re: Guy stopped in Portland for open carrying

quote:

---

Oh and the dude in the video wasn't searched.

---

He and his property were seized. Still a 4th Amendment violation.

quote:

---

I was asked what I was doing in a condescending tone and I knew immediately what he was getting at. I then asked if wal mart had a policy against it, he said no and that he was just asking. I then told him my circumstances. There wasn't anything to it other than that. Like I said, I was polite and so was he.

---

So was he condescending or was he polite?

Or maybe you took him that way since you knew you were drawing attention to yourself and just waiting for someone to say something to you. After talking to him for a moment you realized he wasn't being a prick

quote:

---

no, but understand that the cops will get called on you, and do go off spitting some legal talk, just let the cops do their job, and you will get your gun back and be on your way.

---

I completely disagree. If the police are doing something that isn't allowed by law, we as citizens are clearly within our rights to notify the officer of the fact that he is breaking the law.

The officer had no right whatsoever to detain the guy in the video or take his firearm from him. The officer could have handled the situation differently and just approached to have a conversation with the gun carryer and perhaps assuaged his concerns that way. Instead, he just stops the guy and takes his gun (over objection).

The courts have been very clear on this issue: the cop can approach and talk and ask questions and as long as the person approaches thinks they are free to leave, the Fourth Amendment doesn't attach. Once things start getting seized, those rights attach.

quote:

---

You say you were pulled over for bull shite reasons? Did you actually commit a traffic violation? I just don't get what people have against police officers being proactive.

---

The problem I have with it is that those types of actions are NOT legal!! It's not a matter of having something "against" proactive officers; it's that in most situations, the proactive police officer steps all over the Constitution in being proactive.

Don't get me wrong--I'm pro-LE. VERY pro-LE.

But, acting like some of the things some officers try to do, that it's no big deal, they're being proactive, etc., doesn't do any good from a legal standpoint and leads to poorer police work.

Do it the right way every time and there are no foul-ups that cause some perp to walk free.

quote:

---

it's that in most situations, the proactive police officer steps all over the Constitution in being proactive.

---

I've agreed with everything you have said up until the above point.

quote:

---

My comment about people being upset by a proactive LEO was directed at the complaining of bs traffic stops to look for DWIs. If you commit a traffic violation and are stopped then you are the only one to blame.

---

Yeah, we both agreed (the officer and I) in the end my tail lights were not obstructed by snow. We all know he stopped simply for a reason to stop to be "proactive." The other time I was stopped was because I slightly fishtailed in the snow while starting at an intersection. Imagine that, in the snow.

If I am truly doing something dangerous to someone and I am stopped for that reason, I have no problem at all. I got a ticket for speeding last year for going 8 over the limit, and think the dude did his job.

quote:

---

Pretty sure that just about everyone has a story of a bad experience with a police officer.

---

We have laws to protect us from an overzealous CJ system, thank goodness. I don't want to be randomly stopped however no more than I want someone coming in my house for bullshite reasons, which has happened as well. Once it's done, you have little recourse for it.

Just watched the video and I think ole boy put the cop in his place. If he hadn't cited those cases, he'd be bent over the car in cuffs in no time. Those cops have probably NEVER had anyone stand up to them like that.

I loved it.