Long Beach PD rescues UOCer from Park Police on Independence Day!!

[GuyW]

He was not arrested

He wasn't?
.

[CSACANNONEER]

He wasn't?
.

Nope. He was detained but, that's it.

[383green]

Do I understand correctly that even if they say "you're under arrest" and lock you in the back of the car, it doesn't technically change from a detention to an arrest until booking? Thus, if they change their mind and cut you loose prior to booking it isn't considered an arrest after all?

[Roccobro]

Do I understand correctly that even if they say "you're under arrest" and lock you in the back of the car, it doesn't technically change from a detention to an arrest until booking? Thus, if they change their mind and cut you loose prior to booking it isn't considered an arrest after all?

Something like that. I've seen cops walk an "arrestee" off jail property and given a citation. And some even just released with an apology (or thank you if testifying on their buddy).

Justin

[Apocalypsenerd]

Applause for the LBPD. Hopefully we can get other LEA's to respect gun owners in the same manner.

[Theseus]

Applause for the LBPD. Hopefully we can get other LEA's to respect gun owners in the same manner.

Yes! With all the anger that boiled to my head (well, I didn't really get angry), I forgot to commend the LBPD for saving this man and also proceeding to further violate the mans rights. Good job!

[BigDogatPlay]

Cutting someone loose from the back seat without a citation is not the same thing as cutting them loose with a citation, whether it is in the field or from the booking desk.

IMO, this was a detention, not an arrest. And I applaud the Long Beach PD guys for getting it right, even if it took them a few minutes and they went a bit farther than they should have on an E check. The end result was a happy ending for the UOCer, and a nice bit of public mud in the eye, well deserved, for the rangers. They got shown up in front of the crowd and came off looking incompetent.

Memo to those park rangers... if you are going to exercise the duties and responsibilities of a peace officer, you probably should spend some time reading the training stuff that comes out of the DA, sheriff and LAPD. Long Beach is still in LA County, right?

[pullnshoot25]

If CCW was changed to be truly open to all I'd be OK with laws *discouraging* UOC...say ID checks to ensure you're not a prohibited person. I would never support a law that attempts to ban it.

Not sure where you're headed with the crime-free area comment.

Is that what happens in Switzerland or did you spend too much time in Germany?

Seriously, you have to be friggin kidding me.

[Arondos]

I took an oath several times over 20 years to uphold and defend.

As far as I am concerned UOC, LOC, or CCW. All should be legal and any law abiding citizen should be able to exercise their 2A RIGHT by doing so. I will support everyone's right to have and voice their opinion on the topic. As long as UOC is legal I will support anyone's choice to use it whether I personally think it is a good idea or not.

[Meplat]

There are certainly gunowners who suffer from a heightened sense of paranoia, .

Sounds like you can find one in your mirror.

[Agent Orange]

Lmao. This country needs more gun owners and less gun fanatics....

[kcbrown]

With that long jump of yours you should try out for the Olympics. Extrapolating my position on UOC to a general position on RKBA is unsound. Without going off on too much of a tangent, please consider and reply to the following:

1) How do I know a UOCer isn't a hot head who, due to past misdemeanors, was denied a CCW? There are certainly gunowners who suffer from a heightened sense of paranoia, and at least with a CCW I know s/he's been vetted and has some basic skills. Or do you propose that I UOC in order to protect myself from aggressive UOCers?

The answer is: you don't know any such thing. Welcome to the world of freedom. Freedom is dangerous, because someone who you don't happen to approve of might do something you don't like and might even screw up and inadvertently harm others. You have no cause to deny someone else their freedom until they actually do something to violate someone else's rights. Tough. Deal with it.

I really wish people would start getting this. What, do you think that freedom is okay only as long as it doesn't violate any of your sensibilities (including those related to how you assess danger)?

2) We know the general, non-gunowning public is uncomfortable or afraid around firearms. They've held rallies proclaiming their fear and feel that their own freedom to enjoy public spaces is being infringed. While their argument is unsupportable, why not CCW instead? You eliminate this reaction plus you avoid scrutiny from PD and gangbangers.

At the moment CCW simply isn't an option for most people here in California. It just isn't. Until that changes, your legal choices are limited to UOC or not carrying at all.

It seems, of those two choices, you'd generally prefer the latter. That's fine -- that's your choice. It is not your choice to make for others.

As for whether or not it is better to go unarmed than UOC, that depends on the person and his assessment of the circumstances. Arguments that an area is "safe" are worthless. Fort Hood was safe, until it wasn't. Virginia Tech was safe, until it wasn't. Shall I go on? In all of those cases, someone who had been UOC'ing could have stopped the carnage much earlier. And I guarantee that almost anyone who was there on those fateful days would have been grateful for the foresight and preparedness on the part of the UOCer, had said UOCer actually been there. Instead, those people died because there was nobody there who was equipped to save them.

Is your house "safe"? You live in a safe neighborhood, right? If so, then why would you have a firearm there? Just in case, right? Similarly, it's highly unlikely that you'll have a fire at your house, but you have a fire extinguisher anyway, right? You have it just in case there is a fire.

One carries a firearm, whether it's loaded or unloaded, concealed or unconcealed, just in case it's needed. The circumstances at the time may make it impossible to use. But it's an option that simply wouldn't be there at all otherwise. Options are good. Ask the survivors of incidents like Fort Hood and Virginia Tech if they disagree.

3) Do you think we should ignore the fears, groundless as they may seem, of the non-gunowning public? Or do you think we should at least have a conversation with them that includes incremental steps and education as we recapture our rights?

Do you think we should ignore the fears, groundless as they may seem, of the public as relates to hate speech, or speech grounded in a religion that is offensive to those who believe in some other religion, or any of that? How about the fears of the public as it related to blacks sitting wherever they wanted to in the bus? Think it was unwise to ignore those fears?

A right is really a right only when it can be exercised despite the protestations of others, including the general public. If a "right" can be exercised only when the general public doesn't think it's a bad idea then it's not a right at all. Requiring the permission of the general public, implicit or explicit, makes it a privilege.

All I'm saying is that UOC is fraught with problems. If we can open up CCW to the general public in a way that emphasizes public safety, everybody goes home happy.

Opening up CCW is necessary but not sufficient. Would you be happy with shall-issue CCW if it were a felony to print or accidentally reveal your weapon? Do you want to be forced to wear winter-style clothing in the summertime just so you can conceal your firearm? You know doing so will make you stand out from the crowd. Is that your intent?


Now, I'm not arguing in favor of UOC specifically here, I'm arguing in favor of LOC, really. But we also need there to be no prohibition against UOC, else it will suddenly become illegal for you to unload your gun in public for whatever reason (which may include emptying your magazine and reloading in the event you get into an altercation with one or more bad guys!).


Laws restricting freedom almost always put power in the hands of the bad guys at the expense of the good guys, since bad guys don't give a cr*p about laws. Support such laws at your peril.

[N6ATF]

Nope. He was detained but, that's it.

Detain/detention/detainment/detained is just a euphemism that is used to get away with making too-often maliciously false arrests. In reality, there are consensual encounters (you can leave at any time), and non-consensual encounters (movement arrested, you ain't goin' anywhere unless the cop lets you go).

[Dangerpin]

I agree completely, the law apparently does not. They can detain you, in cuffs and back of car, if they deem it necessary for as long as is "necessary" to gather some piece of information. It is supposed to be a "reasonable" amount of time, but that would need to be debated by a lawyer after the fact. It does not count as an arrest, though by definition it is. It is supposed to be a limited amount of time unless you are a "terrorist", in which case it can be indefinite.

[dieselpower]

Swiss, I jumped on you pretty hard, and I am sorry for that. Everyone has their trigger points, this is one of mine.
None of us should care if our right isnt liked by others. I don't like Flag burners, Gay marrage or racist. The fact I dont like it doesnt mean they need to fear me, or fear LEO. While I hate what they do or what they stand for, I will defend their right to do whatever they do...because thats their right. I can not take that away, and if the .gov trys to take that away I need to step up and defend them from .gov. We are under attack, our rights are under attack and your views help them.

Its plain and simple, your views help to take our rights away...here's some examples of how I see your logic...gays need to stay out of sight...why...because it makes people mad to see them dance around. It would be much better for gays to just hide in the closet. Flag burners need to STFU, why...because some folks hate hippies and they may attack the anti-gov flag burner. So its best for them not to talk **** or protest the .gov. Everyone must love everyone else for everyone to get along, therefor racist people need to STFU inorder for everyone to get along (I am trying to figure out how to defend a racist...but I can't LOL) They still have a right to their 1st as does everyone else.

I will answer your questions now.


1) I have no idea what in the mind of anyone untill they show me. You can not base the rights of people on the fear of everyone is a criminal.

2) None of my rights are based on the fear of others. Even if CCW is legal, OC is my right above CCW. CCW is a request in most states, the same as requesting a license to hold a protest ralley. OC is a right, not a privlage.

3) The last time I OCed, a woman looked at me and said, there are children around, put your gun away. I asked her if she told Police to hide their guns. She said yes i would, cops are bad news. Case in point...Dont base my rights on the fears of others. You will find yourself with a barcode tattoo and .gov has the scanner.

All I'm saying is that UOC is fraught with problems. If we can open up CCW to the general public in a way that emphasizes public safety, everybody goes home happy.

No we dont. We lost our right and replaced it with a privilege that can be taken away.