Guys with guns: Police contacts with open carry advocates (PoliceOne.com)

[bigt8261]

From PoliceOne.com via MCRGO     http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/5931210-Guys-with-guns-Police-contacts-with-open-carry-advocates/

Doug Wyllie, PoliceOne Editor in Chief discusses police encounters more from the perspective of the police side.

He referenced a conversation he had with one of his friends Ron Avery. At one point he quotes something that Ron said about how the police could have handled a situation better.

“He could have been disarmed and released for officer safety and then asked to come to the department to get his weapon if no charges were filed. There were better options available. It’s a tough call but officers need to be able to really know this law and what can and cannot be done.”

What?! This is the exact mentality that people like us are fighting.

One of the first comments:

I would be very suspicious of anyone, who routinely carries a voice recorder on their person while not engaged in any type of law enforcement activity!

[TheQ]

One of the first comments:

I would be very suspicious of anyone, who routinely carries a voice recorder on their person while not engaged in any type of law enforcement activity!

I would be very suspicious of anyone, who routinely carries a gun (open or concealed) on their person while not engaged in any type of law enforcement activity!

[TheQ]

Problem is, though, a certain number of open carry advocates seem to be actively trying to engage a confrontation with law enforcement so they can post video of their encounter to the Internet. This is where my ‘support’ for open carry individuals ends.

Police troll-bait.  I have to agree with this statement.

When they show up in numbers — like some bizarre flash mob —essentially they’re moving from Second Amendment advocacy and into First Amendment right to assembly and free speech territory. Taken together, contact with police is inevitable.

Our experience has shown otherwise.  With the exception of one event in MOC's early days (Ponderosa), I don't recall there being an official LEO interaction at any organized dinners we have.  Maybe there is and I'm forgetting/not aware?

The Ponderosa incident was largely due to one person and their self-defense tool of choice...which brings up a topic we don't mention on this Forum.

In hopes that I can help cops out there to ensure against being the latest YouTube sensation (and not in a good way), here's a brief list of things to keep in mind when encountering open carry advocates.

• Know your local law
• Know your weapons
• Keep your cool
• Use command presence
• Use verbal judo
• Remain professional
• Maintain your 360
• Remember ‘plus one’
• Call for backup
• Watch the hands

Am I reading this wrong or does "command presence" mean, "be a jack booted thug"?  I guess it means "control the situation", but why should he control or attempt to control me so long as what I'm doing is:
1. lawful
2. not causing physical harm to anyone

[venator]

Police troll-bait.  I have to agree with this statement.

Our experience has shown otherwise.  With the exception of one event in MOC's early days (Ponderosa), I don't recall there being an official LEO interaction at any organized dinners we have.  Maybe there is and I'm forgetting/not aware?

The Ponderosa incident was largely due to one person and their self-defense tool of choice...which brings up a topic we don't mention on this Forum.

Early on we had a few picnics with the police there to "protect us" from antis.  The first Warren Picnic had a command post set up in the parking lot with a patrol car next to us and an unmarked car parked farther away with an LEO with Binoculars watching us.

The first Ann Arbor picnic we had a command Sgt. stop by toward the end to ask us when we planned on wrapping up.  He stayed for about an hour until we left.

But again this was in 2008 early in the OC education program.  This typically doesn't happen anymore.

[gryphon]

The comments you read on policeone.com and officer.com are sometimes jaw-dropping.  You have to be LEO to have posting privileges, though.  At least with officer.com you can read the forums.  If you want to see the 'us v. them' mentality in print, read police forums.  I wonder what this means:

Remember ‘plus one’

[bigt8261]

I wonder what this means: Remember ‘plus one’

It's the author reminding officers to kindly return that extra round that was in the chamber that they extracted when they removed and cleared a law abiding citizen's gun for the "officer's safety".

[gryphon]

Here's some goodness from the original article:

I have to look at it from the eyes of ‘what does the law say?’ Too many times I’ve seen officers with a poor understanding of existing law make poor choices on how they choose to handle a situation from an enforcement standpoint.

“Obviously, this type of situation is not going to go away. These people are willing to go to court, fight it, sue departments, and do what is necessary to ensure that their right to bear arms is not infringed.”

Then he ruins it by still advocating an unlawful seizure. 

[TheQ]

Early on we had a few picnics with the police there to "protect us" from antis.  The first Warren Picnic had a command post set up in the parking lot with a patrol car next to us and an unmarked car parked farther away with an LEO with Binoculars watching us.

The first Ann Arbor picnic we had a command Sgt. stop by toward the end to ask us when we planned on wrapping up.  He stayed for about an hour until we left.

But again this was in 2008 early in the OC education program.  This typically doesn't happen anymore.

Thanks for some of the history.  I wouldn't consider those "interactions" (except in the case of Ann Arbor) because interacting is a two-way thing...I don't consider watching "interacting" anymore than I consider reading a newspaper a conversation

[METL]

I can't wrap my head around the fact that police would question someone wanting to have audio or video documentation of the encounter for reasons other than fishing for a lawsuit....     police record everything for a reason too...   one of the reasons being self protection.  How some LEOs can't grasp the fact that we carry recorders for the same reason is beyond me. 


Why they continue to see carrying a recorder as something nefarious is really illogical and unfounded.  In a he said/she said situation, obviously the cop will be believed unless there is evidence refuting their word.  Pretty simple.

[TheQ]

Why they continue to see carrying a recorder as something nefarious is really illogical and unfounded.  In a he said/she said situation, obviously the cop will be believed unless there is evidence refuting their word.  Pretty simple.

In some cases, I think that is the problem. They know that they will win in a war of credibility. Some of them don't want to lose that war by allowing someone else to have evidence that contravenes their credibility.

[METL]

In some cases, I think that is the problem. They know that they will win in a war of credibility. Some of them don't want to lose that war by allowing someone else to have evidence that contravenes their credibility.

Good point...   I hadn't considered that they would be mad about losing their ability to embellish and/or outright lie.

[gryphon]

I had.