I have seen the future.

I hadn't seen it before today.

From:

lafinjack.livejournal.com

You've made the wise choice to avoid gunblogger/RKBA/libertarian blogs.

From:

Friends had always told me stories of Ohio cops and state troopers. It was disturbing to see that they did not exaggerate....

North Carolina troopers don't have a great reputation, either....

From:

To be honest, I'm not surprised he lost his cool. It must be terrifying knowing that any person you search could pull a gun on you. You know there are other countries where handguns are illegal and ordinary police don't have to carry firearms about with them?

In the video it's not obvious what the guy in the car is saying and it looks like he was messing them around to some extent. No wonder the policeman tells him to be quiet while they try to get on with the search.

Yes, the policeman's comments at the end are over the top. However, I'm quite shocked by some of the comments at the youtube channel. The video has been uploaded by "Ohioans for concealed carry" and there's someone with a lot of likes for their comment asking why citizens shouldn't carry guns when the police carry guns. Possibly because for the police in the US carrying a gun is a necessity, not a luxury?

From:

the-trav.livejournal.com

Yeah so from what I saw of that video the cop was being a right asshole from the get go. The guy in the car was clearly submissive and trying to explain himself from the get go, I don't know where you got "messing them around" from.

From a snippet I heard the cops were after someone which might explain them being keyed up / on edge, but regardless that cop was not behaving at all appropriately.

As to whether people should be allowed carry guns or not, well I think this particular video has close to zero relevance on the matter either which way

From:

Yeah so from what I saw of that video the cop was being a right asshole from the get go.

Possibly. It's kind of hard to tell what's going on. After all, what was going on with the woman who never appears to be shown on camera?

As to whether people should be allowed carry guns or not, well I think this particular video has close to zero relevance on the matter either which way

If the issue is people being worked up and irrational with lethal weapons then I'm not sure how much more relevant it could possibly be.

From:

darquis.livejournal.com

It must be terrifying knowing that any person you search could pull a gun on you. You know there are other countries where handguns are illegal and ordinary police don't have to carry firearms about with them?

You know that handguns being illegal doesn't mean that "any person you search" CAN'T pull a gun on you, right? You know there are other countries where they have criminals. Who have guns. Which aren't legal. And said criminals don't desperately wave their CC permits at cops.

From:

You know that handguns being illegal doesn't mean that "any person you search" CAN'T pull a gun on you, right?

Yes and in those cases if anyone did pull out a gun it would be a major national case, a specialised team of gun-trained officers would be called in and the criminal could expect the helicopters to come in and start a man hunt immediatly.

Whereas here, what, they're expected to worry about whether it's legal for this guy to have firearms tucked in his back pocket? Screw that.

From:

darquis.livejournal.com

I'd *much* rather it didn't take "a specialised team of gun-trained officers". Would you make law enforcement professionals with actual experience with guns a scarce commodity that has to be called in for emergencies, like a SWAT team? What would be the benefit in that?

Whereas here, what, they're expected to worry about whether it's legal for this guy to have firearms tucked in his back pocket?

...no, they're expected to be aware of the risks inherent in being a law enforcement officer. A couple of years ago in my country [where carry permits have so many idiotic requirements, most law abiding citizens have no chance of ever getting one] a policeman was killed by a teenager with a knife. Assault on a police officer is a very thoroughly prosecuted crime regardless of the weapon, its legality, and the extent of injuries sustained by the cop in question. Still, people in high-risk professions run a higher risk of getting hurt on the job, you know?

Now, trigger-happy cops worry me much more than a citizen trying to let law enforcement professionals know that he's legally carrying a firearm. Like this case in Seattle. (http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/09/john_williams_native_american.php) This is also relevant to the topic of this post - police officers should know better than to shout down someone trying to give them vital information, shoot a deaf carver, put 19 out of 41 bullets into a Guinean immigrant, mistake their sidearm for a Taser, etc, etc. They're supposed to be trained to know better. [Key words here being "supposed to", as the system looks quite broken.]

From:

I'd *much* rather it didn't take "a specialised team of gun-trained officers".

You'd rather the quality of gun training and expertise in the rarer cases where guns are needed was lower?

Admittedly there are countries where the police carry handguns even though ordinary people aren't allowed them, but personally I find that a little bit scary.

Now, trigger-happy cops worry me much more than a citizen trying to let law enforcement professionals know that he's legally carrying a firearm.

If handguns were illegal there'd be less need for the police to carry guns in the first place. A knife-proof vest and a nightstick will protect police from knives a lot better than a gun will (what with the gun being a long range weapon).

They're supposed to be trained to know better.

Nobody's perfect. You're better off not having guns around. That way whenever a handgun shows up you can be almost certain it's illegal. (Rifle's and the like will require a little more inquiry, but at least they aren't so easily hidden and the fact that you are in a rural area where people might want to hunt wildlife and will have permits to do so will make things rather easier.)

From:

rev-ursa.livejournal.com

Every time that someone who does not train regularly with a firearm (say, the British police) is handed one and sent into an emergency situation there's a bloodbath. Because the police are so nervous about the guns that they over react and can't hit the broad side of a barn. As for SWAT, what you're talking about seems to be a group of cops whose only duty is to react to violent situations, not the 90% of other police work that just requires a authoritative voice. Nice drain on the taxpayers money.

Wanting guns to just "go away" is like wanting porn to go away. It's out there, people enjoy it, and will pay for it.

From:

Every time that someone who does not train regularly with a firearm (say, the British police) is handed one and sent into an emergency situation there's a bloodbath.

When's the last time that happened? *scratches head*

If we send someone in with a firearm it's because they've been properly trained to use it. It's their job. We don't just hand firearms to ordinary police officers.

Nice drain on the taxpayers money.

1) Are you saying that there aren't enough people with guns legally or illegally to justify specialised armed police units in the UK?
2) Are you serioulsy saying that the entire police force should be armed simply to justify police funding? I'm not sure I understand that logic at all.

Wanting guns to just "go away" is like wanting porn to go away. It's out there, people enjoy it, and will pay for it.

You could say the same about murder. Doesn't mean you can't do the utmost to prevent it.

There was someone the other day explaining that there were bullies at their school with guns. I found it shocking, but for them that's just how life was. To be quite frank, I am very glad to live in a country where guns are not seen as a fact of life we should just accept.

From:

ronebofh.livejournal.com

Cops are trained to not be terrified about these things. That's why they're the cops instead of just some random yoyo. And i don't know why you bring "other countries" into this since this didn't happen in "another country", unless you're just being a provincial dickwad. I'm not a fan of concealed firearms, but what if he'd been another law enforcement officer carrying as part of his job? The cop's attitude is simply appalling.

As for the YouTube comments, they're best left unexamined in any case. YouTube commenters can make revolting comments on the most innocuous topic.

From:

And i don't know why you bring "other countries" into this since this didn't happen in "another country"

Yeah, heaven forbid I take into account my own experiences in the country where I actually live. After all, it's not as if there are any other continents than North America, is it?

unless you're just being a provincial dickwad

A what?

As for the YouTube comments, they're best left unexamined in any case.

It wasn't just the comment. It was also the providers of the video. They are promoting the right to hold a concealed handgun. I just find it really hard to understand the mentality that concealing a handgun is your god-given right. It just sounds sick to me.

From:

ronebofh.livejournal.com

That's basically at the core of being a "Real American". Combine our tendency to regard the Constitution as something that was handed down by God on stone tablets to the Founding Fathers, and the fact that the right to bear arms is guaranteed therein, and you have that gun rights are something deeply ingrained in the national culture. Unfortunately, thinking about what that means is something that is avoided because that leads to questions and Real Americans do not question the National Culture. The concealed weapon rights pinheads love their myths about how it keeps them safe, and people around them safe, when collected data so far point to the reverse.

From:

Sorry if I took your last comment as rather more confrontational than it was intended.

I completely concur with this latest comment. That's pretty much how I see it.

From:

Well, it started because under British rule the colonists were not allowed to arm themselves, or assemble peacefully, etc. (apparently the British were concerned the colonists might revolt. Huh. Whodathunkit?). And colonists were required to billet British soldiers in their homes during "peacetime" (which totally interferes with revolt-planning operations, knowwhatImean?). Add in lots of taxes and no legalized way to address the situation, and you get a lot of righteous anger in a pressure cooker.

So when they drew up the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they put those protections in there.

First Amendment to the Constitution: right to free speech, peaceful assembly, free press, government cannot officially pick one religion over another (they seem to ignore this now), freedom of religion, and you can bitch at the government for "redress of grievances."

Second Amendment: you can own a gun, serve in a free-standing (not part of the government) militia.

Third Amendment: you don't have to billet soldiers in your house without consent during peacetime. You may have to during war, but only according to law.

That these were the first (for the most part, pre-existing) rights that they codified into legal protections speaks to the immediacy of their concerns and the importance of these rights in the daily lives of the colonists. And because it is part of the foundation of our government, it's just been carried forward. Much (if not all) of the US legal system is based on English Common Law, and British citizens had some of these rights and protections in place already. Some of the US rights are taken directly from British law.

My dad had 50 rifles and shotguns and 25 handguns. He said he was a collector, but really he just liked guns, he hunted, and he had a permit for concealed carry. So he carried concealed ('cause he could and because people had attempted to mug him twice when he was coming out of his office, thinking he had money or access to meds/drugs. Yes on the money, no on the meds). He had three gun safes, and there were still (unloaded) rifles and shotguns in my closet. There were loaded guns for "home security" stashed throughout the house. My sister and I were under strict instructions to never, ever touch them. And as far as I know, we never did (I know I never did).

Responsible gun ownership is tricky. If you do not train regularly and carry all the time, the gun is more of a liability than a benefit. At the same time, you don't want to bring a knife to a gun fight.

From:

government cannot officially pick one religion over another (they seem to ignore this now)

Kind of - what they do is claim that Christianity isn't one religion, but many, and that they're not favouring any one specific Christian denomination, therefore it's legal for them to favour Christians in general.

It's not "establishment" of Christianity because you have a choice: Baptist or Southern Baptist!

From:

Well, I was meaning touting/supporting Christianity and marginalizing all the other religions out there, but yeah, OK. I cannot tell you how annoyed I get by the jerks saying they support freedom of religion but it's OK for a community to ban building a mosque. Jackassery at its finest.

When I come to power, I am going to legalize pot, prostitution, and gambling, and I'm going to tax the churches. And a flat income tax across the board for everyone (business and individual), unless you make less than $20K/year. Then you can pay and get it all back. No deductions. Flat 10%.

The pot, prostitution, and gambling thing may be why I'll never come to power....

From:

The flat tax bit ain't so hot, either. That's a huge tax break for the rich and tax increase on the poor.

From:

How so? Link me?

OH! And when I come to power, I'm taxing the churches. Double if they're evangelical, and triple if they do mission work and require the people they are ministering to to submit to indoctrination to benefit.

I hate proselytizing.

From:

You're giving a 25% cut to the rich while taxing more of the poor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States) *and* eliminating credits and deductions that poor people depend on. In the process, you haven't touched sales taxes, which again eat up a vastly disproportionate part of the income of the poor.

Under your plan, rich people get a massive tax break, and poor people pay more than they do now.

"Flat taxes" are superficially appealing, but always turn out to be massively regressive in practice. This is why millionaires support them so much.

From:

Oh, and: You need to define "income" VEEEEEEERY carefully, to avoid fun tricks like "I was paid exactly $20,000 last year as CEO. The company paying for my house and car and credit cards and contributing to my RRSP were all perks, not income"

From:

Oh, no. Perks get taxed.

From:

nancylebov.livejournal.com

http://www.theagitator.com/2011/07/21/goofus-and-gallant-cops-and-guns-edition/

The first video shows a policeman handling a similar situation with a good bit of civility and style.

From:

secretagentmoof

This fits in well with the general trend of "Florida for moralizing, imbecilic and/or oblivious twattery" and "Ohio for sheer assholishness".

From:

falconwarrior.livejournal.com

I'm amazed he didn't just shoot the cop.

From:

Yeah, because pulling a gun on two keyed-up screaming douchebags, when they've already got their hands on their weapons, is a great plan. Leaving aside, of course, that he's maintaining that he's done nothing wrong, at that point, and that shooting at a cop is a death sentence no matter *what* your reasoning in most of the US.

From:

falconwarrior.livejournal.com

I'm not saying it's a good idea. I'm just surprised he managed to keep his cool.

From:

He didn't shoot the police officer? What a saint! :P

From:

lafinjack.livejournal.com

You have no idea how many billions of people I haven't killed, yet what thanks do I get? Nothing! Nothing at all!

From:

juliansinger.livejournal.com

There was a moment, when the guy was explaining that he knew the woman from his days as a cab driver, where he perhaps should have instead said he had a concealed weapon.

But the cops are SUPPOSED TO ASK if he has weapons/drugs. So uh, fail guys.

From:

chrisrw109.livejournal.com

Except he did start to say it, and extended his permit, and the cop talked over him and asked him what he was doing there. At that point he can either answer the immediate question, or persist in trying to explain... which likely would have not played out well either.

The interesting thing, in part, is how quickly the cop (either deliberately or unconsciously) twists the situation in order to make the guy look bad. All of a sudden 'present his permit, attempt to explain he has a permit & is armed, and acknowledge immediately that he's carrying' becomes 'the cop saw a bulge, and then the guy claimed to have a permit'.

Beyond that, it's some INCREDIBLY sloppy police work by the two cops. You do NOT physically enter a suspect vehicle while there is a suspect behind the wheel who is unsecured, because that, just as much as anything else gets cops killed.

Add in releasing a prostitution suspect, and threatening physical harm if he sees her again that night? And you have a sterling example of the worst kind of cop, one who believes that and kind of behavior that either scares the cop or looks bad is a felony crime. Non-violent people, who present their permits to you should not be threatened with death by cop.

From:

Totally agree. This video should be used in police academy training as what-not-to-do. Because if the driver had been less of an upstanding citizen, the cop may very well have gotten killed.

The cops, like everyone else, have policies and procedures that they are supposed to adhere to. However, cops in the field have a lot of latitude and decision-making capabilities. And the cops are gonna do what they're gonna do. The judge will decide later if it was justified.

A cop I know always liked to say, "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."

From:

juliansinger.livejournal.com

Except he did start to say it,

OK. I can't remember now, and I can't re-watch it because I'm at work. But I'll totally buy that.

And yeah. What I was seeing there was sloppy, probably against procedure, and also not supporting his partner. (Both with the operator and the woman.)

I don't work with police, but as part of my job (for a newspaper) I read beelyuns of incident reports, so while I obviously don't ever see what actually goes on, I do know what would be preferred, particularly in partner back-up and general procedure. And that ain't it.

(And yes, the main cop was very good at manipulating the driver's words/actions.)

From:

mejoff.livejournal.com

This is clearly two racist cops harrassing a black driver. At one point they wilfully mishear his name, and when he repeats to correct them they accuse him of giving a false name. They're desperate to shoot him, and constantly trying to work the situation to a point where selected dashcam footage would justify it.

From:

The driver was black? Seriously, I can barely tell anything in that video...

From:

mejoff.livejournal.com

As far as I could see, yes. Passenger more clearly so too.

From:

chrisrw109.livejournal.com

Ummm.. no. The driver is pretty clearly not black.

The cops mishear the name of the *passenger*, not the driver.

And to be honest if they desperately wanted to shoot the driver? They definitely would have when he admitted to having a gun.

This was a case of an officer being scared because he realized how badly he'd fucked up the traffic stop (because he's a bit arrogant), and then reacting completely over the top when he realizes a) how he put his partner at risk, b) how badly he'd fucked up (by the numbers pretty much) and c) the dump of adrenalin in his system when he saw the gun.

Now... that still makes him the worst kind of cop, because at the very least on of the parts of police training is learning to deal with fear / adrenalin, and how not to let it make you make a mistake.

And yes I'm aware cops are only human, my brother's a captain, and it bugs the crap out of me that officers like this give him a bad name.

From:

ardys-the-ghoul.livejournal.com

There's actually a really hilarious video out there of a guy totally overreacting to a speeding ticket and a state trooper being saintly calm about it.

Police officers should be required to meditate or take yoga classes or something to keep them calm--it is a stressful job.

From:

camilla-anna.livejournal.com

Guessed right. If I recall correctly, you don't need a permit in FL.

From: