Ammo For Sale

« « Verizon wins the internet | Home | Gun Porn » »

Pissing off your own team

Toting your rifle down the street, wearing a kilt, with dark glasses and hat, you may as well be screaming “pay attention to me”. And you got attention:

I dunno, I’m sympathetic to the cop here. He was trying to be cool until dude got all “am I being detained?”

37 Responses to “Pissing off your own team”

  1. Rivrdog Says:

    This model of consciousness-raising is SO full of fail, it just screams, “not thought through” or “bad advice received” or “where’s the polite, dude”.

  2. DocMerlin Says:

    The cop opened up with “you are not being detained” that is another way of saying, “you don’t have to stand here.” So the guy walked off. It was within his rights to do so, and as every lawyer says, “NEVER talk to a cop.”

  3. Jerry the Geek Says:

    Mister Kiltie got what he wanted. The cop was exceedingly careful to (a) protect the public safety and (b) protect the rights of the citizen.

    I think it was a win/win situation, even thought Mister Kiltie had obviously set up the confrontation.

    I could never be a good cop. While watching the video, I realized that I was frustrated by the intransigence of the demonstrator, and I doubt I could have maintained my cool as well as this LEO Professional did.

    In response to the question: “Is HPD doing the best it can to protect Constitutional rights?” .. I would have to say yes, they are doing an exemplary job.

    And all that while keeping personalities out of the equation.

  4. JTC Says:

    I’m not surprised at the actions of this dickwad, but I am surprised that it was posted as pro-OCT propaganda, official logos and all, it is a miserable fail and instead once again begs to be questioned as false flag…even the subtitle scroll seems intended to paint gunnies as intractable nutball illiterates…didn’t see a single page that wasn’t full of misspellings and lousy syntax. GOOD JOB OCT!

  5. MrSatyre Says:

    Once upon a time, we all carried our swords and knives openly because it made it easier to defend ourselves against bandits and enemy soldiers. Then we carried our muskets and flintlock pistols and knives openly because it made it easier to defend ourselves against bandits and enemy soldiers. Then we carried our Winchesters and revolvers openly because it made it easier to defend ourselves against bandits and enemy soldiers (North vs. South). After a while, it became socially unacceptable to carry our pistols openly, and automobiles replaced the horse which made carrying our carbines around awkward while strolling the “civilized” streets of towns and cities. We could have, but that would have been scary. We caved in to the frightened few and suddenly what was once perfectly normal became bad. Even the people who claimed to want to protect our rights got their panties in twist over someone practicing their rights to defend themselves with the most effective tool against a well-armed bandit or enemy soldier (the government). Soon, we had elite members of the civilian population pretending that they knew better than the rest of us, and that they were “protecting” us by shaming or intimidating or arresting others for practicing the same rights in the same ways as we used to do just a short century before when it was considered stupid to go anywhere without being prepared for the worst. And now you posture about how concealed carry is the best and only way to stay armed and that anyone who would open carry a hand gun or a carbine is a lunatic and endangering our rights. Endangering them by making the government mad at us and threatening to take those rights away from us. The same government which you, time and time again, dare to take your guns from your cold dead fingers. Hypocrites, all.

  6. SPQR Says:

    Well, the fail isn’t confined to the video…

  7. Tam Says:

    “MrSatyre”,

    You should take your open-carried SKS and buttstroke your history teacher ’til the Tapco stock breaks for the fucked-up idea of American history you have.

  8. nk Says:

    Hell, yeah, I’m on the side of the cop. He did exactly what he is supposed to do. Abate a dangerous public nuisance.

  9. Mr Evilwrench Says:

    Well, the elites used to OC all that stuff, or have someone do it for them, and nobody else could really afford to; the problem is, they’re trying to keep it that way. I refuse to comply.

  10. DocMerlin Says:

    @MrSatyre: I concur.

  11. Tam Says:

    DocMerlin,

    Maybe when “MrSatyre” is done beating the shit out of his history teacher, he can hand you what’s left of his SKS so you can go to work on yours. 🙂

  12. Like I Says:

    The “my street” bloviating aside, I like what the cop was saying. Yes, dudes like this are ruining it for the cause.

    I know that open pistol carry in TX is not recognized, but open rifle carry is just plain stupid. Think about it; the average citizen is not taken back when they see LEOs openly carry pistols, but I reckon most everyone would be more than a little concerned if they saw a LEO carrying a rifle down the street. So how much more alarming is it when they see some dude in plain clothes toting an AR down the street. This will NOT win over the average citizen to our side.

    OCT is not thinking this out.

  13. Burnt Toast Says:

    am I being detained?

    I will skip the vid and comments and entered mine own version of am I being detained? to be untainted.

    I was once inconvenienced by HPD (surely another one), had two unmarked Monte Carlos up to the curb and a squad full of fresh faced young’uns pile out as if I was at the circus, but lacking bright happy costumes, they just wore plainclothes and claimed to be police.

    Oh, an’ an guy old enough to have silver hi-lights to his hair, who kind of hung out in the rear…

    Entertaining to the clown posse to show ID I put down my super-double-big-gulp onto the sidewalk and pulled out my driver’s license, assuming it to be ID, and had one clown accuse me of ‘littering’.

    Honesty the only defense I had was that the super-double-big-gulp was “my personal property and I will collect it when we are done”… followed by nods from greylocks in the rear…

    After about 15 minutes of them asking what I was doing, the blunt obvious response was, “Walking down the sidewalk” I had gotten bored and asked if I was under arrest (didn’t know no about this ‘detained’).

    They said, “No”

    I said, “By”,and started walking away.

    They said, “We have your DL”

    I said, “I will go to DMV tomorrow and report that a bunch of guys claiming to be HPD took it from me”

    Greyhair said “Give him back his DL”

    Still have no clue what their issue was….

    Never got a chance to ask the hottie I was talking to walking down the sidewalk how long she worked… as a cop posing as a prostitute…

    What kind of country is this that you cannot hit on a hot cop working a sting?

    Sheesh

  14. Burnt Toast Says:

    All I got out of the vid was that open carry of rifles in Teas is illegal.

  15. JTC Says:

    MrSatyre: I will give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that little disjointed and irrelevant diatribe was living up to your handle. If so, bravo sir, that is one dry and hilarious bit of satire. 🙂

    Oh, and DocMerlin? Dude played ya like a fiddle didn’t he?

    But on the depressingly likely chance that you are both sincere, I must sadly admit that the Scottish sidewalk warrior in the vid is not alone in his counterproductive nuttery,

  16. Publicola Says:

    What did he do that was illegal?

    Now personally I wouldn’t wear that kilt with that rifle carbine this far past labor day, but bad fashion sense doesn’t seem to be a valid reason for an arrest, or even being questioned.

    Was he doing anything that was unsafe? I’ll grant the video didn’t show everything, but was there proof he was committing a rule whatever violation?

    Those should be the only two questions that come into play – was it legal & was it safe. If no to the first then we get into whether the law was constitutional. If no to the second then I can see a little leeway for stopping someone & trying to correct their behavior. But if what he was doing was legal & safe then no matter how much the cop’s attitude was admirable then the cop was in the wrong. (& I’d bicker about any public servant’s attitude being admirable when he uttered the phrase “constitutional bullshit” on the clock.)

    The guy was detained because he was carrying a gun. It don’t matter if he wasn’t the most fashionable gent on the block or if he was the rudest most impertinent ass on the planet – he was stopped & detained simply cause he was carrying a gun.

    Want to dissect it into “teams” from there? Fine. Then ya gots yer choices – you can be on a team that don’t care what ya look like or how ya dress or how much money you make or how well you speak publicly & just supports someone’s Right to carry a weapon. Or you can be on the other team that is only really supportive if’n you look a certain way, or talk a certain way, or have tools & accessories approved by a certain clique, or have the optics to try for that illusive, mythical approval from the press who’s gonna hate ya anyway.

    The cop erred – he had no evidence of a crime & detained someone anyway. His goal in that detainment was to find out if the guy could legally carry a weapon. (That’d be “questioning” the Right’, btw, along with reversing that old adage about being innocent until guilt is proven.) I don’t think any Right can be meaningfully exercised if you can be stopped and held so the state can ascertain if you’re one of the wrong people or not. So no, the cop did not do anything supportive of the Right to carry. The privilege to carry perhaps, but not the Right.

    I have to disagree with ya Unc. This fellow wasn’t pissing off his own team – he was just showing where the divide twixt the two teams is. It’s a damn skippy shame that both teams don’t value Rights equally, but there it is.

  17. Paul L. Says:

    Just because the cop claims/lies to be on your side dues not mean you should give up “this constitutional crap”.

    Yet Another Houston Officer (Badge 7428) who doesnt Understand Failure to ID
    https://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/yet-another-houston-officer-badge-7428-who-doesnt-understand-failure-to-id/

    “Walking away from a consensual stop is now grounds to deploy your rifle?”

  18. wondering and wandering Says:

    Say, Tam. Instead of ripping everybody a new one, how about you teach us the “proper” and “approved” ways of open carrying – both a handgun and a carbine/rifle? You have talked in the past about “open carrying at” but I don’t recall your saying how someone who choses not to buy the permission slip is supposed to properly exercise the option to carry openly.

  19. nk Says:

    Don’t Scare White People.

    SayUncle.

  20. MAJMike Says:

    In my opinion, open carry is unwise and unnecessary. I’ve had a CHL since 1996 and feel no need to identify myself as “carrying”. Open carry only identifies you as a target of someone seeking to do harm.

    I don’t understand the whole rationale behind open carry. Are these folks just seeking to be “badass” or is there some more beep-seated reason for this activity?

  21. old 1811 Says:

    No, the cop didn’t err. Open carry of a rifle is not de facto legal. It’s only legal if the carrier is not a convicted felon or otherwise prohibited person, and if he has no lawful intent. Carrying a rifle in an urban area is suspicious activity, just like carrying a 54-inch TV down the street is (that’s also perfectly legal, right?). The officer had reasonable grounds to make a Terry stop and ascertain if a crime was or was not being committed. The way to do that is to identify the carrier, ascertain that he’s not a prohibited person, and that his intent is lawful. After all, he could be an OC activist, or he could be walking to his ex-girlfriend’s house to blow her head off. You pay your police to find things like that out.

  22. old 1811 Says:

    That should read, “if he has lawful intent” or “if he has no unlawful intent.” Stupid fingers.

  23. Mike V. Says:

    Old 1811 hit the nail on the head. While open carry may (or may not) be legal in TX if you’re not a prohibited person, when an officer sees someone walking down the street OC with a rifle he has an obligation to determine that person is or isn’t a prohibited person. When said person is obdurate, it takes what could be a brief pleasant stop to a different level (as seen here).

  24. Publicola Says:

    NK,
    I never agreed that my freedom should be restricted because of someone else’s fears. Whitey needs to grow the hell up. 🙂

    MajMike,
    I don’t like AR’s. I dislike Glocks. I could go on for a while concerning the reasons why. But if someone gets hassled for carrying one I don’t go off on how they shouldn’t have been carrying a friggin poodle shooter or a hand grenade with a handle. I try to at least offer verbal support if nothing else because they have a Right to carry weapons, any way they want, with or without anyone’s approval. as do I, as do you.

    Open carry has advantages – makes carrying large pistols much more comfy, especially in the summer, it usually doesn’t require a permit or license so those with moral objections to paying a tax for a permission slip or those who just can’t afford the tax extortion fees have a means of carrying that in theory won’t get them hassled, open carry doesn’t require a new wardrobe, etc. Your situation may lead you to think concealed carry is best for you, & that’s groovy. But it’s an individual choice, often relative & very subjective. Your way isn’t always better than open carry or vice versa – it just seems better to you.

    But in Texas it’s illegal to openly carry a handgun, yet legal to openly carry a long gun. The idea for some is to highlight that it shouldn’t be illegal to carry a handgun openly, hence all the open carry of long guns in Texas.

    Old1811,
    He erred. Remember that whole innocent until proven guilty thing? What you’re arguing is that no one has a Right to carry, only a privilege that may be vetted by any government official at any time for any reason whatsoever.

    I’ll skip over the flawed notion that a Terry stop is actually a constitutionally okey dokey thing to do, or that having a prohibited persons list is a good idea, let alone a constitutional one. Let’s just focus on what you’re saying is justifiable grounds for detaining someone. He was carrying a gun. That was all.

    Now carrying a long gun in Texas ain’t a crime. The idea of reasonable suspicion is that someone is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a crime. So did the cop have reason to believe this guy was a prohibited person when he first pulled up? Did he have reason to believe he just robbed a liquor store? That he was on the way to harm his ex? If so then he had grounds to stop the guy & ask questions. But none of what I saw on that video leads me to believe the cop stopped the guy for any other reason than the guy was enjoying his Rights. When the guy declined to chat that’s when the cop decided to detain him. Far as I remember, the courts generally don’t think that exercising a Right (in this case that pesky 5th amendment) can be used to assert reasonable suspicion.

    Carrying a 54″ TV ain’t suspicious, unless there’s a reason to believe a crime was or is being committed. Cop gets a call saying some guy stole a TV & said cop sees a guy carrying a TV, then that’s a justifiable stop. Cop gets a call that someone’s carrying a bible then that’s not a justifiable stop. Replace “bible” with “weapon”, or vice versa – it’s a fun little exercise that’ll make a person rethink a lot of what they feel. So I see no crime that the cop could have been suspecting. Unless you’re saying, as many here seem to be implying, that it should be illegal to carry a weapon in a way they don’t think is politically correct.

    The cop erred. He should be on unpaid leave while he prepares his defense for violating the guy’s right to carry.

    & don’t feel too bad – I’ve invented entire dialects in typo. (btw, that 1811 is a humdinger of a pistol, ain’t she?) 😀

  25. JTC Says:

    OTOH…

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/private-police-carry-guns-and-make-arrests-and-their-ranks-are-swelling/ar-BBi61Wv

    I would be unlikely to attract the attention of one of these self-appointed wannabe’s, but if an interaction occurred, I would be unlikely to cooperate.

    But that is unlike the situation here, wherin the appearance and actions of the subject probably resulted from a citizen’s call, meaning the leo contact was a reactive response to protect and serve the public who employ him.

    And he wanted to and would have protected and served the rights and interests of the subject too, if given the chance. But of course that would not have served the interests and purposes of his little dickumentary would it?

  26. Publicola Says:

    Mike V,
    You’re really saying that our Rights should be subject to someone on the government dole putting out a hand & asking “papers please”?

    There’s no obligation to determine if someone is or is not a prohibited person, unless you subscribe to the idea that we’re all “guilty until proven innocent”.

    & being stopped because you’re just freakin enjoying your Right is never pleasant, no matter how much the offending cop may smile or how polite his manner is. But you’re arguing that by dusting off his 5th amendment Right to not talk about himself when he’s being questioned regarding his 2nd amendment Right to carry a weapon, that’s somehow justification for him having his freedom of travel suspended (however so briefly it may be).

    what other constitutionally enumerated Rights should be subject to this level of disregard? & how much steppin’ & fetchin’ do you think a gun owner should have to do to satisfy any government agent that decides to question the Right to own or carry weapons?

  27. SayUncle Says:

    Arguments about rights and wrongs aside, point is that if you go seeking attention, don’t be surprised when you get some.

  28. Jake Says:

    @ Old1811 & Mike V:

    As noted in the article Paul L linked to, let me point you to this court decision that addresses your view.

    Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status. More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states.

    United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 540 (4th Cir. 2013).

    [Emphasis mine.]

    Bottom line: Where open carry – of sidearms or longarms – is legal, police do not have legal authority to stop you for open carrying or to investigate to determine if you are a prohibited person or not, unless there is some indication you may be committing a crime. Simply openly carrying a firearm where doing so is legal is not enough.

  29. JTC Says:

    Question: If you saw a young black dude in full thug garb running down your street toting an AK, or an older white dude with his pointy white sheet on with a cross in one hand, a gas can in the other and a carbine on a sling, would you call for service from the leo’s you pay to serve? And if you did and they refused, would you be pissed? Or might you take up your own weapon and prepare to defend?

    The leo here is doing what he is paid to do, determining if there is a threat to the public he serves, and possibly even precluding a neighborhood vigilante from dealing with a potential threat personally, possibly resulting in a gun battle on public streets. How many here vociferously defended the actions of G. Zimmerman in profiling a potential threat and taking matters into his own hands when the cops were too slow, unnecessarily but justifiably ending one life and ruining his own? How the fuck are these scenarios different?

    Logic and reason are what separate us from the lower primates, and there is nothing logical and reasonable about defending behaviors intended to elicit exactly the response that resulted…just because someone is carrying a tool doesn’t exempt him from the requirements of a polite society; that is the very basis of a libertarianism that holds as the ideal the right and responsibility to self-governance and the concept of defending ones own without trampling on or infringing the rights of others.

    This dude ain’t on my side or yours, he’s a publicity whore and an agitator; his ends and his means are one and the same and the effects on your rights are irrelevant to him. Fuck him.

  30. Deaf Smith Says:

    There is a world of difference between some hunter toting his gun down the road while going to the other field to hunt and the guy toting a AK or AR down the street of a city.

    One has to look at the ‘totally of the circumstance’ to decide if it warrants any danger.

    Sorry folks, but I’d be concerned to if I saw that idiot in the video.

  31. Mr Evilwrench Says:

    There was some suspicious activity right out front of my house a couple of nights ago, and a vehicle wound up parked across the street. It’s still there, in fact. We looked at it with night vision and all, but I finally just had to go out and check it, make, model, plate.

    I went out with my AR (poodle shooter) at low ready on a 3 point, and if a cop had driven up at that point, which isn’t entirely unexpected (the people across the street seem to have a lot of friends in the police force; they’re always coming to visit) I’d probably have had to answer a couple of questions, but mostly because this town is packed to the rafters with soccer moms. Fortunately, when they’ve had their doughnuts, most of them are pretty cool.

    If I happened to catch someone walking down my sidewalk with a rifle, I might ask “Good sir, what is your intention with that weapon on my property?” but I wouldn’t call the cops unless I felt literally threatened, and then only to have them come clean up after I’d done him in.

    Yes, we’re trying to (re)normalize possession and carry of firearms, unfortunately there are a good few trying to further demormalize it. Disputes like this will continue for a while, either way.

  32. Burnt Toast Says:

    Burnt Toast Says:
    March 1st, 2015 at 12:34 am

    All I got out of the vid was that open carry of rifles in Texas is illegal.

    Ahh, good we have a quorum (not that a single post since mine last any of the irrelevant crapola I posted –

    Open carry is not legal in Texas.
    Nor is Presumption of Innocence,
    all that good ol’ Texas liberty,

    Let it go.

    Now for real serious matters of interest to all right minded, meaning those who really know what liberty is all about, Texans out there – chile, beans or no beans?

    Just having been to a ‘Texas Roadhouse’ chain restaurant, I ordered chili on the side and got this stuff with beans in it?!

    WTF

  33. Nick Says:

    “Only thing I could POSSIBLY throw on this dude is failure to ID but then the question becomes ‘Do I have probable cause enough to detain him in the first place'”

    Bingo. He does not and he knows it. Unless he was LOOKING for a felon in a yellow shirt and a straw hat, the answer is no. The premise that he has to “make sure you’re allowed to carry” should spark a thought.

  34. Nick Says:

    Maybe just maybe the people that are getting pissed should just not get pissed.

  35. Linoge Says:

    …is there some more beep-seated reason for this activity?

    Yeah. It’s easier and more comfortable to not have to dress around the firearm.

  36. Oddball Says:

    I was going to ask what’s wrong with wearing a kilt, then I noticed that he had the damned thing on backwards!

  37. Jake Says:

    There is a world of difference between some hunter toting his gun down the road while going to the other field to hunt and the guy toting a AK or AR down the street of a city.

    Except that, legally, there is not. For all the officer knows, he’s carrying it over to a friend’s house so they can go to the range together, or walking to the gunsmith so he can get it fixed.

    Let me say it again. “[W]here a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention”.