It's high time for a video of a great cop

[LightningCrash]

And which citizen gets to be right on what's reasonable suspicion?? The one who was worried enough to call it in in the first place or the guy walking down the street??

The officer is simply doing his job by checking out the call. Seems to me that the most logical road would have been to answer the officer's questions so he could go back to generating revenue ...

You guys debating what all an officer should or should not do would be saying he should have checked him out better if the guy had gone and shot someplace up after the stop

There is a standard on what information is required to involve the law. If the guy is simply walking with a OWB holster, bucket, screwdriver, or cordless drill, that's not enough in itself to "shake someone down".

They're not legally bound to respond to anything. I wouldn't be saying he should have checked him out better if he had gone and shot someplace up after the stop. That's just an appeal to emotion. The way GED tells it a psycho could pull one over on an officer anyway.

Dispatch can clear a lot of this up, though, by making sure the caller tells them why the man is of concern. If the caller says a man is wearing a gun, dispatch can ask if the man is doing anything wrong. I don't assume that everyone who owns a gun is a criminal.

And oh yeah the guy should have answered the questions. I just don't believe that anyone with a gun is a criminal and must be shaken down and booked into jail.

 

[Glocktogo]

I believe than a LE agency has a moral, if not legal obligation to investigate an "man with a gun" call, regardless of OC or other carry laws. Based on the laws, it's how the call is handled that's important. Beyond police/citizen relations, I think many Americans are reaching a saturation level regarding .gov intrusion and information sharing. They're already bombarded by requests for additional information from employers, financial institutions, medical practitioners, online merchants, facebook friends, etc. Merchants know more about their buying habits than they do on a concious level. People are concerned about who their information gets shared with and for what purposes. Personally, I have a big concern with HIPPA laws. They're not designed to protect the patient, they're designed to protect the option to legally share information while acting as a placebo for the patient.

So when a LE agency wants information, they automatically transfer that concern to the situation at hand. They don't understand that they're not going to wind up on some list. When people have their information taken by my agency, they're frequently afraid they're going to wind up on some special watch list (and we do have such lists). We have constraints regarding "unpublished systems of records". We can't just put someone on a list because we want to. There are many cases where non-actors in an incident don't want to be identified on a report, some with good reason. So when we interact with someone who's not breaking a law and ask them for their personal information, we should be cognizant of their concerns, unfounded or not. That's part of good community relations.

 

[MaddSkillz]

I'll play devil's advocate here.

Is it acceptable to initiate a traffic stop on an individual obeying all traffic laws on the sole assumption that they might have no insurance or a valid driver's license while they are in control of a vehicle?

The gentleman had broken no laws and the officer knew it. In Oklahoma can an officer stop you from walking down the street, request you identify yourself, and then open an investigation without any wrongdoing?

That's what I was thinking.

 

[Vamoose]

If I was the cop in the video, I would have seized the weapon due to the subjects lack of cooperation.

Absolutely!

 

[MaddSkillz]

Absolutely!

Assuming he was required by law to cooperate. Not sure that he was.

 

[BadgeBunny]

There is a standard on what information is required to involve the law. If the guy is simply walking with a OWB holster, bucket, screwdriver, or cordless drill, that's not enough in itself to "shake someone down".

They're not legally bound to respond to anything. I wouldn't be saying he should have checked him out better if he had gone and shot someplace up after the stop. That's just an appeal to emotion. The way GED tells it a psycho could pull one over on an officer anyway.

Dispatch can clear a lot of this up, though, by making sure the caller tells them why the man is of concern. If the caller says a man is wearing a gun, dispatch can ask if the man is doing anything wrong. I don't assume that everyone who owns a gun is a criminal.

And oh yeah the guy should have answered the questions. I just don't believe that anyone with a gun is a criminal and must be shaken down and booked into jail.

Really?? I'll make sure GC informs his LT of that when he gets back to work.

I don't assume anyone with a gun is a criminal either. Nobody said anyone with a gun is a criminal and should be "shaken down and booked into jail". Talk about running on emotion ... sheesh ...

 

[Lone Wolf '49]

Really?? I'll make sure GC informs his LT of that when he gets back to work.

I don't assume anyone with a gun is a criminal either. Nobody said anyone with a gun is a criminal and should be "shaken down and booked into jail". Talk about running on emotion ... sheesh ...

Thank God she is back, I was worried that, well we will leave it at that! HA!!!!!!!!

 

[technetium-99m]

Absolutely!

On what legal grounds would the officer seize private property?

The police can't just take private property because they feel like it. In the area the video is from OC of an unloaded handgun is legal and an individual has no obligation to identify themselves. The officer has absolutely no legal standing to seize property or make any investigation of the individual since he didn't do anything wrong. Citizens have many constitutional rights apart from the 2nd amendment, not the least of which deals with unreasonable search and seizure. With all due respect to GED, I feel that shaking down this gentleman with no PC is a violation of at least his 4th and maybe 5th amendment rights.

If you think about it though in a way the camerman kind of got owned since he was trying to elicit a negative response from law enforcement and the responding officer handled the situation about as well as anyone could hope for.

 

[Michael Brown]

The gentleman had broken no laws and the officer knew it. In Oklahoma can an officer stop you from walking down the street, request you identify yourself, and then open an investigation without any wrongdoing?

The officer did NOT know that no laws had been broken. At some point he became aware of that.

In Oklahoma, and 49 other states as well as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, a police officer may open an investigation without wrongdoing. They may detain and possibly search or pat-down a subject without any wrongdoing as well if the officer has reasonable suspicion that a crime MIGHT be occurring.

That specifically does NOT mean the subject must be actively breaking any laws, but merely that the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe he might be.

Michael Brown

 

[Michael Brown]

With all due respect to GED, I feel that shaking down this gentleman with no PC is a violation of at least his 4th and maybe 5th amendment rights.

The officer requires reasonable suspicion NOT probable cause. Probable cause is required to ARREST not to detain and possibly pat down.

One of the downsides of internet lawyering is that not everyone really understands the rules even if they are otherwise intelligent.

I consider myself reasonably intelligent and read a bit about anatomy, but I'm not presumptuous enough to tell a medical doctor about the human body on the internet.

YMMV.

Michael Brown