Seized by the Manchester, New Hampshire PD for Open Carry

[Jack T.]

Maybe we should start treating everyone as possible criminals and dealing with them as such, because you never know what may happen...

Yes, thank you.

I wrote about 4 replies but got so irritated each time I finally gave up.

Either open carry is legal or it isn't.

 

[cordex]

Exactly, JW2.

12-34hom,
Officer's lives might well be saved if every traffic stop were executed by SWAT teams who immediately utilize less-lethal munitions to subdue the occupants of the vehicle while preparing to use overwhelming lethal force at the first sign of danger, but that doesn't justify it.

I mean no disrespect to you or your profession, but you'll have to do better than "My job is scary!"

edit
I conceal when I carry despite being legally permitted to carry openly. To me, it makes more sense. Just because I choose not to open carry often (I have before - without being tackled by police) doesn't mean I can defend the actions of the police in this case (as we understand the story from mvpel).

 

[ScottS]

Scott, you're sarcasm is a moot point.

This statement doesn't even make sense.

...confront this or any other person who has been reported armed and not knowing what his mindset or demeanor happen to be.

This wasn't a call to "man with a gun" in a biker bar. It was to a Barnes and Nobel, where a remarkably accountant-looking guy was reading a book wearing a visible, legal, holstered weapon. And, not exactly in a fast-draw rig, either, but in a SOB holster (which could, BTW, cripple you if you fell backward, mpvel, so may want to rethink that). So it wasn't like he was going to "slap leather" and beat them to the draw. Please explain why one office could not have stood back, ready to do battle with the forces of accountant-turned-badguy while the other one couldn't have walked up and said, "Excuse me, sir, may we have a word with you outside?"

They didn't because they are public servants who forgot they serve the public. They came in, saw him sitting there bothering no one, and jacked him up against the bookshelf, assuming his guilt before anything else. I hope mpvel sues the city, and burns their asses hard.

Scott
Legal Fund Contributor

 

[Don Gwinn]

12-34, the officers involved were simply reacting understandably (not the best way, but acceptably) in your mind to a man with a gun, yes?

You say this is because, "no matter your appearance or demeanor, a police officer cannot know what is going on in your mind."

Fair enough.

So would it be acceptable (again, not the best way of doing things, but understandable) for a police officer to lunge at the gun of another police officer he doesn't know? I mean, just because the other guy has a badge doesn't mean he doesn't intend to kill the officer or whoever. Maybe it is understandable, looking at it from both sides, that Officer A should feel the need to perform a gun-grab on Officer B while he's relaxing with a book. He doesn't know what's in the other person's head, after all.

I live in a state where both concealed and open carry are illegal. A couple of nights ago a co-worker was selling a computer to a police officer, who was carrying a SIG P229 on his belt with an extra magazine on the other side. I say he was a police officer because he had a badge on his belt, but maybe he wasn't, now that I think of it. Or maybe he was one of those evil Rogue JBTs you hear so much about in some quarters. Maybe he was just waiting for the chance to kill everyone in a blue shirt (at Best Buy.)

And yet, somehow, it never occurred to me to make a grab for his gun to keep everyone safe. I was completely beguiled and taken in by the fact that he didn't behave like a threat in any way.

Then again, maybe the missing element was some hysterical complaint. Maybe if some blissninny had whispered fearfully "that man has a gun!" I could have worked up some enthusiasm for getting cut, shot and arrested. As it was, I admired his SIG for a moment, then moved on.

Come to think of it, he noticed me looking at the SIG (I was slightly behind him, but only because that was where I was working) and put his right hand casually on his belt right behind it. Heroically, he did restrain himself from grabbing me and physically restraining me to save himself. I'm glad he did, but I'm a little surprised. After all, he couldn't know what was in my mind.

 

[12-34hom]

Cordex & Scott i was trying to make the point, that things can turn ugly in seconds and that no one can know whats in another persons mind, and ones demeanor and dress and location mean very little. Scary is just part of the job at times.

Don, as a pointed out in an ealier post, things could have been handeled in a different fashion by both parties involved.

12-34hom.

 

[444]

I am not trying to pile on here, but..........
"things can turn ugly in seconds and that no one can know whats in another persons mind, and ones demeanor and dress and location mean very little. "

But, if the gun was concealed, everything is OK ?
For that matter based on this you couldn't trust anyone, and would have to treat everyone you come in contact with in the harshest of terms.

 

[cordex]

Cordex & Scott i was trying to make the point, that things can turn ugly in seconds and that no one can know whats in another persons mind, and ones demeanor and dress and location mean very little. Scary is just part of the job at times.

I understand and agree, 12-34, but it sure sounded like you were bringing this up in order to defend the actions of the police in this circumstance. No person (police or otherwise) can know what any other person (police or otherwise) will do for certain, but that in no way excuses the methods used by the police here.

 

[LoneStranger]

First, Balog, In observing the various accounting scandals that have come to light on Wall Street I would be more afraid of you if I knew?? that you were an accountant as opposed to being just another scruffy looking bum. Accountants can really hurt a lot of people when they go bad!

12-34hom, I should not have to hide my lawful activities! If those lawful activities scare/offend someone then the LEO needs to apply his vast training in the law and correct the scared/offended as to why they are not to make false reports to the police.

 

[PATH]

Let me see if I have the facts straight.

1) Open carry is legal in New Hampshire.

2) MVPEL was carrying openly in a holster in S.O.B.

3) MVPEL was not threatening anyone nor was he behaving in an
aberrant manner.

4) The Manchester P.D. has to articulate a reasonable and cogent reason
for their behavior. What might it be? No explanation yet!

5) MVPEL did nothing wrong!!! Note the fact that he was not arrested.

6) Compromising your rights will lead to their eventual loss! Check your
history books.

I sent a check and I hope you will too! Folks, we must fight this infringement of rights or it will become common place. Remember the motto of New Hampshire, " LIVE FREE OR DIE".

I am in no way anti-LEO but this was unacceptable given the circumstances.
I am further incensed by the lecture about the "need" for a firearm.
How about I ask that officer how many times he beat his wife last week.
Hmmm?

 

[tcsd1236]

So would it be acceptable (again, not the best way of doing things, but understandable) for a police officer to lunge at the gun of another police officer he doesn't know?

Not a reasonable analogy, since officers are generally a known quantity to other officers. If you seriously believe that an officer should treat every other officer as if they are that .00000000001 % of rougue officers, you need to reevaluate your theories; you've been watching too much melodramatic TV. On the other hand, the officer has NO idea what the circumstances / mindset of the person-with-a-gun in the call happens to be. The correct answer/ resolution for the officer is to locate the person, secure the gun, identify the circumstances of his/her carrying the firearm. Thats what happened, although some of you object to how it was done.

You guys argue that open carry is legal. Well, it may be legal, but it is not common enough that it doesn't cause a stir. Gun owners need to recognize that just because they see guns as a normal part of their existence, that mindset does not extend to the general public. Me, I am currently on light duty and working the office in plain clothes. I carry my weapon and mag on my side, but when I go down to the mall for lunch, I don't carry openly even though it may be LEGAL for me to do so, because I know that doing so would cause a commotion amongst some of the mall-goers because I am not in uniform.Same sort of thing applies to this example and similar incident.

 

[Langenator]

mvpel was completely within his rights to be carrying his pistol openly. To imply that he should conceal it in order to avoid disturbing sheeple who are ignorant of the law is silly. Compromising one's right to carry their firearm in the legal manner of their choice so as not to bother people is the same as sompromising one's right to speak their opinion so as not to bother people. In both cases, you're compromising just to keep from bothering others.

The 911 caller may have been ignorant of the law, but the Manchester PD is not allowed that excuse. I'll use the free speech analogy again-what if someone called 911 because there was a man on the corner with a sign that said "Kill the [Insert Minority Group Here]"? He's exercising his rights in a way that bothers people. Should he be accosted, forcibly detained, have his sign taken away, and lectured?

It would ahve been interesting to see what the cops would have done if mvpel had interupted their lecture and demanded his gun back. If the officer refused, he could have asked the other officer to arrest the first one for theft.

 

[cordex]

tcsd1236,

Not a reasonable analogy, since officers are generally a known quantity to other officers. If you seriously believe that an officer should treat every other officer as if they are that .00000000001 % of rougue officers, you need to reevaluate your theories; you've been watching too much melodramatic TV.

I wonder what the actual percentage of criminal police are and how it compares to criminals without badges. Something tells me the actual percentage is somewhat comparable.

Even assuming that every actual police officer you run into is a Good Guy (which has currently been my experience, but you won't convince me that it's universally accurate), without calling in someone's badge number and maybe calling in known officers who can personally identify the individual in question (ID can be fake), how can you be sure a person dressed as a police officer (or just has a badge on their belt) is actually the "known quantity" you think they are? As 12-34hom mentioned, you can't know what goes on in anyone's head. That doesn't change when they put a bit of metal on their shirt or belt.

'Round here we've had a couple recent instances of people pretending to be cops and thefts of uniforms from cleaning services. But I'm sure that never happens anywhere else.

 

[Sportcat]

Guys,

Let's try and get this thread back on track. I'm curious to see how mvpel's situation works out; so let's not get this thread locked.

$.02,

sportcat

 

[Sean Smith]

This is very simple.

The person in question was not breaking the law. There has been no disagreement on this point.

The person in question was not behaving "suspiciously," whatever that means. He was just standing there. Again, no disagreement on this point.

In this context, defending the actions of the officers that assaulted and harrassed the individual in question is patently absurd. Law enforcement attacking someone for NOT breaking the law is, by definition, unacceptable. They are supposed to enforce the law, not enforce the non-law just because it makes them feel better.

Enforcing the non-law on their own whims... and breaking multiple real statues in the process... that's a pretty scary thing to defend.

"Loyalty is our honor" - SS Motto.

 

[12-34hom]

Sportcat, with all due respect; this thread is on track.

I was trying to make a point that while Mvpel was within his rights, he used poor judgment in the manner of conveyance of his firearm. The responsibility of CCW goes beyond what the law requires, sound judgment & common sense have to factor in along the way.

As far as the police action taken, the poster who stated that while another officer provided cover, he should have been approached by another officer and asked politely to step outside, where they could have questioned Mvpel. This would have retained the best results for those involved - IMHO.

As this thread progressed, it seemed to me a mob mentality took over, and "Making someone pay" for the transgressions alleged by Mvpel took precedent, portraying the Us vs Them mentality is still alive and well here at THR.

As long as this type of thinking prevails on both sides of this issue, there is little to be gained and much to lose.

12-34hom.

 

[tcsd1236]

If the officer refused, he could have asked the other officer to arrest the first one for theft.

Incorrect; it was not stolen.

As for doing something perfectly legal, there are lots of things that in one context can be perfectly legal, but by virtue of creating public panic or alarm are covered under one statute or another. I don't know how the laws in that state are worded, but there are certainly sections of laws in NYS that would apply to creating public annoyance or alarm, even if what you are doing is otherwise legal.

As to the poster who claimed that criminals in the general population are reflected in equal numbers in the LEO population, give me a break. Why do you think we undergo the screening processes we go through to get hired? yeah, some slip through,but not many.

 

[Bizzow]

obviously illegal conduct

Those officers deserve and NEED to be hit with legal action. I don't care what their rationale was or how "scared" seeing a firearm may be for them. They can not lawfully go around questioning and detaining people for NOT breaking the law, NOT giving them probable cause, and NOT doing anything suspicious. The police are there to uphold the laws...something they very clearly went out of their way to ignore.

What's next, people over 6'6" in height and 250lbs are going to deserve questioning and frisks any time they go into a public place because someone thinks they MIGHT be dangerous if they got into a fight? As soon as the police saw the subject was armed and NOT acting erratically or dangerously, they should have turned and left or at very most, calmly told him some people were uncomfortable and that he might want to consider going fully concealed. They were never within rights to physically attack this man for undertaking a lawful venture, and anyone who believes to the contrary is part of the problem. Laws are to be followed by EVERYONE in this country, not simply civilians. If police break a law because they don't know the law, they deserve extreme sanctions. How the heck can you protect the laws if you don't even know them?!?

I wish you every success...if possible, let us know here whether or not you proceed with the case. At that point, I'd be more than happy to contribute some money to your cause. We need to fight to retain our rights in this country, or we'll see all states go the way of the PRNJ.

 

[Bizzow]

some slip through,but not many

I think a bigger problem is that many of the bad ones start out good but get drunk on power or decide that their $12.00 an hour isn't enough (which it almost certainly isn't). People aren't static creatures...we change and develop both our positives and negatives over time.

 

[longrifleman]

tcsd1236, the laws you site are one of the problems. I understand the need for some discresion to handle situations that aren't completely black and white but these types of laws are VERY open to abuse. That ability to arrest anyone at any time and let the courts sort it out is the road to an absolute police state. That is the point many here are trying to get across.

I understand being a little defensive because LEO'S are in a tough spot. I don't envy the calls you have to make but please understand the problems that are created when everyone is treated as a mass murderer until proven otherwise.

You rightly don't appreciate being treated as a rogue cop just because you are a cop. We don't appreciate being treated that way by LEOs either.

 

[PATH]

Folks, it is very simple. What illegal act had been committed by MVPEL? The answer is simple. NONE!

What erratic or illegal behavior had MVPEL been involved in? NONE!

As there was no illegal act committed or erratic behavior displayed what should have been the Manchester P.D. response? NONE!

The Manchester P.D. must provide a legitimate reason for their behavior. If they cannot articulate a reasonable cause for such behavior then they should be called to task.

tcsd1236,

In New York State concealed carry is the norm as citizens are forbidden to carry openly. Thus your carrying openly would elicit some concern on the part of some citizens. New Hampshire law allows open carry and many elect to do so. It is a norm in New Hampshire and further it is legal. Apples and Oranges here.



This should not degenerate into an US vs. THEM type of discussion. There is no need to LEO bash.

The issue is simple. Did the Manchester P.D. act in a manner that violated the rights of a citizen as he legally carried a firearm. Simple!

 

[benburke]

I live in Tennessee, and first and foremost, I give thanks to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, that I have never had to protect myself or my family.

Only those individuals, without needed knowledge, will believe that the police will always be able to protect us and there is no need to protect ourselves. I also carry a Glock 30 and on rare occasions, usually when riding my GoldWing, will carry openly.

I was about to send a letter of disgust to the Manchester P.D. after reading your story, but I found your request elsewhere, for everyone to refrain from this for the time being.

I believe if I were in your shoes, expecting a letter of apology, from the Manchester P.D. would be sufficient. But it is difficult for those in authority to admit any wrongdoing.

Please advise when and if it is ok to send my letter.

Sincerely,
Ben Burke

 

[OF]

You rightly don't appreciate being treated as a rogue cop just because you are a cop. We don't appreciate being treated that way by LEOs either.

That bore repeating.

To the police who feel the actions in question were justified: No one is debating that open carry may scare the sheep. It certainly can and will. The point is: who's problem is that? The law is the law. PERIOD. I don't care what you think is 'prudent' or 'responsible'. I don't care what you think is 'reasonable'. I care what is legal. Police authority is granted through the law, and that is where it begins and ends. The police are not authorized to acost people for carrying a firearm openly in NH, it is that simple. This man had no obligation to cover his firearm. None.

Maybe tomorrow he'll fell like standing on the street corner with his openly-carried gun and reciting the freaking Bill of Rights and the NH Constitution until he's blue in the face. Guess what, that'll cause some sheep to freak right the hell out too. But he can do it, and you can't stop him. You have no authority to stop, berate, harrass or otherwise get in his face about it. Zero. If you just can;t control yourself. you just must 'take control' of the situation, even though you have no legal authority to put so much as a finger on the man, tell me: who has the 'us vs. them' problem?

I'm truly sorry you have a hard time figuring out who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. I'm sorry that people legally going about their lives makes your job difficult, I really feel for you. But I am I'm sick of the whining. Don't like people carrying openly? Don't like dealing with the bleating phone calls from the trembling sheep? Don't like having to get in your cruiser and go see what all the noise is about? Sure is a hassle, isn't it. Tough. Get another job. You signed on to uphold the law. Deal with it. Nobody said it would be easy.

- Gabe

 

[sumpnz]

How would you like it if I called the cops on you for disturbing the peace/inciting a riot (when you are really doing neither) by shouting political slogans in the town square just becuase I didn't like your opinions? What if I said a madman was raving about taking down the .gov when all you were doing was railing against what you thought was a unjust action being taked by the .gov. Would that justify you being tackled, forced out of the square and told off for daring to excercise your right to freedom of speech?

You're analogies are irrelevant to the incident in question.

Hardly. That analogy is spot on. It describes the incident involving mvpel only with speech rather than open carry of guns as the main issue. In both cases the any LEO taking that kind of action deserves to lose their job at the bare minimum (jail time would not be totally unreasonable - after all, that what would happen to me if I did the same thing). Why do I say that? Becuse they are sworn to uphold and protect the LAW, not break it as they see fit with no consequences.

The Founding Fathers put freedom of speech first in the BoR, RKBA second. I don't know exactly why, but I would imagine it was becuase they knew that restricting freedom of speech usually came before gun confiscation (kinda hard to advertise such abuses if you aren't allowed to speak your mind, also makes organizing a revolution to counter those abuses kinda hard). They also knew that speech was a more dangerous weapon than even guns because speech can be used to get people to use their guns, to ignore proclamtions and orders from the .gov, and whole lot of other things.

 

[tcsd1236]

I think a bigger problem is that many of the bad ones start out good but get drunk on power or decide that their $12.00 an hour isn't enough (which it almost certainly isn't). People aren't static creatures...we change and develop both our positives and negatives over time.

We certainly develop over time. Noone stays the same forever, nor did I mean to infer that we do. Yes, some officers develop issues with alcohol, infidelity, etc, the same as any other segment of society
"Drunk with power" Puh-leeze. I don't even know one oficer who fits
that description.
"$12 an hour"? If thats all your agencies are paying, you are your own worst enemies. You get the quality you pay for.

 

[tcsd1236]

The law is the law. PERIOD. I don't care what you think is 'prudent' or 'responsible'. I don't care what you think is 'reasonable'. I care what is legal.

Its not a matter of what I consider "reasonable". The law is the very "thing" that cites reasonableness as a standard to measure the conduct by.