NH: Vid of my latest open carry incident

Status
Not open for further replies.
You said: "Terry v Ohio." If you think Terry applies, then you must think that "criminal activity is afoot." You can't have one without the other. Terry is not a magic word like abbra cadabbra.
I thought it was an officer safety issue not an impending criminal activity issue.
I've gotten Terry love during a traffic stop where I disclosed that I had a gun in my glovebox

Any LEO that arrests an individual taping/taking pics of them in public is asking for a HUGE lawsuit, as long as the person taping/taking their picture was not interfering in the officer's duties.
Not everywhere
Audio taping without permission is a criminal offense in Florida
 
We all need a phone number like this NH

One of the most important things I learned from this audio/video is that we need a national phone number for any law abiding citizen to use as the person in this video had available to him.

Imagine how differently that encounter would have gone had the police not known they were being recorded
 
Can't record public officials while perrforming their duties without their knowledge?

One more law that needs to be changed.

Since when does the government have a right to privacy?
 
Yeah, I was just going to say that as far as I'm concerned, a private citizen SHOULD be able to have a reasonable expectation of privacy when out in public, but a public official otoh such as a judge or police officer (while in the performance of their duties) should not. We don't have enough of a sense of "this is just right or wrong to do, even if it's technically legal" anymore. It's like going to a funeral or a wedding and heckling or something--even if it were in a public place or something, you should expect to get your ass beat in such a situation, and a judge should say "geez you had it coming idiot, dismissed".

A judge or a police officer etc however is working in the public interest while performing their duties, and there should be transparency there to insure no abuse of powers.
 
Can't record public officials while perrforming their duties without their knowledge?

I don't know if that is referencing my comment
But in Florida that is true for all citizens, officers are still considered citizens here

Dada was not simply recording or allowing another person to overhear the conversation he was broadcasting the incident, that would not be allowed here
 
Out of curiosity; would it be illegal for a person in Dada's position to whip out a pen and notebook and start taking notes about what was happening?

The way I see it, all he was doing really was documenting the incident in real time. The site he called doesn't broadcast to people who aren't listening to it at the time, it's just a way to record the incident for future review. But maybe I'm wrong.

BTW since we're comparing state laws, last I heard about the law here in MN, if only one person involved in the conversation knows it is being recorded then the recording is perfectly legit. Cop or no cop.
 
last I heard about the law here in MN, if only one person involved in the conversation knows it is being recorded then the recording is perfectly legit. Cop or no cop.
Used to be that way here
I don't know when it changed, but I found out in what could have been a hard way a few years ago when I bugged my home phone
 
Rich, maybe this will convince you:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/profiling.html

Ethics aside, institutionalized profiling fails because real attackers are so rare: Active failures will be much more common than passive failures. The great majority of people who fit the profile will be innocent. At the same time, some real attackers are going to deliberately try to sneak past the profile. During World War II, a Japanese American saboteur could try to evade imprisonment by pretending to be Chinese. Similarly, an Arab terrorist could dye his hair blond, practice an American accent, and so on.

Profiling can also blind you to threats outside the profile. If U.S. border guards stop and search everyone who’s young, Arab, and male, they’re not going to have the time to stop and search all sorts of other people, no matter how hinky they might be acting. On the other hand, if the attackers are of a single race or ethnicity, profiling is more likely to work (although the ethics are still questionable). It makes real security sense for El Al to spend more time investigating young Arab males than it does for them to investigate Israeli families. In Vietnam, American soldiers never knew which local civilians were really combatants; sometimes killing all of them was the security solution they chose.
-----------------------------------------

Whenever you design a security system with two ways through -- an easy way and a hard way -- you invite the attacker to take the easy way. Profile for young Arab males, and you'll get terrorists that are old non-Arab females. This paper looks at the security effectiveness of profiling versus random searching. http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_10/chakrabarti/

If we are going to increase security against terrorism, the young Arab males living in our country are precisely the people we want on our side. Discriminating against them in the name of security is not going to make them more likely to help.
 
and where are all these young arab males going to find all these old non-arab females wanting to be suicide bombers...?
 
Back to the point, though.

Dada, do you think the FreeStaters would consider putting up a telephone line for the whole country... It could be useful.

Will
 
I'm sorry but that little ad hom is definitively short sighted and simplistic
The police responded to a call about a man walking down the street with a holstered gun
That makes as much sense as them responding to a call about a man walking a leashed and muzzled Pit Bull down the street
If they respond they have wasted their own time

And if this guy had shot a bunch of people with his legally carried and holstered gun and it was latter determined that police had been called and the call was ignored..

I'm not sure where you live, but I live in the real world. Police do not just get to ignore calls of a man with a gun. Legal or illegal, they respond.
 
I'm sorry but that little ad hom is definitively short sighted and simplistic
The police responded to a call about a man walking down the street with a holstered gun
That makes as much sense as them responding to a call about a man walking a leashed and muzzled Pit Bull down the street
If they respond they have wasted their own time

And if this guy had shot a bunch of people with his legally carried and holstered gun and it was later determined that police had been called and the call was ignored..

I'm not sure where you live, but I live in the real world. Police do not just get to ignore calls of a man with a gun. Legal or illegal, they respond.

You are now the second person in this thread to claim the OP was wasting police resources. Humor me and explain your position in the following context:

- The OP did not call the police on himself, either somebody else called or the first officer stopped him on his own
- The OP was involuntarily detained
- The first officer called two other officers to the scene in response to a lawful activity

If this had happened in the normal course of his day, I'd agree, but it is clear that he walks around flaunting his open carry with the intention of having the police called. As I said, pretty fortuitous that a video camera just happened to be there huh?

He was unlawfully detained? Did he ask to leave and was he refused the right to leave because I didn't hear that part. If it's there, then it is, I just didn't hear it.

It's not illegal for me to wear a KKK teeshirt either, but If I do it in Harlem trying to prove that some black people won;t respect my right to free speech then I'm 1) asking for trouble 2) can be pretty sure police will be involved and 3) wasting valuable police resources.

The OP provoked this incident and waited for the outcome he expected. When people call the police, they respond. I seriously doubt that officer was just driving buy and in the other video the officer clearly states they'd had four calls about this.

You know how you promote open carry and display your rights? You just do it. No video cameras or group of buddies needed.
 
This is the kind of problem I want to have....people reacting in disbelief when I show them how fast and effective these folks are becoming. this is their reaction speed when they are caught off guard, I kid you not. There was no expectation this would happen

I made sure to watch the other videos about your little group. How about the one where a member of your group enters the IRS office in protest? She clearly states in the beginning, she's there to "GET ARRESTED". YOU people are looking for confrontation. I will say here and now that I simply don't believe otherwise after seeing a number of your videos.

I'm supposed to believe that despite the other incidents that you guys taped where your members ADMIT on tape to wanting to be arrested, that this one time, where you were ready for it, it was just a coincidence? Sorry, that doesn't pass the smell test.

I don't agree with your methods, but I give you credit for taking a stand. I'm happy you support 2A and the right to open carry. I think that's great and more power to you, but I don't agree with the way yo go about it.
 
And if this guy had shot a bunch of people with his legally carried and holstered gun and it was latter determined that police had been called and the call was ignored.

#1, the courts have already ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect you.

#2, let's turn it around a bit: And if this guy is killed by an assailant after his legally carried and holstered gun was confiscated by police and it was later determined that police had been called and the call led to said confiscation.

Why are some people afraid of freedom? A gun is a tool, it can be used for good or for evil, just like a hammer, just like a car, just like fire, just like a propane tank. Free societies don't deny the use of tools just because they have the potential of being abused.
 
I can't stand people like this...Just stirring up trouble. Creating a problem where none existed before. Idiots.
The previous poster put it just right.
 
Who is grandstanding or stirring up trouble? These people are just excercising thier rights and at the same time aggressively protecting them..

They all rank up there as my heroes. Especially the guy in the striped shirt. They are actually getting off their tuchusses and doing something.
 
Camcorders are much more common in daily routine and access for many more people now than in the past. Might be a good thing to make recording police action by non LEO and carcams common and accepted.
 
If Dada is looking for confrontation by parking a little farther from his destination than he normally would, he's not looking very hard. And if he's being confrontational by openly carrying in a state where it's legal, more power to him. Now a few more LEOs are familiar with NH open carry law, as well as a few more citizens. And those Girl Scouts got what's coming to 'em ;)
 
Before the trolls get this thread locked I just have to ask,

How does the call-in recording system work? Can we use it too? How would I set one up and how much would it cost to operate?

As someone said about page #3, it is tiresome to have accounts of these LEO interactions without records of the events. The apparent ease of recording this event is the best thing I've taken away from it.

Thanks,

C.
 
Who said anyone was afraid of freedom?

I contend that comments such as:

And if this guy had shot a bunch of people with his legally carried and holstered gun and it was latter determined that police had been called and the call was ignored.

are prima facie evidence of a fear of freedom.

"Oh no, we have to call out the cops to investigate anytime someone sees a citizen carrying a gun. Who knows what he might do with it?"
 
joab said:
I thought it was an officer safety issue not an impending criminal activity issue. I've gotten Terry love during a traffic stop where I disclosed that I had a gun in my glovebox.

Here's the actual text of the Terry decision. Note the two part test (highlighted).

"We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him."
 
In reference to the legality of recording a police official, I think there was a case recently where an individual was prosecuted for taping a police officer during a traffic stop and the prosecutor argued that the voice recording was illegal because it fell under the laws againest illegal wire tapping. I think they were successful in the prosecution not 100% sure though I will do some research once I get home from work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top