#1
|
||||
|
||||
Freedoms, liberties and rights.
Now I've had a few arguments with these guys before, but this one really takes the cake. I'd like to hear your guys opinions on it. It's a bit of a long convo, but please try to read it all.
This video (more or less) was posted on a uni society page on facebook. This is the conversation that followed. I've removed everyone elses names for obvious reasons. Quote:
So yeah, and this is still ongoing. If you want to post your own thoughts I'd appreciate it. Last edited by biggles1; 02-25-2013 at 01:13 PM. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
I couldn't even finish watching the video. People who can rattle off extremely specific details about laws are the most obnoxious people on the planet. The cop here is just responding to a call and the student is being a dickhead. No one's rights are being eroded, its just a cop who clearly doesn't want to put up with this shit and a paranoid jackass who thinks the shadow police are out to enslave the country. Your friends are idiots.
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
EDIT: extra convo stuff added
Quote:
They are typical paranoid conspiracy theorists, twisting every tiny detail into a mountain of imaginary threats. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
EDIT UPDATE
Stupidity level went up by 9000 Important quote bolded. Quote:
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
May I ask, whom these people are?
Also may I ask, who said this? Quote:
Furthermore, while the police do their fair share of silly things; no police-officer in his right mind would say this in the middle of an airport. He would be on suspended within seconds. I basically stopped reading after that part. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
People from my university shooting society, and the 2 main talkers (A and D) are Firearms certificate holders.
Oh trust me keep reading. It gets MUCH better. :V |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
First time I ever agreed with you Rebbie
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
I got up to "Their job is to suppress you" before having to call bull. And apparently that's where you cracked a bit, too.
Though I do ask that should my home sweet home come up again in further conversation in a more direct fashion, please contact me immediately via messenger, Steam, or however you can reach me so I my elucidate your compatriots on how things work in the heart of the ever loving red states with regards to what people will gladly do for their liberty and their safety and to assist in maintaining those rights, as well as the traditionalist view on such treatment to local men in uniform. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Ok, so I watched the video; appealing legal analyse to the case:
Facts: The guy's gun was on public display, as we can deduce from the fact people felt the need to report him. The police-officer stopped him to ascertain why he was wondering about with his substitute-dick on the display. He claims this is illegal. Legal issues Stopped without due-cause Request for identification without legal right False imprisonment Law: Now, due to the officers' uniforms and cars, I am guessing this is LA; this is important because There you can carry a 'concealed' gun with a permit, and it is illegal to openly carry any loaded weapon. PS Ironically, the concealed part does not differentiate between loaded and unloaded, so in theory, a concealed unloaded gun is more likely to be illegal than a openly held unloaded gun...erm...derp. This means that if, as is logically deductible from the facts, this gentlemen's loaded gun (I think it was loaded) is on display, then the officer has every right to stop him and ask for his identification, and even charge him. Now, if this is not LA or the gun is not loaded, then there is still threatening behaviour (which I suspect is in most, if not all states a crime of some description), and walking down the street with your gun out on open display has caused people to feel alarm, thus the police-officer is under a duty to investigate that as their is a public safety threat. Now, it may be that it would not be enough to charge him, but that is why this is an investigation, not a charge (derp), but it would certainly be enough to fulfill the very low bar for reason suspicion to stop and question him, once that bar is passed, then he is allowed to request your license for your gun, as for the ID, well yes, you are allowed to refuse, if you refuse, you are not obstructing him in the course of his duty, but here is a better object, just do not go round with your gun out ass-hole. The officer here clearly did not really know how to handle the situation, but he did nothing wrong and was probably just tired from having to deal with twits like this guy, who actually seems to think we should kiss his ass for being an ass-hole. This guy needs to get over himself and that is coming from me, another stuck-up Law student. [ Actually, on the whole, I hate Law students, I rarely, if ever, hung out with any of the other Law students on my course; you think I am pretentious prick, one of these guys once cried because a girl he knew got 2% higher than him on his coursework. ] PS If your friends hate US law, then they will loath our law, where judges have basically said, yes police should follow procedure, but if breaking procedure prevents a crime, then the ends justify the aims. << |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
^well said
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
I actually agree with most of what Fared said. My own thoughts about the video are as follows:
*The police officer had no legal right to detain him without suspecting him of a crime, so why didn't he just A) say that he suspected him of carrying a loaded gun if that was illegal in his area or B) let him go? The police officer was not following protocol, and could therefore have acted better in this situation. *That being said, the law student ALSO could have handled himself better in the situation. He was very obviously trying to make a point, which in-and-of-itself is ok, but he was being a dick about it. He could have been more civil in explaining his position to the police officer instead of shoving his face repeatedly into his failings. TL;DR: There is no golden boy of the situation. They both kind of suck. EDIT: HEY FARED, THEY'RE IN PORTLAND, OREGON (if you want to research local laws to make a more informed comment. I know I will!) Open carry of long guns and handguns are both permitted in Oregon by anyone who is not prohibited (not a felon [like the police officer was trying to determine about the student], not convicted of a violent misdemeanor, not addicted to drugs or alcohol, and not involuntarily committed to a mental institution). Permits are only required for concealed carry of handguns (and MUST be issued if requirements of application are met, not issued on discretion). However Portland as a city has banned all loaded guns in public places, and the state law does not preempt in regard to unlicensed open carries. But guns may be carried openly if unloaded. Analysis of new info: The police officer should have said that he suspected the man of carrying a loaded firearm in public (which would have been illegal in Portland, and therefore a legitimate reason to detain the student). Then the student should have shown him that the gun was not loaded, and then have been released as he had not broken any laws. Simple solution. Morons on both sides of the interaction. Last edited by musigal; 02-26-2013 at 10:59 PM. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
It seems that gun laws are rather relaxed in the state, though I'm unsure about the city. From what I can discern, open carry is allowed in the state though permits are issued, generally guns are allowed to be carried in the open though some cities require a concealed carry license to do so. Otherwise, it seems to be a rather lax state requiring no permits for purchase or ownership nor a need to register guns.
Though that being said, the more I watch this video, the more I think that there is only one party in the wrong. My voice of reason and logic: A subject carrying a small and easily concealed firearm down a public residential street in a manner so noticeable and concerning to the general public as to have them file reports to police officers about it seems to warrant some sort of investigation; if not in any official capacity, then to at least to serve as an assurance to the concerned individuals who reported this student. That said, the student was right about his rights and was well within them to refuse to cooperate so long as it was done peacefully. Though now that I've covered what facts of the situation I can present, I feel compelled, as is customary in the lands of family, to share my honest, if not entirely humble nor unbiased, opinion: Thank you for that small indulgence and for your time. I hope that I have made at least one point for you to take with you in the following posts. EDIT: And you may quote me on all of this. Last edited by gwtyler1985; 02-27-2013 at 04:15 AM. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks for the replies. It's glad to see not everyone thinks the police are forming some kind of dystopian police state behind our backs.
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
1=Concealed firearms require permit. 2=Unloaded firearms do not require permit when openly carried. 3=Loaded firearms are illegal when openly carried. All three key issues are the same here. =The only difference which could be important here is the city/countryside area issue; however, as we do not have enough facts to ascertain if this is part of the main city or not, we cannot comment fairly there. =As I said, the gun appears loaded, but even if it is not, he behaviour caused alarm which is enough for the Police to question him. Note carrying an unloaded gun in public is not illegal, bt carrying it in a manner which causes alarm can be, therefore the officer has every right to question him. I am actually one 100% on the side of tyler, the fact the guy had a camera and was walking around with his gun on display is 'strange'. I did not include this in my legal review of the case because it irrelevant to the legal facts and would have constituted hearsay at best, but him walking around with his gun and camera read, in my mind, shows this guy is ether paranoid or doing this purposefully, just to get stopped and challenged by the police, so he could fight the man and show how much smarter than a cop he is. :P I suspect the latter because he went to the effort of memorising the name of any case he could find on google which vaguely linked to his point, as if that somehow made him a Queen's Counsel. Yer, well, Mr Douche, I could ring off 1223 case-names for my final third year exams, that does not make me a legal expert. [ Note, to those who do not know, a Queen's Counsel is the highest rank of Barrister (Lawyer with rights of advocacy) in the UK and certain commonwealth countries. I know several QCs and they would have disgusted by his behaviour. ] Furthermore, this guy's disrespectful and irresponsible behaviour only provides people like myself with more evidence that easy access to guns is not a good thing, which means he has done his own side no favours. You should also know that a police-officer stopping you to talk is not a form of detention, so the officer did nothing wrong there. It is only detention if he acts to stop you in the belief you are, have, are going to or would otherwise have committed a crime. Notice, the officer, for his failings, was smart enough to show he was merely carrying out an investigation of a report of possible safety violation. He never accused this man or stopped him from walking away. In fact, he openly said he was free to leave. This is probably why he did not try to bring any crimes against the guy, he just wanted to confirm that the guy was just a douche with little-man symodrone and not a psycho (thus wanting to run his name). Furthermore, the student appears to have willingly and without duress handed over the gun, so the Police-officer did not de-facto detain him through duress of property. Moreover, the Police-officer was then within his rights to keep hold of the Gun if he felt a safety threat existed, which the antagonistic nature of the student could be seen to present. Last edited by Fat1Fared; 02-27-2013 at 04:03 PM. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Fared, any words on the whole "Police are there to limit our freedoms" half of the conversation?
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Furthermore, the idea that police want to limit our freedoms and that this is worse than ever before, complete fantasy: Point 2=Laws restricting our freedoms, rights of assembly...etc have existed as long as the concept of law has existed. I mean, we are going right back to the Sheriff of Nottingham here. Point 1=There are not enough police out there to restrict our freedom, even if they wanted to, which most do not. Most just want to do a good job and help your everyday citizen get on in life, but they cannot do this because of douchebags. I think what pisses me off about this guy is that part of my job, a part I take real pride in, is holding public bodies and officers of the state, such as police-officers, to account. So, watching this prancing clown make a mockery of that just to prove a point irks me no end. I not only support people knowing their rights, I implore them to, but not so they can stroke their own ego, but so they can actually defend themselves when right and necessary to do so. What this guy does not realise is that most of the things the police get wrong, they do so wholly by mistake. It is complete human-failing, and most of those mistakes are caused because of the massive volume of work they have, high pressure work at that. So, not only is this guy making their cop's life more difficult, but even worse by adding to that cop's workload he is stopping that cop dealing with potential other, more important issues and adding to his stress, thereby making the cop even more likely to make even more mistakes that day. I am not saying every mistake a cop makes is down to time-wasters, but time-wasters like this guy do not realise that they are actually only adding to the problem. So I do not object to this guy out of morality, but as on a practical level as someone who actually does, for his work, hold the police to account. Last edited by Fat1Fared; 02-27-2013 at 04:24 PM. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
To a point, it was mentioned that said pistol was indeed loaded and live. That, and many of us familiar with the term Barrister could probably guess easily enough the purpose (at least in theory) and rank of the title Queen's Counsel, as implied by the name. Rather interesting job description, that.
Though one thing does bring up further interesting speculation: is there any proof that the person in the video studied law other than, as our friend confirmed to study law as put it, the names of "any case he could find on google which vaguely linked to his point"? Without further information presented voluntarily by this man, I do believe the assumption that this person is a law student doesn't quite take hold as it is quite possible that this is just a regular douchebag with access to google and mislabeled as a law student by whoever posted the video. Though given their displayed paranoia and insistence on keeping themselves off the record, I rather doubt that they would be willing to provide more information (though should our speculation about the man be just that, I still rather doubt that he would give the necessary information on principle, should he be anywhere near as intelligent as the video implies). But as Fared said, all of that apart from the pistol being loaded and live is merely hearsay. I honestly didn't expect anyone to pick that up and run with it. And as a final note for this post, I do indeed object to this person out of morality, but also as a representative of the demographic that this person is supposedly making an asshole out of himself for. Last edited by gwtyler1985; 02-27-2013 at 04:39 PM. |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Didn't mean to offend, Fared. Didn't mean to imply that your opinion wasn't well informed. I just merely wanted to share my enthusiasm about researching with you, who I know also enjoy researching topics in order to be thorough.
On a different note, the police officer WAS detaining him by not returning his gun to him. The student says multiple times, "May I have my gun back." Also, he didn't have his camera out the whole time. The filming begins in the middle of their interaction. And just because this guy's a nimrod doesn't mean that everyone who has guns is or will be. Labeling a group based on the behavior of one individual is just silly. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Actually, surprise that it is, we've yet to actually bring up the topic of gun rights apart from my personal position and that, taking care to speak for my demographic, this man was not doing his part, as a gun owner, to be mindful of how he portrays the groups the video claims he is a part of.
On your note, the officer did appear return the weapon after a cursory inspection and the overall presentation of the video's "opening credits" leads me to believe that the video was edited, giving no indication of how long the actual interaction was nor what happened before or after this clip. That is why we have so far analyzed the clip, as well as some student analysis of the clip and their dissension with one of our friends. |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Mostly because I didn't want a debate on Gun laws themselves. More so on the standing of the officer and student from a legal perspective, plus some discussion on the replies I was given in the original argument.
|
|
|