One of the first things he said was "You're on camera". So basically, he knew there was to be a confrontation. I don't get pissy if I've done nothing wrong.
Even if there had been a recent robbery/ attempted murder/ etc., if the guy is just walking down the street, and doesn't fit a description given by the robbery victim, the police have no standing to question him. OC is not reasonable suspicion to connect someone to an incident. And realistically, (not that this has any legal standing, it's just common sense) how many robbers OC?However, there may have been a call about a recent armed robbery, attempted murder, etc., and a man with a gun would then warrant an action like this.
It doesn't seem the case in this particular incident, and in any question regarding rights violation, no information = siding with the citizen instead of the government.
Even if there had been a recent robbery/ attempted murder/ etc., if the guy is just walking down the street, and doesn't fit a description given by the robbery victim, the police have no standing to question him. OC is not reasonable suspicion to connect someone to an incident. And realistically, (not that this has any legal standing, it's just common sense) how many robbers OC?
To me, the fact that he wasn't charged with anything and was given back his gun is all the evidence I need to believe that there were not any variables beforehand (unknown to us) that would have justified the
detainment.
It doesn't seem the case in this particular incident, and in any question regarding rights violation, no information = siding with the citizen instead of the government.
OK I'll bite, but you might not like my answer. 2 things come to mind when I read your question. The first is that you do not suspend the practice for the law abiding just because the law breakers might blend in. The act of carrying in and of itself is not a crime unless you are a felon, which brings me to my next thought. I've stated elsewhere on this site that I believe that prohibiting ex-cons from possessing guns is flawed logic. If we believe certain people to still be a threat to society, why have they been released from prison in the first place? If we do not consider them a threat, and therefore have released them, they ought to be able to defend themselves just like you or me. I know the law is what it is, but you posed the hypothetical "what if?", so I added a few to it.Everyone is saying that if OC was a common practice, this would not have happened! I have something for you guys to think about, if OC was common practice in some area, and the BG's know this, what is to stop them from walking around with a gun at their side? How would the police tell the difference then? I know that does not give the COPS the right to stop anyone with a gun, but if you were a COP, how would you tell the difference? Just a thought I had and wanted to see what people would say!
OK I'll bite, but you might not like my answer. 2 things come to mind when I read your question. The first is that you do not suspend the practice for the law abiding just because the law breakers might blend in. The act of carrying in and of itself is not a crime unless you are a felon, which brings me to my next thought. I've stated elsewhere on this site that I believe that prohibiting ex-cons from possessing guns is flawed logic. If we believe certain people to still be a threat to society, why have they been released from prison in the first place? If we do not consider them a threat, and therefore have released them, they ought to be able to defend themselves just like you or me. I know the law is what it is, but you posed the hypothetical "what if?", so I added a few to it.
BTW, there are parts of the country where OC is common practice.
I don't think any more dangerous than his job already is. If he is simply observing and notices someone OCing, he would do well to stay alert for the possibility that the OCer is a BG who would pull his gun on the cop. Not likely, but he must stay alert non-the-less.My only thing on that is if you are a COP that might make your job somewhat more dangerous because you obviously can't stop every person with a gun, or do profiling.
I think that sums it up pretty well. Since OC is perfectly legal (in most states), it cannot be the sole purpose for detainment. And I would add that if someone were detained for no other reason than because he was OCing, and it was discovered that he is in fact an ex-con, I would bet money that any weapons charges would be dropped.I guess they would have to rely more on the description of the suspect and do it that way instead of "oh he looks like a criminal".
OK I'll bite, but you might not like my answer. 2 things come to mind when I read your question. The first is that you do not suspend the practice for the law abiding just because the law breakers might blend in. The act of carrying in and of itself is not a crime unless you are a felon, which brings me to my next thought. I've stated elsewhere on this site that I believe that prohibiting ex-cons from possessing guns is flawed logic. If we believe certain people to still be a threat to society, why have they been released from prison in the first place? If we do not consider them a threat, and therefore have released them, they ought to be able to defend themselves just like you or me. I know the law is what it is, but you posed the hypothetical "what if?", so I added a few to it.
I am also a believer in the restitution of normal rights to those who have paid their debt to society. If we were to eliminate the ridiculous restrictions on liberty known as "the war on drugs", we would have plenty of room for the serious, violent threats to society.
We're getting a little off topic but since it is all a matter of personal freedom and choices, what the hey...If someone is too dumb not to wear a seatbelt, there's a high likelihood that they haven't protected themselves in other departments....namely, health insurance. So when they get ejected from their car and have to find the nearest Level I trauma center, guess who's footing the $500K bill??? You and I.
Also an armed man "pacing the block" could be enough to trigger a suspicious activity complaint and a search depending on state law.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?