Interesting twist on OC'ers baiting police and recording the event

[ron73440]

Walking around OC'ing with a video camera is not breaking the law and does not qualify as baiting, IMO.(Where OC is legal)

There should be no interaction except maybe a friendly greeting, and anything that shows the cop not knowing the law or following proper procedure is 100% on the cop.

 

[eye95]

The point of my post was not to praise the good cops, but to argue with the notion that all cops are bad. There are a few here who push that bigoted and useless notion, so the rational posters need to dispel that myth from time to time.

That being said (even though I was not praising them) you want to hold them to a higher standard? For what? Praise? Pfffft.

I hold everyone to a high standard for praise and see no need not to praise a cop who does something good and noteworthy.

I hold cops to a higher standard in one area: following the law. I expect them to know it more about the law and our Rights than the average Joe (yes, I know; you are above average), and behave according to that higher level of knowledge.

Teachers? I don't get that one at all. A higher standard for what?

 

[eye95]

QFT

Cop bashing.

You are right. It is cop-bashing. Cop-bashing is against the forum rules.

So you Quoted it For Truth???

 

[eye95]

...I think when they immediately go SCREAMING "AM I BEING DETAINED? AM I FREE TO GO?" That they look crazy and reflect bad on other OCers...

Who have you seen "screaming, "Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" Those who know to use those words tend not to scream them.

I use those words myself, without screaming. Those are the precise words one should use at the beginning of an encounter in order to ensure one's rights are not violated. Until one knows whether or not he is being detained, he cannot know how he is required to behave. If one is being detained, he should do the minimum required by law of a detainee. If he is not being detained, he should walk away if the encounter is the least bit confrontational. If one decides to continue a consensual encounter, he should still not be forthcoming with personal information. When asked for his name, as a matter of courtesy, I recommend giving a first name and asking the cop for the same.

 

[Grapeshot]

QFT
Cop bashing.

You are right. It is cop-bashing. Cop-bashing is against the forum rules.

So noted and recorded.

 

[Superlite27]

I often hear folks suggest, "NEVER....NEVER, EVER, EVER talk to the police for any reason.". This is a good suggestion, but the tone of it suggests not even saying, "Hello" when encountered at the coffee kiosk at a gas station.

As with ANYTHING, it is possible to take things entirely too far.

I simply keep the "Why am I being detained?" and "Am I free to go?" cards to play at strategic moments. Not to browbeat every officer that looks in my general direction right from the get go.

I have no problem walking over and answering a few questions about carrying for the officers. I'll be polite and answer "Why am I carrying?" (Because it's perfectly legal) "Could I just play nice and cover it up?" (Sorry. No. I'm not required to do so.) etc. Several times I've been asked what make/model I'm carrying, what holster, where I like to shoot and other "small talk". Cops are not the big, bad wolves many here make them out to be.

....but, whenever the "innocent conversation" begins to turn a little too personal, or the "innocent questions" begin to smell a little too fishy (Where I'm from, what vehicle out in the parking lot is mine, or any information any other human being wouldn't share with a complete stranger in a gas station), I just walk away.

Then, if I get the "Hold on just a moment" or, "I just have a few more questions"...that's when I whip out the ol' "Why am I being detained?" card (I have noticed "Am I being detained" is easily ignored by officers almost as if they didn't hear the question. They'll blow right past it like you never asked. "Why am I being detained?" requires an answer other than yes/no, and is therefore harder to completely ignore. Any answer other than explicit denial of detainment establishes that you have already been detained. I've only had to use it twice, and both instances resulted in, "Oh, you're not being detained." So after assuring I wasn't by the follow-up, "Am I free to go, then?".....I left.

One of these two times I actually recorded, but the audio was crappy and it wasn't as interesting, in retrospect, as I thought it would be, so I deleted it. I was in a QuickTrip gas station and I saw an officer intent on threading his way through the store to confront me, so I pushed the record button. Sure enough, he came up and asked to see my CCW. (I was in Wentzville where a CCW is required to openly carry [I know! Crazy, innit?] So I showed him, and he gave it back and started with the ol', "So why do you feel the need to carry that in here?". However, he did it in a confrontational manner (as evidenced by the request for a permit right from the get-go) so I pulled the "Why am I..." card out early, and left when he said he wasn't detaining me. (This brings up a thought I'll put in another thread here http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-quot-when-asked-for-ID&p=1949460#post1949460 to keep this one on topic.)

Had things deteriorated, I'm sure my recording would have been labled, "BAITING FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECORDING BAD POLICE BEHAVIOR". But, since I simply walked away without incident, it was fairly boring.

 

[marshaul]

I don't know about you folks but when I see some of the videos on YouTube where it is pretty obvious that an OC'er has deliberately tried to bait police for the purpose of recording and posting the incident, it kinda rubs me the wrong way and makes me uncomfortable. An incidental, unexpected encounter where the OC'er was going about his business in a normal fashion when he is stopped is one thing, but a deliberate attempt to bait police simply to cause a heated exchange for posting is not something I like to see happen. It has been my take that this does not work in our favor.

"I don't know about you folks but I've seen some women go out in public where it's pretty obvious that the woman has deliberately tried to bait men into wanting to have sex with her. It kinds rubs me the wrong way and makes me feel uncomfortable. An incidental, unexpected rape where the woman is just going about her business is one thing, but a deliberate attempt to bait men is not something I like to see happen – she'll get raped, and it's my take that this does not work in women's favor."

-Someone else



I would suggest that, in the long run, you'll be happier once you accept that freedom means women will be wearing sexy outfits, and yet such a woman is completely, 100% the victim if she is raped.

What this individual said when this topic was raised was this. "So how do you feel about police setting bait cars?"

He makes an interesting point. Police do deliberately bait people in an attempt to weed out criminal activity so why should'nt citizens bait police to weed out the bad apples? This was his position and frankly from the surface, it make sense. We should monitor the actions of our public servants more than we do and this IS one way to do it.

First of all, I oppose the existence and enforcement of laws which create mala prohibita offenses.

With this in mind, I only support the enforcement of laws which have an actual victim.

I would then point out that, baiting or no, the OCer who records the police and has his rights violated is a victim. Whereas, the police routinely aggressively and immorally bait people to convict them for noncrime activity.

So, in fact, it's actually completely legitimate (actually praiseworthy) for a citizen to "bait" the police in order to weed out bad apples (if they aren't bad they have nothing to fear, amirite?), whereas it's quite illegitimate when the police to go around "baiting" citizens for nonaggressive activity (I don't mind honeypots for stolen cars and the like, however).

See how I just turned that around? As I suggested: embrace silly things people do with their freedom. It's emotionally healthier in the long run.

 

[Tackleberry1]

I did not read all responses to ^^THIS^^ tread but thought I'd way in on the OP's perspective.

Personally, I see OC as a "Twist" on Civil Disobedience. It's not illegal so it's technically not disobedient... but far too many LEOS see it as "disobedient" because it's not the "norm" and because those of us who do it assert our right and deny them a "name"'to go with their report.

It is a "civic duty" which falls to us... and our responsibility is to educate LEO's and the public while being good ambassadors for 2A.

Their is nothing wrong with refusing to answer questions, asserting your 4th Amendment rights, and shutting down the "investigation" with questions like:
"what crime do you suspect me of committing?" ...and
"am I being detained, or am I free to go?"

However... Like everything else in life... It's not "what" we say... But "how" we say it.

OC opinions on LEO's range from "admirable profession" too "blue light gang members."

The important thing to Remember is that it's not about changing the publics perception of the police, it's about gaining public acceptance of a forgotten legal activity...

With this in mind... anyone looking to "assert their rights" through OC, should endeavor to remain calm and polite regardless of the tactics responding LEO's throw at you while trying to intimidate you into "compliance."

Let them loose their cool... Let them raise their voice... and remain calm.

I learned long ago that in any encounter, negotiation, or meeting, the first person to loose their cool, raise their voice, or curse... shows their arse and looses the debate.

Tack

 

[marshaul]

Carrying a gun should be for personal defense. These people are carrying for a different reason. In a real gun fight with real bad guys, I'm afraid most of them would die.

Free speech should be used to argue x.

Freedom of religion should be used to believe in y.

Freedom to own property should be used to buy z.

Meanwhile I'm smug and superior towards people who use these rights for other reasons.

 

[MKEgal]

Welcome aboard.
The advice you give has been spoken many times in varoius fora here.

I see OC as a "Twist" on Civil Disobedience.

CD is ignoring a law which exists but is wrong, illegal, or immoral.
Only in states which deny people the basic right of self-defense and having a SD tool would OC = CD.

far too many LEOS see it as "disobedient" because it's not the "norm" and because those of us who do it assert our right and deny them a "name"'to go with their report

So OC = contempt of cop???
Personally I don't really care what their personal opinion is. If I'm doing a legal activitiy (one for which there is no law saying it's illegal) then they need to leave me alone. There's no reason for them to bother me.

"am I being detained, or am I free to go?"

As Citizen says, the proper question is "why am I being detained?".
Because if you have to ask, you are.

OC opinions on LEO's range from "admirable profession" too "blue light gang members."

Depends on if you know someone employed as an officer who's a good person,
or if you've been harassed, wrongfully arrested, put to the expense of defending yourself from bogus charges based on their lies.
I'm in both camps.

 

[Citizen]

You are right. It is cop-bashing. Cop-bashing is against the forum rules.

So you Quoted it For Truth???

Yeah, as in quoted it so the text couldn't be changed, as compared against agreeing the text represented truth.

 

[FTG-05]

I often hear folks suggest, "NEVER....NEVER, EVER, EVER talk to the police for any reason.". This is a good suggestion, but the tone of it suggests not even saying, "Hello" when encountered at the coffee kiosk at a gas station.

As with ANYTHING, it is possible to take things entirely too far.

[snip]

This is exactly what I was thinking this weekend when I went to get my wife's car filled with gas. There were two uniformed Madison City LEOs in a marked with lights flashing behind an SUV at the other pump island. I got out and pumped my gas and while doing so, one of the officers asked me how things were going (the other officer was dealing with the SUV driver).

The first thing I thought of was this thread and the "Don't talk to police by the lawyer" youtube video.

Of course I didn't scream "AM I BEING DETAINED????". I just quietly stated "Not too bad, hope everything's OK." His answer: Oh yea, no problems here - we then parted ways.

I wasn't OCing a firearm that day, but as usual, I was OCing my Becker Necker fixed blade very openly just to the left of my belt buckle; I'm sure he saw it, I wasn't that far away.

I guess my point is, is that every LEO interaction is unique and not all of them require the AIBD response.

Oh and I'm going to catch heck from Eye et al on this: No, I didn't have my recorder with me. My bad..... :lol:

 

[Citizen]

This is exactly what I was thinking this weekend when I went to get my wife's car filled with gas. There were two uniformed Madison City LEOs in a marked with lights flashing behind an SUV at the other pump island. I got out and pumped my gas and while doing so, one of the officers asked me how things were going (the other officer was dealing with the SUV driver).

The first thing I thought of was this thread and the "Don't talk to police by the lawyer" youtube video.

Of course I didn't scream "AM I BEING DETAINED????". I just quietly stated "Not too bad, hope everything's OK." His answer: Oh yea, no problems here - we then parted ways.

I wasn't OCing a firearm that day, but as usual, I was OCing my Becker Necker fixed blade very openly just to the left of my belt buckle; I'm sure he saw it, I wasn't that far away.

I guess my point is, is that every LEO interaction is unique and not all of them require the AIBD response.

Oh and I'm going to catch heck from Eye et al on this: No, I didn't have my recorder with me. My bad..... :lol:

Realize that in friendly, light-hearted tone, with a smile, you can say, "No offense, officer, but I don't consent to an encounter with you. Hope you have a nice day."

There is absolutely nothing wrong at all with exercising rights. You can do it in a very friendly way, just like telling the 7-Eleven clerk no when he asks if you'd like a donut with your coffee.

 

[eye95]

Yeah, as in quoted it so the text couldn't be changed, as compared against agreeing the text represented truth.

QFR = Quoted For the Record.

Just a suggestion.

But I get your point.

 

[marshaul]

QFR = Quoted For the Record.

Just a suggestion.

But I get your point.

No need to reinvent the... wheel.

 

[catastrophic_success]

I think that purposely carrying an "aggressive" ( in the public's eye ) weapon such as an AR15 with the intent to freak someone out and call the police is at best foolish and irresponsible, And at the worst, potentially putting yourself in a dangerous situation.

 

[Grapeshot]

Forum Rules

(14) LONG GUN CARRY IS OFF-TOPIC: This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life. We do NOT promote the carry of long guns. Long guns are great! OCDO co-founders John & Mike and most of the members of this forum own at least one long gun - but due to urban area issues of muzzle control, lack of trigger guard coverage, and the fact that the long gun carry issue distracts from our main mission to promote the open carry of handguns in daily life, we will leave long gun carry activism in the capable hands of the future founders of web sites about long gun carry.

 

[Mommajo]

Some of the places these people who are OC'ing in these videos, are places where it's legal, but not very common to see for whatever reason. So when an officer does see someone with a pistol on their side, I can understand why they might stop and ask a couple questions; doesn't make it right that they question them, but I can understand why they might though.

I don't, however, like the confrontational attitude of the people (in the videos I've seen) towards the police when stopped and questioned. They come off sounding like smart "a..'s" in my opinion. And by behaving with the attitude these video'ers have, they may make the police think all of us who OC are just the same.

We've (my husband or myself) been stopped and asked why we're OC'ing, especially where it's not that common to see, and it's usually curiosity on the police's part. When either myself or my husband answer in a calm, non-confrontational manner, we usually end up discussing guns in general; if it's myself, the first question is always why a woman my age is carrying (I'm 62); what weapon they like to shoot, as compared to what we like, etc., like old friends.

 

[CT Barfly]

OC is one thing, plenty of legitimate reasons like comfort and convenience.

OC intended to bait officers or "make a point," like toting your AR-15 into walmart and videotaping the whole thing is silly, juvenile and counterproductive.

Guns are a pretty normal sight in many States, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that these states are any better or worse off than states where OC is not legal or not seen often...so perhaps the goal of normalizing the sight of a gun isn't so far-fetched. I don't understand why normalization can't be carried out with newspaper articles and billboards.

 

[JamesCanby]

OC is one thing, plenty of legitimate reasons like comfort and convenience.

OC intended to bait officers or "make a point," like toting your AR-15 into walmart and videotaping the whole thing is silly, juvenile and counterproductive.

Guns are a pretty normal sight in many States, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that these states are any better or worse off than states where OC is not legal or not seen often...so perhaps the goal of normalizing the sight of a gun isn't so far-fetched. I don't understand why normalization can't be carried out with newspaper articles and billboards.

Of course! THAT's the answer -- newspaper articles and billboards. After all, that's how the African-American community changed society's ideas about normalizing their civil rights ... right?

/sarcasm