His yearly OC detainment - ME

[vantec08]

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?103248-My-yearly-detainment-in-Portland&p=1760733#post1760733

the youtube video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfdEbe7e9GE

[GaryV]

While he did a great job of knowing his rights and insisting they be respected, if he doesn't file a suit I don't see this as going anywhere useful.

[Kauf]

I can't help but smile when I see vids like this

[j.hors]

I believe the word I'm looking for in this case is...
SCHOOLED

[nick]

This post from that forum pretty much sums it up:

I disagree. The Portland Police just got a letter from a citizen complaining about officer treatment of a citizen.

If the cook at Denny's burnt my pancakes, and I wrote a letter to the manager complaining about it, would you say, "Yeah! Denny's just got ***** slapped!!!"? No. The chief probably read the first three sentences, and tossed it in the trash. You know. Like the 300 other "***** slaps" they receive every week?

Why.....If I was a police chief, and the only thing I had to worry about when one of my officers stomped all over someone's rights was an angry letter (no matter how well designed and written), I'd be thrilled.

After all, when YOU break the law, YOU go to jail. When my officers break the law, I just receive well written letters.

Yeah. My "***** slaps" put folks behind bars and alter their permanent records.

Your "***** slaps" go directly to the bottom of my office waste basket.

Maybe, If someone filed a FOIA request, hired an attorney, and filed a lawsuit that they have evidence for, I might be worried. After all, something like that would set precedent for possible future behavior of my officers. Shoot. If the department had to actually face REAL CONSEQUENCES (what you face when YOU break the law) for the laws they broke, I might tell my officers to alter their behavior towards open carriers. But, the author of this letter just told me that he's not the litigious kind. (Yeah. Like my officers aren't the "arresting kind". Do you think If YOU broke the law, my officer would write you a well written letter instead of arresting you?) I'm so happy that the reverse isn't true! My officers can dance jigs all over the law, and guess what? I get a letter!

Now for the cool part: I'll just take a few minutes to jot down a little rubber stamp apology letter attesting to how sorry I am that this happened, and folks will consider me sufficiently "***** slapped", and we can all move on from this horrific incident as if nothing happened. (Because, If there's no further legal proceedings, that's pretty much the truth. So very different if the roles were reversed, huh?)

[choprzrul]

This type of thing is a direct side effect of outsourcing our personal security to an agent of the government. Should we be able to return to being personally responsible for our own security, this type of illegal stop will cease.

IMHO, there are 2 areas of LE need:
1. Traffic & ordinance enforcement at the municipality level. Think meter maid type of stuff.

2. An investigative arm of each AG office.

Current day LE are really good at solving crime, but really terrible at preventing it from happening. I live 2 minutes from a SD substation. In that 2 minutes me and my whole family can get really dead.

.

[CitaDeL]

Law suit - or this is all academic.

[nicki]

alot of drama.

I am sure I will get flamed, but even though the person in the video had the right not to show his ID, it is something I probably would have done to move along.

There is exercising one's rights and then there is being obnoxious about it.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Nicki

[RazzB7]

I am sure I will get flamed, but even though the person in the video had the right not to show his ID, it is something I probably would have done to move along.

There is exercising one's rights and then there is being obnoxious about it.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Nicki

I disagree with you here. By showing his ID, his identity would have been logged into that encounter. No big deal, right? But that means he would have had a law enforcement documented encounter involving a gun. This could have ramifications in the future with security clearances, job interviews, LTC background checks. Any number of things. He wasn't doing anything wrong, therefore no need to detain him or log any information on the incident. I usually think these youtube commandos act like azzhats, but he made his points calmly and intelligently.

[bill_k_lopez]

I am sure I will get flamed, but even though the person in the video had the right not to show his ID, it is something I probably would have done to move along.

There is exercising one's rights and then there is being obnoxious about it.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Nicki

So what you're saying is you enjoy GIVING your rights away as opposed to them being taken away, right?

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Law suit - or this is all academic.

Yup.

I am sure I will get flamed, but even though the person in the video had the right not to show his ID, it is something I probably would have done to move along.

There is exercising one's rights and then there is being obnoxious about it.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Nicki

Disagree. Making the shift supervisor get off his tail has value. Because "schooling" supervisors matters even more than "schooling" beat cops.


The Raisuli

[Bhobbs]

I am sure I will get flamed, but even though the person in the video had the right not to show his ID, it is something I probably would have done to move along.

There is exercising one's rights and then there is being obnoxious about it.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Nicki

The only way to make the LEOs respect our rights is to make it hurt when they don't.