Thank goodness for YouTube

[handog]

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This guy would have a boot on the back of his neck if not for his buddy filming him. Notice he was not willing to give up his rights due to public/law enforcement ignorance.

[Blindref757]

Where can you legally carry a long gun in TX? Only on sidewalks? In the mall? On private property? I appreciate anyone who could clarify that for me! Thanks!

[jmra]

Let me start by saying I don't go out looking for a confrontation with anyone, much less the police. That being said;
When will "ignorance of the law is no excuse" be applied equally to both LEO and the "Citizen"? If I don't know or fail to abide by the rules and laws regulating my industry, I get fired or even go to jail. If I had interacted with one of my "customers" the way this officer did, not only would I be fired but I would not be able to find a job anywhere in my line of work. I also could face civil rights violation charges.
Did I actually hear this officer use the term "retarded"? Unbelievable!
It's time for law enforcement to weed out members who are either incapable of learning (or are unwilling to learn) the laws regulating their industry and the rights of the citizens by whom they are employed.
I have a great respect for law enforcement. Most of the ones I encounter are extremely professional - this guy is not one of them.
Did anyone else catch him in at least one lie? The most obvious was when he stated that they were getting a lot of calls about this guy and his rifle. He then later states that they have a report of "one" call. He then again shows his ignorance of the law by stating that another call would constitute an offense which would result in an arrest. This guy should not be wearing a badge.
Did you see how the older guy changed his tune big time when presented with actual law? He had enough sense to realize he was wrong and handled himself very professionally when he realized he was in error.
I am totally amazed that an officer (both in this case) does not have the basic foundational training of when their "customer" is/isn't required to produce identification. Totally unacceptable!

[tomtexan]

Let me start by saying I don't go out looking for a confrontation with anyone, much less the police. That being said;
When will "ignorance of the law is no excuse" be applied equally to both LEO and the "Citizen"? If I don't know or fail to abide by the rules and laws regulating my industry, I get fired or even go to jail. If I had interacted with one of my "customers" the way this officer did, not only would I be fired but I would not be able to find a job anywhere in my line of work. I also could face civil rights violation charges.
Did I actually hear this officer use the term "retarded"? Unbelievable!
It's time for law enforcement to weed out members who are either incapable of learning (or are unwilling to learn) the laws regulating their industry and the rights of the citizens by whom they are employed.
I have a great respect for law enforcement. Most of the ones I encounter are extremely professional - this guy is not one of them.
Did anyone else catch him in at least one lie? The most obvious was when he stated that they were getting a lot of calls about this guy and his rifle. He then later states that they have a report of "one" call. He then again shows his ignorance of the law by stating that another call would constitute an offense which would result in an arrest. This guy should not be wearing a badge.
Did you see how the older guy changed his tune big time when presented with actual law? He had enough sense to realize he was wrong and handled himself very professionally when he realized he was in error.
I am totally amazed that an officer (both in this case) does not have the basic foundational training of when their "customer" is/isn't required to produce identification. Totally unacceptable!

I heard it at least on two different occasions during the entire event.

[handog]

Let me start by saying I don't go out looking for a confrontation with anyone, much less the police. That being said;
When will "ignorance of the law is no excuse" be applied equally to both LEO and the "Citizen"? If I don't know or fail to abide by the rules and laws regulating my industry, I get fired or even go to jail. If I had interacted with one of my "customers" the way this officer did, not only would I be fired but I would not be able to find a job anywhere in my line of work. I also could face civil rights violation charges.
Did I actually hear this officer use the term "retarded"? Unbelievable!
It's time for law enforcement to weed out members who are either incapable of learning (or are unwilling to learn) the laws regulating their industry and the rights of the citizens by whom they are employed.
I have a great respect for law enforcement. Most of the ones I encounter are extremely professional - this guy is not one of them.
Did anyone else catch him in at least one lie? The most obvious was when he stated that they were getting a lot of calls about this guy and his rifle. He then later states that they have a report of "one" call. He then again shows his ignorance of the law by stating that another call would constitute an offense which would result in an arrest. This guy should not be wearing a badge.
Did you see how the older guy changed his tune big time when presented with actual law? He had enough sense to realize he was wrong and handled himself very professionally when he realized he was in error.
I am totally amazed that an officer (both in this case) does not have the basic foundational training of when their "customer" is/isn't required to produce identification. Totally unacceptable!

I heard it at least on two different occasions during the entire event.

And that was his best behavior knowing he was being filmed!? I agree with jmra, there should be a higher standard when recruiting LEO'S. The ones who are dishonest, cant think for themselves or know the law should be weeded out. Actually they should have never been hired in the first place.

All phone in complaints should be evaluated to see if a crime has been committed. Ofttimes it's man with gun = jail.

[bilgerat57]

Sort of reminds me of a story about the man who grabbed a tiger by the tail. He was perfectly safe as long as he had the tigers tail in his hand, but he had no idea what to do with it now that he had it. He also couldn't figure out how to let go...... Obviously this officer had a hard time tolerating someone who didn't just knuckle under to his authority. Seems like a bit of civility on his part could have made the situation much less tense. Possibly a good civil rights lawyer could make an abuse of power case out of this. Not to mention the "acting retarded" remark being a public relations issue. I've been approached a few times for a similar thing, and the officers I've dealt with were civil and professional without the confrontational attitude this officer displayed. A few friendly questions and I was on my way with no hassle.

[texanjoker]

I have issues with open carry guys trying to make a name for themselves on youtube. I do not believe guys like this help the 2nd amendment cause. I also believe the LEO needed to move on. Standing there trying to debate something that is not illegal is pointless and only serves to make a thread like this across the net which also doesn't help. Imo it's a loose loose incident for all sides.

[Robert*PPS]

I have issues with open carry guys trying to make a name for themselves on youtube. I do not believe guys like this help the 2nd amendment cause. I also believe the LEO needed to move on. Standing there trying to debate something that is not illegal is pointless and only serves to make a thread like this across the net which also doesn't help. Imo it's a loose loose incident for all sides.

I have mixed emotions about these tapes. On one side, I agree with you in the sense that they seem intentionally inflammatory. They make pro gun advocates look like antagonists. In another sense though, these tapes do bring things to light such as: 1) An officer has no obligation or duty to be truthful to you; 2) Officers are just like everybody else in that they are susceptible to ignorance of the law; and 3) by demonstrating your right with open carry, you will most likely be contacted by an officer, and whether that encounter is good or bad is a crap shoot.

[handog]

The video points out a serious defect within the 911 emergency call system. The LEO in this scenario is only part of the problem. The question is, why was the LEO informed to begin with? The 911 operators should be trained to ask the caller, what is the person doing with the firearm? Is he threatening any one? is it holstered? has he fired it? If the answer is, he is just carrying it, then, no law has been broken and the LEO should not have been dispatched. The LEO, in this case was obligated at that point to see if an actual crime was being committed. The investigation could have been cut short but after admitting no law was broken chose to waste tax payer money by threatening the gun holder with arrest 16 times? I lost count, to a guy who obviously knew his rights and was filming the whole time.

[Keith B]

The video points out a serious defect within the 911 emergency call system. The LEO in this scenario is only part of the problem. The question is, why was the LEO informed to begin with? The 911 operators should be trained to ask the caller, what is the person doing with the firearm? Is he threatening any one? is it holstered? has he fired it? If the answer is, he is just carrying it, then, no law has been broken and the LEO should not have been dispatched. The LEO, in this case was obligated at that point to see if an actual crime was being committed. The investigation could have been cut short but after admitting no law was broken chose to waste tax payer money by threatening the gun holder with arrest 16 times? I lost count, to a guy who obviously knew his rights.

I don't dispute that 911 dispatchers should be trained to gather as much information as possible on a call (which is a detriment to us at times, but that is for another topic), but many of them are NOT LEOs and should not be making the call on the legality of the issue. They can inform the person that openly carrying a long gun is not necessarily illegal, but unless the caller is satisfied with the answer that it may be legal they should dispatch an officer to investigate. I personally don't want a 911 operator (aka administrative person) making the decision to not send a LEO. We have seen too many cases where that has not ended well for the caller.

[mojo84]

I think the LEO could and probably should respond if someone calls. I think this issue is the manner in which they respond and how they conduct themselves just as it is important how the one being contacted responds and conducts themselves.

Just because a cop approaches someone does not mean there needs to be any intimidation or posturing to show who is alpha. This goes for either party. If one starts acting inappropriately, then that is different.

A cop can approach someone cordially and get an idea very quickly if the person is doing anything nefarious. If not, no reason for intimidation and confrontation. Same goes for the person being contacted.

There needs to be mutual respect between the parties and neither needs to try to bully or intimidate the other. Unfortunately, too often, the parties involved lose sight of this.

[gigag04]

Ofttimes it's man with gun = jail.

Stat?

[handog]

Ofttimes it's man with gun = jail.

Stat?

My hypothesis is supported by YouTube broadcast only. Hard statistics are impossible to gather because false arrest lawsuits are seldom filed. LEOs are shielded from false arrest lawsuits through a process known as qualified immunity.

[Fangs]

Would I do it? No, I have a job and can't afford to spend time in jail.

Am I glad that other people are doing it? Yes.

So many people are trained to comply with "papers please" that this country is already over half of the way to Nazi Germany. It won't change without any resistance.

Remember Boston/Watertown after the bombing? This LEO has that mentality in Texas, how long before he feels free to walk into your home and do as he pleases?

[suthdj]

I did not watch to the end I skipped the last 5-10%. I fail to see a problem with how the LEO was doing anything wrong. He wanted the guy to identify, just give name and birthdate.Like most of these video's it is childish nit picking one way or another by LEO or citizen.