, the UOC action after that are irrelevant, the LEO has seized the UOC at that point which requires justification, which there is none. DeLong only allows an inspection the LEO had to reason to take longer than is required to inspect the firearm.

If the officer stops someone to do the inspection, he has still made a stop on someone who has not broke a law correct? He is able to do the inspection correct? He had to make the stop to conduct the inspection, so is he not able to also insure his safety during the stop?

12031e and DeLong carve out a special exception to Terry v. Ohio, which says an inspection is fine. This does not comply with several SCOTUS cases regarding firearms and searches. The inspection does not give RAS or PC to the LEO, any action other than inspection requires justification.

My comment regarding open carry by gangbangers was for here in Ca. I stated in Arizona it is the norm and also their open carry is also a loaded weapon. I am glad we have the right to carry here. I helped defend the constitution. I am just saying people here in the state will have a certain unease when they see people exercising this right, maybe in time it will become the norm.

So CA has special gangbangers? No we don't, what works in AZ and 43? other states can work here. In general we have no right to bear arms, since UOC is not functional I refuse to call that a right under the 2A, the closet we have to a "right" to carry is a CCW permit which is considered a privilege.
A right is not a right if its left to the whims of the people.

As far as the remark about would it be fine for LEO to sieze any black person they see? No it would not be fine but I don't want them to not be able to stop them just because they are black either.

I am sorry but what? Would you be fine with a LEO stopping, which is seizing, any black person because they are black?

You avoided my last question regarding an armed person coming to your door would you treat them as a UOCer?

The question is irrelevant since I am not bound by the Constitution, but I would answer my door with a M60 if I could.

[SickofSoCal]

If I am understanding some of the post against the LEO. Let me ask if you call for a LEO to check out someone hanging around a kids park that in your opinion doesn't belong there. Is it okay for the LEO to drive by and just decide he doesn't need to investigate the person? The UOCer was within his right to carry we all know and are aware of that fact. Let's face it we live in Ca. most people are probably not aware that this is legal. Most LEO who respond are going to show a little concern or authority until the situation in deemed safe period. I am all for our rights but until Ca becomes like Arizona and this is the norm both civilian and LE will question most people who exercise this right. Cooperation will almost always make the situation go a little smoother. If we can't see that this officer did a great job in this encounter, it is hard for me to understand what is acceptable to those who oppose the way he handled the stop. I think it will be hard to find a LEO handle it better that this officer did. The UOCer by the way did seem more confrontational in his tone. I am surprised honestly he was allowed to proceed without giving his name at least to make certain he owned the gun legally. I know some are going to blow a top over that comment. But If we don't expect to stop someone just to confirm all is legal, what happens when gangbangers get wind that they can carry open don't have to worry about proving who they are or that they own the gun legally. That is scary. What if your child or wife, GF comes in the living room and says there is a man at the door with a gun on his hip, are you going to give that individual the courtesy that they may just be a UOCer? Is this acceptable? Is he within his rights even if he is walking through your neighborhood? It is just a matter of safety for the UOCer and the officer.

Arrrrgh!

How many times do we have to go over this!?!????!?!???

[USMC 82-86]

I hope everyone here knows I support our right to carry. I am just trying to express in different ways that it is not a subject that is understood by most people here in Ca. The fact is it is sad that most don't know it is legal, and trying to educate these people will take time. Unfortunately the state is not going to help and get the word out. My other point was that the other states such as Arizona are beyond these issues because the public is aware that it is perfectly legal in that state. I never said that I thought it was fine to stop every black person on the street simply because they are black. I took it you were trying to imply that stopping every black person you see because they are black is the same as stopping every UOCer simply because they are UOCers. My wording may have eluded you, which is to escape your understanding. I said it is not fine to stop them because they are black but it is also not fine to not stop them simply because they are black. My point was, simply being a UOCer or black does not exempt one from a stop if it is reported that there may be suspicious activity. I did not agree with the rights being infringed upon at all, I am simply trying to convey the fact that there are people who don't understand or don't think we should have this right. Maybe placing flyers on cars, or having tables outside of stores with volunteers passing out flyers informing the public that it is legal to carry in this manner would work to help get the message out.

[sandman21]

I hope everyone here knows I support our right to carry. I am just trying to express in different ways that it is not a subject that is understood by most people here in Ca. The fact is it is sad that most don't know it is legal, and trying to educate these people will take time. Unfortunately the state is not going to help and get the word out. My other point was that the other states such as Arizona are beyond these issues because the public is aware that it is perfectly legal in that state. I never said that I thought it was fine to stop every black person on the street simply because they are black. I took it you were trying to imply that stopping every black person you see because they are black is the same as stopping every UOCer simply because they are UOCers. My wording may have eluded you, which is to escape your understanding. I said it is not fine to stop them because they are black but it is also not fine to not stop them simply because they are black. My point was, simply being a UOCer or black does not exempt one from a stop if it is reported that there may be suspicious activity. I did not agree with the rights being infringed upon at all, I am simply trying to convey the fact that there are people who don't understand or don't think we should have this right. Maybe placing flyers on cars, or having tables outside of stores with volunteers passing out flyers informing the public that it is legal to carry in this manner would work to help get the message out.

Thanks for defining elude I was having trouble looking that one up.

Suspicious activity is utterly meaningless, RAS or PC is required to seize someone to have a lesser standard is to allow a LEO to search or seize anyone they want for any reason, making the 4A meaningless. Being black, asian, blue, purple, UOC, LOC are not crimes. While they can be suspicious this does not allow LEO to violate the suspicious persons rights. A LEO job is not to infringe on rights because the people say so but to protect and defend them.

At least one PD tells the public its legal

[USMC 82-86]

I am on your side I don't know what else to say. I was defining elude in jest. It was a response to your describing to me a LEO stop, which is seizing.