10 ms·

I once had to go to my local station to get a copy of a police report that resulted from harassment by a neighbor. I was legally open-carrying my sidearm and

I once had to go to my local station to get a copy of a police report that resulted from harassment by a neighbor. I was legally open-carrying my sidearm and had a camera on my hat recording the interaction. While I was waiting for the report to be printed, two uniformed officers emerged from the back room and started interrogating me; they obviously were trying to intimidate me and get me to say something that would allow them to arrest me. It was incredibly unnerving and put me off from ever wanting to set foot there again. I felt lucky to not have been arrested and charged for no legitimate reason. As far as I am concerned, the police are a gang of thugs and crooks. They cannot be trusted.

StrictDabbler 3y ago
I am trying to think of a good reason to open-carry into a police station apart from "making a point". You won't be the "good guy with a gun" in an active shooting. You won't be robbed. You won't be attacked. If you draw your gun at a police station for any reason you will be arrested or killed. Like, technically in my state I have the right to open-carry a rifle past a school while wearing a ski-mask as long as I'm off-property. Completely legal. If I did that while picking my child up from school to "assert my rights" surely you'd think I was being insane, confrontational and threatening because I could have no legitimate interest in doing so. It seems very odd to not just leave your gun in the car. Perhaps you're a principled pedestrian or cyclist? That I could see.
- indymike 3y ago
  > I am trying to think of a good reason to open-carry into a police station apart from "making a point". It is legal to do so?
  - dangus 3y ago
    It’s legal to do all kinds of dumb things that you shouldn’t do. It’s legal to walk around topless in NYC, but don’t be surprised if you don’t like the reaction you get when you do so. I wonder how many second amendment originalists eat donuts and ice cream for every meal because it’s legal?
    - 0ct4via 3y ago
      You're being facetious. The "like your reaction" isn't applicable, because one would reasonable expect those with different senses of modesty, etc. may not agree with someone being topless in public. The "donut and ice cream for every meal" is equally ridiculous -- yes, it's legal, but (a) suggesting otherwise is farcical, and (b) anybody with common sense knows that it would both be lacking in nutrition, and lead to other health issues. By contrast, OP engaging in regular business while happening to be enjoying their constitutionally-protected rights, is not "dumb" or something they "shouldn't do" -- the only thing that "shouldn't" be done in this case, is be interrogated for simply open carrying -- they wouldn't have batted an eyelid if GP had a CCW and was concealed-carrying. If you're going to make an argument that GP was "dumb" for open-carrying in a police station, make that argument -- don't resort to childish and laughable attempts at puerile analogies.
      - dangus 3y ago
        > (b) anybody with common sense knows that it would both be lacking in nutrition, and lead to other health issues Anyone with common sense knows you don’t need a gun in a police station because the police have already secured the police station. Everything you said in your comment as a rebuttal to my analogy fit my analogy perfectly. Let me reiterate: “interrogation” as described in this story is legal. It’s just a forceful word for asking questions. Police are allowed to ask questions in almost any situation, which is why they do it so much. They don’t have to automatically tell you that you’re not obligated to answer or stick around.
        cryptonector 3y ago
        > Anyone with common sense knows you don’t need a gun in a police station because the police have already secured the police station. Reading this subthread, it seems pretty clear that one wouldn't legally carry in a police station out of fear of needing it, but out of fear of having it stolen from their vehicles.
        dangus 3y ago
- 0xffff2 3y ago
  The United States is a very large place. I currently live somewhere relatively civilized. Here, I have a permit for concealed carry but I never actually carry. In a past life, I lived somewhere much less civilized. There, I carried (either open or concealed) as a matter of course in my daily life. While I was always cognizant of where I was allowed to carry and where not, I never removed my gun unless legally required to do so. This is both a simple matter of convenience and a practical matter of security, as a gun on my person is inherently more secure than a gun stored in my vehicle, even though it was doubly locked while in the vehicle.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    I always wondered this. If someone meant to do you harm with a gun, what are the chances that they would give you the opportunity to defend yourself? The perpetrator would already be prepared and you wouldn’t.
    - 0xffff2 3y ago
      Well it depends. Part of the reason I was/am comfortable carrying is because I have the appropriate professional training to do so safely. Both as a result of that training and as a matter of habit, it is possible to be cognizant of potential interactions and mostly not put yourself in situations where conflict is likely. In other words, part of responsibly carrying is to always be prepared. In the event I find myself in such a situation anyway, there's a good chance the other party won't know I'm armed unless I want them to. As for the rest of the time, I think potential aggressors as both dumber and more emotional than you're imagining. I've never come remotely close to shooting anyone, but the times I've had to actively think about it were because I people were acting in a way that telegraph ill intent long before they were in a position to do anything to me.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        My wife and I are doing the whole “digital nomad” thing across the US half the year for the foreseeable future. I’ve walked around liberal lead cities where conservatives swear it’s dangerous because of homelessness (Seattle, San Francisco) and cities in conservative states (Dallas, Houston, Nashville, Charleston , etc). I’ve lived in small town GA, a few cities around Metro Atlanta and worked in a few others. I can honestly say I have never in 50 years felt unsafe anywhere I’ve been and I can’t imagine me by myself carrying would make me feel safer against a possible ambush. Not to mention that according to CDC statistics, gun violence is the 50th leading cause of death in the US and most of that is either suicide or being killed by someone you know. I’m more likely to die from hamburgers and too much salt than anything carrying could prevent.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  Sorry are you saying rights don’t matter if it makes coppers uncomfortable? Sounds like approval of gang/crook intimidation behaviors from public servants
  - dangus 3y ago
    It doesn’t sound like the cops as described in the scenario did anything illegal. They just asked a bunch of questions. It sounds like voakbasta was free to leave at any time. voakbasta just didn’t like the fact that people reacted to him doing weird but legal stuff outside of social norms. A major argument that second amendment originalists make for the need for personal firearms is to provide personal protection, but a police station is an area that is already protected by law officers who are armed, so there’s no reason to open carry there. It’s like bringing an air conditioner to a hockey rink.
    - wahnfrieden 3y ago
      I personally feel much less safe around police and I know many who feel the same or experienced unjust harassment and violence from them, especially nypd and including inside their stations. I know people who were tortured by county jail guards, ostensibly there for protection, while holding them awaiting trial (including later being proven innocent). I don’t agree that when encountering police that everyone should surrender or otherwise dispose of their firearms. I think that would make police even more aggressive at scale. Police are adversarial, not protective for common folk. I would advocate for the opposite - police should not be allowed to carry, and I think they are weirdos for doing so
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        So do you think carrying a gun around the NYPD would make you more safe?
    - 0ct4via 3y ago
      That "it sounds like" assumption is holding a whole lot of weight there, buddy. You don't know that they were free to leave, and the fact that you think it's "weird" for someone to open carry suggests implicit bias demonstrated by your further comments. It's nothing about "originalists" either -- whether for the exercise of constitutional rights, their own desire, or protection, if GP chose to open carry, and it's legal to do so, they shouldn't be randomly interrogated about it -- especially when making a routine enquiry. You're also forgetting that plenty officers have both assaulted and used their arms against peaceful citizens, including in police custody and police stations, so "there's no reason to open carry there" doesn't apply -- you don't know if GP was simply walking home and went in to get this report copy on the way -- more ridiculous analogies don't make an actual argument, you know. Going back to your initial "sound like," if police are using tactics they've learned to coax information out from suspect and display authority and force, it could absolutely be illegal, ranging from harassment to intimidation -- short of wearing a t-shirt saying "kill all cops" or waving their firearm around, there's no reasonable circumstance why they should be challenged like that, purely for open carrying -- as I said to you before, if they CCW'd there wouldn't even be an argument, so passing judgement on GP because of your own clear anti-gun bias is transparent as heck.
- 0ct4via 3y ago
  "You won't be attacked" This[1] young girl would disagree with you, as would this[2] man. Also committed while in police custody, not necessarily in stations, bur certainly where you could also reasonably try and claim "you won't be attacked": [3], [4] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/01/police-custody-assault-video https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/01/police-custody... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Louima https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Louima [3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64435109 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64435109 [4] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230860978_Reported_assaults_and_observed_injuries_in_detainees_held_in_police_custody https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230860978_Reported_... It's incredibly ignorant to make out like someone visiting a police station will magically be fine, because the police are the "good guy with a gun" in your scenario. As for going into the station, it doesn't matter whether GP is "principled" or not, (a) they're allowed to carry, and (b) a car is not a holster. If GP had been concealed-carrying you wouldn't have had any argument, you're trying to criticize open-carry as if there are only certain situations where it's acceptable. If GP is legal to open-carry, they can do so wherever they like, providing particular legislation or bylaws don't prevent it. Not sure why you're deepthroating the boot, but happening to be (legally) armed while making a regular request, is not a reason to be treated suspiciously by police.
  - StrictDabbler 3y ago
    These are attacks on people in custody. How is that remotely relevant? None of these people had the opportunity to open carry a gun when those attacks happened. Regardless, I am not saying he should not be allowed to do it. It's not boot-licking. I am wondering, practically, about the motivation. Drawing a gun in a police station is a death warrant. Even looking like you're going to pull it could get you shot or arrested. I don't normally go around wearing something on my belt that could get me killed if I move my hand near it. I would only do so for a very good reason. So I'm looking for a better reason than "because I can". I don't see one in your response.
- foxyv 3y ago
  > It seems very odd to not just leave your gun in the car. Never leave an unattended weapon in a car. Especially outside a police station. Either leave it at home, or keep it on your person. There are some products out there for securing weapons in vehicles that could work but if you don't have one don't leave your gun in your car.
  - StrictDabbler 3y ago
    It seems to me that if you haven't invested in a proper gun safe for your car you shouldn't be carrying in the first place because there are definitely places that you cannot take a gun into, even in Texas. I have never known a gun-owner who did not purchase a proper gun restraint for their car. Still, if you don't have a gun safe in the car surely you do the same thing as you would when going to court, a school, a church, an amusement park, voting at a polling place, a racetrack, a hospital, a nursing home, or to any other business that prohibits handguns on the premises. You leave it at home, right?
    - foxyv 3y ago
      Generally speaking I'm pragmatic when it comes to carrying a weapon. The same as carrying a tourniquet, first aid kit, or helmet. Personally I live in an extremely safe community with almost no violent crime. So carrying a weapon is comparable to wearing a helmet while driving a car. While it could save my life, it's too much trouble considering how rare such situations are. However, I understand there are hundreds of reasons to carry a weapon and everyone's situation is unique. If you want to put up with the trouble to carry one, it is literally your right. I just wish people would be more responsible about their weapons in general...
SN76477 3y ago
Generally speaking I believe the officers want to do the right thing, but the system is an intertangled web of perverse incentives. I'm willing trust an officer as a person, but not as a part of the system.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  My thoughts are there are hardly any good police officers. I think if any officer saw another doing anything illegal or would get them in trouble, 99% of the time they wouldn’t report them. The Blue Wall is real.
  - 0ct4via 3y ago
    Absolutely this -- for those that aren't aware of the term, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_wall_of_silence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_wall_of_silence There has been substantial evidence of police hiding or deliberately not reporting misconduct from their colleagues, often because of fear of reprisals -- which absolutely is part of the system being objectively wrong.
berberous 3y ago
Why did you go in with your sidearm and camera? Legal or not, it seems unnecessarily provocative, and that you went in with a camera because you knew it would cause a reaction.
- 0ct4via 3y ago
  Why is it provocative? The police also have firearms and cameras, does that make them "unnecessarily provocative" when they're walking the beat? Would you be as critical if GP's firearm was concealed, or if the camera used was one in their phone, and not on their hat? Sounds like you're making a lot of baseless and judgemental assumptions about voakbasda -- not everyone is a deliberately antagonistic self-professed "auditor," you know.
rtkwe 3y ago
Where was this? Even the more 2A literalist states often maintain that government buildings are/can be gun free areas for both open and concealed carry.
scarface_74 3y ago
Exactly what was the purpose of going into a police station with a gun? Who were you trying to potentially protect yourself against?
- foxyv 3y ago
  The only reason I can think of other than "Standing on your rights" is that you normally carry, and don't want to leave your gun somewhere it can be stolen.
piafraus 3y ago
Can you share that recorded interaction please?
jstarfish 3y ago
> harassment by a neighbor > open-carrying my sidearm [into a police station] > camera on my hat recording the interaction. > they obviously were trying to intimidate me Someone involved in a harassment dispute with a civilian shows up at a police station in full Agent Provocateur kit, then complains about harassment by the police when [lawfully] questioned. You sure seem to invite harassment. You weren't even detained or roughed up. You lived to tell the tale. Yet you want people to internalize that "the police are a gang of thugs and crooks. They cannot be trusted." Where's the crime? Where's the deception? Where's the video? Your story stinks. I call shenanigans. You're either a foreign agent or a professional victim.
- teachrdan 3y ago
  I'll steel man against this argument. Even if OP was trying to be provocative, the police should be able to resist the temptation to intimidate them. Police have the power to arrest people (or worse) with impunity. They should be able to withstand someone using their constitutional rights in their presence without retaliating against them. > You sure seem to invite harassment. Serious question: What does this statement mean? Do you believe there to be conduct that is non-criminal and still validates police intimidation? What would that be? It's not like OP walked into the police station and hinted that he was a murderer. > You weren't even detained or roughed up. You lived to tell the tale. Do you believe that as long as someone isn't illegally detained or assaulted for behaving in a "provocative" yet totally legal way, they have no basis for complaint? > Where's the crime? Where's the deception? Where's the video? Is there literally anything on that video that could convince you the police mishandled OP's situation? The police know how to intimidate people -- doing so is literally their job when it comes to getting people to comply with orders or to answer questions in interrogation. The notion that the police officers in this situation acted to intimidate OP is not at all farfetched. The fact that OP wasn't illegally arrested or worse makes the situation described that much more plausible. The cops know how far they can push things without risking accountability for their misconduct.
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    > Serious question: What does this statement mean? Do you believe there to be conduct that is non-criminal and still validates police intimidation? What would that be? It's not like OP walked into the police station and hinted that he was a murderer. > the police should be able to resist the temptation to intimidate them Both of you are throwing around the word "intimidation" to describe the police questioning why some idiot walked into a police station strapped and wearing a camera. Is he allowed to do it? Sure. The implication here is that the police aren't allowed to even question him though without it automatically becoming intimidation or interrogation (you're doing it too now), because that crosses a line somehow. OP appears to be the frequent victim of "harassment," provides no evidence to substantiate his anecdote, and uses loaded verbiage like "obviously intimidating" to reframe perceptions of the alleged encounter and end it with defamatory accusations. Ticks all the boxes in the performative outrage playbook. > Is there literally anything on that video that could convince you the police mishandled OP's situation? The police know how to intimidate people -- doing so is literally their job when it comes to getting people to comply with orders or to answer questions in interrogation. Not really. I'm surrounded by women and have a stepdaughter with terminal Munchausen syndrome so I'm used to histrionics and abuse of the courtroom Kuleshov effect. That one throws around sexual harassment allegations, trying to show individual text messages as evidence. Then you ask to see the full conversation and she gets cagey. You dig deeper and you learn she solicited the other party. So here we have a guy who seems to get harassed everywhere he goes. We learn he is presenting himself in a conspicuously-threatening way, and are told that the very act of asking an armed man questions in the lobby by the police should obviously be interpreted as "intimidation." Let's recap: > Man threatens police, on their own turf. > Police ask questions. > Man cries police intimidation. > Everyone is told to ignore the fact that man tried to antagonize police and nothing happened. Police are bad! It's bullshit. Desperate attorneys do this florid dubbed-over visualization crap too-- "let me explain to you what you're actually seeing in this amateur video of a man--possibly woman, who knows (gender is a social construct after all!)--who looks like my client (but may or may not actually be), appearing to gently tap the victim with a roll of what could be soft paper towels, but it's possible if you look at it from a weird angle, it's possible it might look a little like a baseball bat."
voakbasda 3y ago
To answer some questions: 1) I always carry. Everywhere. I live in a very rural area. Police response time is 15 minutes or more. But so what? They have zero obligation to protect you, even if they could show up in 30 seconds. I will never willingly abdicate my right to self-defense to anyone. 2) I do not have a place to secure my gun in my car, so that was not an option. Leaving guns in your car is not a good idea, so I usually avoid going into places that require me to disarm. 3) The camera was a result of the harassment by my neighbor. I did not mention that one of them is a cop. They filed a false report against me and then tried to have me arrested under those false pretenses. I started recording everything that I did, to provide an affirmative defense against accusations in situations without objective witnesses. Basically, everywhere and always. 4) I went there as a routine errand, going about my daily business. I never expected a confrontation to ensue. I never expected to be treated like a criminal from the start of the conversation. I was friendly and open in my interaction and sure as hell was not trying to provoke this kind of encounter. 5) I don’t have video because the first thing that they did was intimidate me into stopping the recording. They insinuated that my recording there was illegal and that was why they they approached me. My gun then became another lever for them to attack me. 6) I believe that the main thing that saved me was thinking quickly, knowing my rights, and articulating that understanding and resulting position in a way that made it clear that I was not going to be an easy mark. I use big words and seem intelligent, which I think intimidated them a little bit. That, and I luckily happened to have a friend with me who watched it all go down, and that could have been inconvenient when they went to tell lies on an arrest report.
throwawaymobule 3y ago
As a non-American, It's always seemed strange to me that someone with a CCW, or otherwise armed isn't under reduced suspicion from cops. Like, you're clearly not a felon, and in many cases the feds already have a full set of your fingerprints.

StrictDabbler 3y ago

I am trying to think of a good reason to open-carry into a police station apart from "making a point". You won't be the "good guy with a gun" in an active shooting. You won't be robbed. You won't be attacked. If you draw your gun at a police station for any reason you will be arrested or killed. Like, technically in my state I have the right to open-carry a rifle past a school while wearing a ski-mask as long as I'm off-property. Completely legal. If I did that while picking my child up from school to "assert my rights" surely you'd think I was being insane, confrontational and threatening because I could have no legitimate interest in doing so. It seems very odd to not just leave your gun in the car. Perhaps you're a principled pedestrian or cyclist? That I could see.

indymike 3y ago
> I am trying to think of a good reason to open-carry into a police station apart from "making a point". It is legal to do so?
- dangus 3y ago
  It’s legal to do all kinds of dumb things that you shouldn’t do. It’s legal to walk around topless in NYC, but don’t be surprised if you don’t like the reaction you get when you do so. I wonder how many second amendment originalists eat donuts and ice cream for every meal because it’s legal?
  - 0ct4via 3y ago
    You're being facetious. The "like your reaction" isn't applicable, because one would reasonable expect those with different senses of modesty, etc. may not agree with someone being topless in public. The "donut and ice cream for every meal" is equally ridiculous -- yes, it's legal, but (a) suggesting otherwise is farcical, and (b) anybody with common sense knows that it would both be lacking in nutrition, and lead to other health issues. By contrast, OP engaging in regular business while happening to be enjoying their constitutionally-protected rights, is not "dumb" or something they "shouldn't do" -- the only thing that "shouldn't" be done in this case, is be interrogated for simply open carrying -- they wouldn't have batted an eyelid if GP had a CCW and was concealed-carrying. If you're going to make an argument that GP was "dumb" for open-carrying in a police station, make that argument -- don't resort to childish and laughable attempts at puerile analogies.
    - dangus 3y ago
      > (b) anybody with common sense knows that it would both be lacking in nutrition, and lead to other health issues Anyone with common sense knows you don’t need a gun in a police station because the police have already secured the police station. Everything you said in your comment as a rebuttal to my analogy fit my analogy perfectly. Let me reiterate: “interrogation” as described in this story is legal. It’s just a forceful word for asking questions. Police are allowed to ask questions in almost any situation, which is why they do it so much. They don’t have to automatically tell you that you’re not obligated to answer or stick around.
      - cryptonector 3y ago
        > Anyone with common sense knows you don’t need a gun in a police station because the police have already secured the police station. Reading this subthread, it seems pretty clear that one wouldn't legally carry in a police station out of fear of needing it, but out of fear of having it stolen from their vehicles.
        dangus 3y ago
0xffff2 3y ago
The United States is a very large place. I currently live somewhere relatively civilized. Here, I have a permit for concealed carry but I never actually carry. In a past life, I lived somewhere much less civilized. There, I carried (either open or concealed) as a matter of course in my daily life. While I was always cognizant of where I was allowed to carry and where not, I never removed my gun unless legally required to do so. This is both a simple matter of convenience and a practical matter of security, as a gun on my person is inherently more secure than a gun stored in my vehicle, even though it was doubly locked while in the vehicle.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  I always wondered this. If someone meant to do you harm with a gun, what are the chances that they would give you the opportunity to defend yourself? The perpetrator would already be prepared and you wouldn’t.
  - 0xffff2 3y ago
    Well it depends. Part of the reason I was/am comfortable carrying is because I have the appropriate professional training to do so safely. Both as a result of that training and as a matter of habit, it is possible to be cognizant of potential interactions and mostly not put yourself in situations where conflict is likely. In other words, part of responsibly carrying is to always be prepared. In the event I find myself in such a situation anyway, there's a good chance the other party won't know I'm armed unless I want them to. As for the rest of the time, I think potential aggressors as both dumber and more emotional than you're imagining. I've never come remotely close to shooting anyone, but the times I've had to actively think about it were because I people were acting in a way that telegraph ill intent long before they were in a position to do anything to me.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      My wife and I are doing the whole “digital nomad” thing across the US half the year for the foreseeable future. I’ve walked around liberal lead cities where conservatives swear it’s dangerous because of homelessness (Seattle, San Francisco) and cities in conservative states (Dallas, Houston, Nashville, Charleston , etc). I’ve lived in small town GA, a few cities around Metro Atlanta and worked in a few others. I can honestly say I have never in 50 years felt unsafe anywhere I’ve been and I can’t imagine me by myself carrying would make me feel safer against a possible ambush. Not to mention that according to CDC statistics, gun violence is the 50th leading cause of death in the US and most of that is either suicide or being killed by someone you know. I’m more likely to die from hamburgers and too much salt than anything carrying could prevent.
wahnfrieden 3y ago
Sorry are you saying rights don’t matter if it makes coppers uncomfortable? Sounds like approval of gang/crook intimidation behaviors from public servants
- dangus 3y ago
  It doesn’t sound like the cops as described in the scenario did anything illegal. They just asked a bunch of questions. It sounds like voakbasta was free to leave at any time. voakbasta just didn’t like the fact that people reacted to him doing weird but legal stuff outside of social norms. A major argument that second amendment originalists make for the need for personal firearms is to provide personal protection, but a police station is an area that is already protected by law officers who are armed, so there’s no reason to open carry there. It’s like bringing an air conditioner to a hockey rink.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    I personally feel much less safe around police and I know many who feel the same or experienced unjust harassment and violence from them, especially nypd and including inside their stations. I know people who were tortured by county jail guards, ostensibly there for protection, while holding them awaiting trial (including later being proven innocent). I don’t agree that when encountering police that everyone should surrender or otherwise dispose of their firearms. I think that would make police even more aggressive at scale. Police are adversarial, not protective for common folk. I would advocate for the opposite - police should not be allowed to carry, and I think they are weirdos for doing so
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      So do you think carrying a gun around the NYPD would make you more safe?
  - 0ct4via 3y ago
    That "it sounds like" assumption is holding a whole lot of weight there, buddy. You don't know that they were free to leave, and the fact that you think it's "weird" for someone to open carry suggests implicit bias demonstrated by your further comments. It's nothing about "originalists" either -- whether for the exercise of constitutional rights, their own desire, or protection, if GP chose to open carry, and it's legal to do so, they shouldn't be randomly interrogated about it -- especially when making a routine enquiry. You're also forgetting that plenty officers have both assaulted and used their arms against peaceful citizens, including in police custody and police stations, so "there's no reason to open carry there" doesn't apply -- you don't know if GP was simply walking home and went in to get this report copy on the way -- more ridiculous analogies don't make an actual argument, you know. Going back to your initial "sound like," if police are using tactics they've learned to coax information out from suspect and display authority and force, it could absolutely be illegal, ranging from harassment to intimidation -- short of wearing a t-shirt saying "kill all cops" or waving their firearm around, there's no reasonable circumstance why they should be challenged like that, purely for open carrying -- as I said to you before, if they CCW'd there wouldn't even be an argument, so passing judgement on GP because of your own clear anti-gun bias is transparent as heck.
0ct4via 3y ago
"You won't be attacked" This[1] young girl would disagree with you, as would this[2] man. Also committed while in police custody, not necessarily in stations, bur certainly where you could also reasonably try and claim "you won't be attacked": [3], [4] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/01/police-custody-assault-video https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/01/police-custody... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Louima https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Louima [3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64435109 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64435109 [4] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230860978_Reported_assaults_and_observed_injuries_in_detainees_held_in_police_custody https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230860978_Reported_... It's incredibly ignorant to make out like someone visiting a police station will magically be fine, because the police are the "good guy with a gun" in your scenario. As for going into the station, it doesn't matter whether GP is "principled" or not, (a) they're allowed to carry, and (b) a car is not a holster. If GP had been concealed-carrying you wouldn't have had any argument, you're trying to criticize open-carry as if there are only certain situations where it's acceptable. If GP is legal to open-carry, they can do so wherever they like, providing particular legislation or bylaws don't prevent it. Not sure why you're deepthroating the boot, but happening to be (legally) armed while making a regular request, is not a reason to be treated suspiciously by police.
- StrictDabbler 3y ago
  These are attacks on people in custody. How is that remotely relevant? None of these people had the opportunity to open carry a gun when those attacks happened. Regardless, I am not saying he should not be allowed to do it. It's not boot-licking. I am wondering, practically, about the motivation. Drawing a gun in a police station is a death warrant. Even looking like you're going to pull it could get you shot or arrested. I don't normally go around wearing something on my belt that could get me killed if I move my hand near it. I would only do so for a very good reason. So I'm looking for a better reason than "because I can". I don't see one in your response.
foxyv 3y ago
> It seems very odd to not just leave your gun in the car. Never leave an unattended weapon in a car. Especially outside a police station. Either leave it at home, or keep it on your person. There are some products out there for securing weapons in vehicles that could work but if you don't have one don't leave your gun in your car.
- StrictDabbler 3y ago
  It seems to me that if you haven't invested in a proper gun safe for your car you shouldn't be carrying in the first place because there are definitely places that you cannot take a gun into, even in Texas. I have never known a gun-owner who did not purchase a proper gun restraint for their car. Still, if you don't have a gun safe in the car surely you do the same thing as you would when going to court, a school, a church, an amusement park, voting at a polling place, a racetrack, a hospital, a nursing home, or to any other business that prohibits handguns on the premises. You leave it at home, right?
  - foxyv 3y ago
    Generally speaking I'm pragmatic when it comes to carrying a weapon. The same as carrying a tourniquet, first aid kit, or helmet. Personally I live in an extremely safe community with almost no violent crime. So carrying a weapon is comparable to wearing a helmet while driving a car. While it could save my life, it's too much trouble considering how rare such situations are. However, I understand there are hundreds of reasons to carry a weapon and everyone's situation is unique. If you want to put up with the trouble to carry one, it is literally your right. I just wish people would be more responsible about their weapons in general...

SN76477 3y ago

Generally speaking I believe the officers want to do the right thing, but the system is an intertangled web of perverse incentives. I'm willing trust an officer as a person, but not as a part of the system.

scarface_74 3y ago
My thoughts are there are hardly any good police officers. I think if any officer saw another doing anything illegal or would get them in trouble, 99% of the time they wouldn’t report them. The Blue Wall is real.
- 0ct4via 3y ago
  Absolutely this -- for those that aren't aware of the term, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_wall_of_silence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_wall_of_silence There has been substantial evidence of police hiding or deliberately not reporting misconduct from their colleagues, often because of fear of reprisals -- which absolutely is part of the system being objectively wrong.

berberous 3y ago

Why did you go in with your sidearm and camera? Legal or not, it seems unnecessarily provocative, and that you went in with a camera because you knew it would cause a reaction.

0ct4via 3y ago
Why is it provocative? The police also have firearms and cameras, does that make them "unnecessarily provocative" when they're walking the beat? Would you be as critical if GP's firearm was concealed, or if the camera used was one in their phone, and not on their hat? Sounds like you're making a lot of baseless and judgemental assumptions about voakbasda -- not everyone is a deliberately antagonistic self-professed "auditor," you know.

rtkwe 3y ago

Where was this? Even the more 2A literalist states often maintain that government buildings are/can be gun free areas for both open and concealed carry.

scarface_74 3y ago

Exactly what was the purpose of going into a police station with a gun? Who were you trying to potentially protect yourself against?

foxyv 3y ago
The only reason I can think of other than "Standing on your rights" is that you normally carry, and don't want to leave your gun somewhere it can be stolen.

piafraus 3y ago

Can you share that recorded interaction please?

jstarfish 3y ago

> harassment by a neighbor > open-carrying my sidearm [into a police station] > camera on my hat recording the interaction. > they obviously were trying to intimidate me Someone involved in a harassment dispute with a civilian shows up at a police station in full Agent Provocateur kit, then complains about harassment by the police when [lawfully] questioned. You sure seem to invite harassment. You weren't even detained or roughed up. You lived to tell the tale. Yet you want people to internalize that "the police are a gang of thugs and crooks. They cannot be trusted." Where's the crime? Where's the deception? Where's the video? Your story stinks. I call shenanigans. You're either a foreign agent or a professional victim.

teachrdan 3y ago
I'll steel man against this argument. Even if OP was trying to be provocative, the police should be able to resist the temptation to intimidate them. Police have the power to arrest people (or worse) with impunity. They should be able to withstand someone using their constitutional rights in their presence without retaliating against them. > You sure seem to invite harassment. Serious question: What does this statement mean? Do you believe there to be conduct that is non-criminal and still validates police intimidation? What would that be? It's not like OP walked into the police station and hinted that he was a murderer. > You weren't even detained or roughed up. You lived to tell the tale. Do you believe that as long as someone isn't illegally detained or assaulted for behaving in a "provocative" yet totally legal way, they have no basis for complaint? > Where's the crime? Where's the deception? Where's the video? Is there literally anything on that video that could convince you the police mishandled OP's situation? The police know how to intimidate people -- doing so is literally their job when it comes to getting people to comply with orders or to answer questions in interrogation. The notion that the police officers in this situation acted to intimidate OP is not at all farfetched. The fact that OP wasn't illegally arrested or worse makes the situation described that much more plausible. The cops know how far they can push things without risking accountability for their misconduct.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  > Serious question: What does this statement mean? Do you believe there to be conduct that is non-criminal and still validates police intimidation? What would that be? It's not like OP walked into the police station and hinted that he was a murderer. > the police should be able to resist the temptation to intimidate them Both of you are throwing around the word "intimidation" to describe the police questioning why some idiot walked into a police station strapped and wearing a camera. Is he allowed to do it? Sure. The implication here is that the police aren't allowed to even question him though without it automatically becoming intimidation or interrogation (you're doing it too now), because that crosses a line somehow. OP appears to be the frequent victim of "harassment," provides no evidence to substantiate his anecdote, and uses loaded verbiage like "obviously intimidating" to reframe perceptions of the alleged encounter and end it with defamatory accusations. Ticks all the boxes in the performative outrage playbook. > Is there literally anything on that video that could convince you the police mishandled OP's situation? The police know how to intimidate people -- doing so is literally their job when it comes to getting people to comply with orders or to answer questions in interrogation. Not really. I'm surrounded by women and have a stepdaughter with terminal Munchausen syndrome so I'm used to histrionics and abuse of the courtroom Kuleshov effect. That one throws around sexual harassment allegations, trying to show individual text messages as evidence. Then you ask to see the full conversation and she gets cagey. You dig deeper and you learn she solicited the other party. So here we have a guy who seems to get harassed everywhere he goes. We learn he is presenting himself in a conspicuously-threatening way, and are told that the very act of asking an armed man questions in the lobby by the police should obviously be interpreted as "intimidation." Let's recap: > Man threatens police, on their own turf. > Police ask questions. > Man cries police intimidation. > Everyone is told to ignore the fact that man tried to antagonize police and nothing happened. Police are bad! It's bullshit. Desperate attorneys do this florid dubbed-over visualization crap too-- "let me explain to you what you're actually seeing in this amateur video of a man--possibly woman, who knows (gender is a social construct after all!)--who looks like my client (but may or may not actually be), appearing to gently tap the victim with a roll of what could be soft paper towels, but it's possible if you look at it from a weird angle, it's possible it might look a little like a baseball bat."

voakbasda 3y ago

To answer some questions: 1) I always carry. Everywhere. I live in a very rural area. Police response time is 15 minutes or more. But so what? They have zero obligation to protect you, even if they could show up in 30 seconds. I will never willingly abdicate my right to self-defense to anyone. 2) I do not have a place to secure my gun in my car, so that was not an option. Leaving guns in your car is not a good idea, so I usually avoid going into places that require me to disarm. 3) The camera was a result of the harassment by my neighbor. I did not mention that one of them is a cop. They filed a false report against me and then tried to have me arrested under those false pretenses. I started recording everything that I did, to provide an affirmative defense against accusations in situations without objective witnesses. Basically, everywhere and always. 4) I went there as a routine errand, going about my daily business. I never expected a confrontation to ensue. I never expected to be treated like a criminal from the start of the conversation. I was friendly and open in my interaction and sure as hell was not trying to provoke this kind of encounter. 5) I don’t have video because the first thing that they did was intimidate me into stopping the recording. They insinuated that my recording there was illegal and that was why they they approached me. My gun then became another lever for them to attack me. 6) I believe that the main thing that saved me was thinking quickly, knowing my rights, and articulating that understanding and resulting position in a way that made it clear that I was not going to be an easy mark. I use big words and seem intelligent, which I think intimidated them a little bit. That, and I luckily happened to have a friend with me who watched it all go down, and that could have been inconvenient when they went to tell lies on an arrest report.

throwawaymobule 3y ago

As a non-American, It's always seemed strange to me that someone with a CCW, or otherwise armed isn't under reduced suspicion from cops. Like, you're clearly not a felon, and in many cases the feds already have a full set of your fingerprints.