Drawn on by Missouri State Patrolman

[ManInBlack]

I mean the officer was correct why park your car and walk away unless your wanting to be confrontational.

That's funny; you must have watched a different video than I did.

In the video I watched, the officers confronted Bess, not the other way around...

 

[hammer6]

he talked way too much

 

[hammer6]

So funny you would post this. So, because OC is up for discussion in the Legislature, this individual, and all individuals ought to stop OC'ing?

If walking down the street OC'ing in a State where it's legal is 'baiting' then there are many of us on here that so-called Bait LEO's every day we walk out the door into society.

No OC'r should be swayed by some anti-firearm political opportunist who is dead set against OC; it's not as if you're going to change their mind anyhow. If I were concerned about particular sensitivities of me walking around OC'ing, then I would cease to OC. If the Legislator has as exhibit A, the individual in the video, walking down the street, minding his own business, as some sort of justification for banning OC, well, then OC'rs in that State are sitting pretty good.

Don't put the weight of your personal OC shortcomings on the individual who started this thread. If you want to p*ssy-foot around people who are sensitive to OC'ing, and navigate through political winds, go for it, just don't expect the rest of us to do it.

Welcome to OC.

exactly.

 

[OC for ME]

Arrest without warrant, lawful, when.

577.039. An arrest without a warrant by a law enforcement officer, including a uniformed member of the state highway patrol, for a violation of section 577.010 or 577.012 is lawful whenever the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has violated the section, whether or not the violation occurred in the presence of the arresting officer.

Arrest.

544.180. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise. The officer must inform the defendant by what authority he acts, and must also show the warrant if required.

Of course Bess is doing his 'OC walk' to gain attention....and it worked. Sometimes 'baiting' the cops to break the law gains more than trying to 'educate' a ambivalent citizenry.

So what's the point again? The cops were wrong, Bess was right, and some folks around here don't like 'bad press'.....OC preemption was not ever going to pass this past session and those working the halls likely knew that before the session started.

The vermin we have elected are not pro 2A or pro Art. I, Sec 23, despite their now worthless rhetoric to the contrary. Flush them out and vote in new ones.

 

[SavageOne]

Calm, cool, collected re-education of our LEOs, administrators, and lawmakers is the only approach. There is a HUGE difference between someone raising awareness and a radical activist. The person raising awareness tends to conduct their normal daily business with the intent of raising awareness if/when asked. The radical activist will intentionally create situations with the sole purpose of getting unnecessary attention and media exposure.

I see no normal daily activity, unless this was actually the daily activity of the indivudal (which raises concern). What I do see is a radical activist setting out with the intent to draw attention and media exposure. Does anyone recall just such an activist in our not-so-distant history? Here's a hint, he wrote the "I have a dream" speech and went to jail for his beliefs.

Sometimes that's exactly what it is going to take and we simply cannot judge those who take actions we are not willing to take ourselves. That does not mean we have to support those actions when the timing is incorrect or if the intent is somehow misplaced or misguided in any way. Of course, flying solo as a radical activist simply is not a wise approach. Team tactics folks, team tactics...security and survival in numbers!

I am sure, however, that you will agree that even the "radical activist" is still endowed with the same enumerated rights as the person only trying to raise awareness. That being the case, the radical is under no obligation to limit how they exercise those rights.

I have said it previously, and I will say it again, if a persons chooses to OC only to "bait" the police, that is as legitimate a reason to OC, as any you or I have. As long as their exercise of their rights does not harm another or directly hinder the exercise of someone else's rights, the why is immaterial.

Some may carry to normalize, some may carry for defense, some may carry to provoke. They are all legitimate reasons and all equally correct, because they are all personal.

 

[9026543]

After reading this thread from start until now I have come to the conclusion that the ones that were walking the halls of the capitol pushing for pre-emption on OC knew or should have known that they were beating a dead horse again. I believe that a certain Senator's bill was introduced just to placate his constituents as it never moved at all.
The Bess incident was just an excuse by the spineless in the elected offices in the capitol to sit on all OC bills. And those that were walking the halls jumped on that incident as the excuse for the whole she bang going down in flames.

JMHO....................

 

[SavageOne]

I would concur

 

[lincomores]

So I know I'm going to get grief for saying this but I just think Bess loves the attention. I mean the officer was correct why park your car and walk away unless your wanting to be confrontational. It's one thing to get out of your car pump gas and have a officer approach you but to walk down the hwy is another. What good does this do for the cause? Weather its your god giving right or not I don't think that's the best and smartest way to do this. If he's a street preacher then stand on the corner and preach. It seems like the past yr or so Bess has been in the paper or on this forum with nothing but bad judgement calls. I'm afraid this will bite each and everyone of us at the end.

It has to do with this notion of "exercising your rights."
As Superlite is attempting to convey; normal people doing a normal activity while being prepared to respond is NOT what I consider the understanding of what exercising your right is.
It is more akin to what I believe to be "living your freedom", not "exercising it."
I do not want to necessarily be confronted about what I'm doing. Curiosity is fine. It fosters an environment of a teachable moment.

I'll open carry; I'll conceal carry.
What I am doing is going about my "normal" course of life.
Although I have no issue with someone like Mr. Bess doing whatever he legally cares to do, I can pretty much make the correct judgment that when you strategically drive your vehicle somewhere > park it > walk away from it with the intent to walk back to it, you are NOT going about your normal life. You are injecting a tactical element which solicits reaction...and not any old reaction, but rather "specific" reaction, namely that of the citizenry in anticipation of LE.

 

[OC for ME]

Bess is street preacher.....there for his 'OC Walk' is likely a normal (for him) event in his life.

There in lies the crux of this Bess encounter. Most folks wouldn't 'normally' do what he did, there for his doing it is 'not normal' by most folks standards and should be/is condemned.

This entire incident is laid at the feet of those four thug cops. The statements made by the most talkative thug cop were the clincher if you care to note the mindset of those thug cops.

But folks around here got all worked up over Jeff City. The flim-flam pulled on the OC movers & shakers, and their lack of perception on what was really going down in the state house is what frustrated many. The failure of any meaningful progress to have been obtained, and the frustration fostered by that failure has been laid at the feet of a easy and single target....Mr. Bess.

Scapegoat comes to mind.

 

[jdholmes]

Living your rights vs. exercising your rights is silly semantics, especially when it comes to 2nd amendment. There is no difference in the two.

 

[lincomores]

Bess is street preacher.....there for his 'OC Walk' is likely a normal (for him) event in his life.

There in lies the crux of this Bess encounter. Most folks wouldn't 'normally' do what he did, there for his doing it is 'not normal' by most folks standards and should be/is condemned.

I know that I'm not condemning him for this.
I'm merely pointing out that his "intent" in this case in particular, is not street preaching and it certainly isn't "merely" exercising his right. His intent is to solicit "reaction" so as to have something worthwhile to document for youtube posting.

There is no doubt, in my mind, that these particular LEOs are A-typical misinformed and trampled his rights.
But then, what did he really expect?
When you throw the line out, your hope is to get a bite, else why bother?
You can normally carry all you want during your normal course of life.

 

[lincomores]

Living your rights vs. exercising your rights is silly semantics, especially when it comes to 2nd amendment. There is no difference in the two.

While you certainly have your right to your opinion, I believe that you couldn't be further from the truth.
In this case, parking your car > walking a distance away on a busy stretch of hwy > to turn around and walk back > armed with audio/video > with the expectation of a reaction is a preplanned, purposed, activist exercise of your rights...nothing wrong with that.

I carry for self defense. I don't carry for any other reason, or any other motive. I do not lug around audio/video equipment...call me a fool for not, but I'm not preoccupied with "reaction." I'm busy going about my normal life.

There is a big difference between "exercising your rights" and simply "living free."

 

[ManInBlack]

There is a big difference between "exercising your rights" and simply "living free."

What's wrong with either?

 

[lincomores]

What's wrong with either?

There isn't anything "wrong" with either.
I know that I've said as much.
I'm just pointing out that I believe that there is a difference between the two and that it isn't just a matter of semantics.

 

[jdholmes]

It's still the same. You feel because you are just doing what YOU normally do that you aren't exercising your right, but you are indeed doing just that. Look around you - there are those who aren't.

Activists aren't the only ones exercising their rights - every day that you make use of a right it is being exercised.

 

[lincomores]

It's still the same. You feel because you are just doing what YOU normally do that you aren't exercising your right, but you are indeed doing just that. Look around you - there are those who aren't.

Activists aren't the only ones exercising their rights - every day that you make use of a right it is being exercised.

Again, while I respect your opinion on the matter...in my opinion, you couldn't be further from the truth.
I have no problem agreeing to disagree.

 

[jdholmes]

Absolutely - I never have a problem with someone being wrong. . You are most certainly welcome to your wrong opinion. Hehe.

 

[MKEgal]

I'm sorry I really feel like this is baiting... legal or not just plain stupid...

If one is not predisposed to commit a crime, no amount of "baiting" will cause him to commit that crime.
As someone else on OCDO wrote not too long ago, a grocery bag of cocaine sitting on my front sidewalk will still be sitting there, untouched by me, whenever the cops decide to arrive (if they do), because I have no interest in it (aside from the academic research sort of curiosity about "how does it feel?")

Just being polite goes along way and then just maybe you can educate the LEO.
I would like to think if you treat an officer with respect they will treat you with respect.

Go ahead & think that. Maybe it'll eventually work. Way too often it will result in the cop arresting you all the easier.

There is a HUGE difference between someone raising awareness and a radical activist. The person raising awareness tends to conduct their normal daily business with the intent of raising awareness if/when asked. The radical activist will intentionally create situations with the sole purpose of getting unnecessary attention and media exposure.

Very well put.

 

[wolfgangmob]

Living your rights vs. exercising your rights is silly semantics, especially when it comes to 2nd amendment. There is no difference in the two.

It's that way with all rights, what gives you the right to speak loudly about your opinion gives the next person the right to denounce your opinion in the same manner, even if you are basing your opinion on known facts. What gives you the right to worship a god gives the next person the right to question your practice openly and freely without legal persecution. What gives a person the right to openly carry because it's more convenient gives the next man the right to carry to see the reaction he will get. There are cases that are not protected as well such as speaking in a harassing, slanderous, or threatening manner, you may not force your religion on anyone or use it as protection for causing harm or for discrimination, and you cannot openly carry with criminal intent or if you cannot possess a firearm.

It's not a question of if what was done was the best way to represent open carrying. There is however matter of people that are saying because he didn't do it the right way he shouldn't do it. If we are going to require a code of conduct to open carry it's not a right anymore, if I want to wear a ballistic vest, open carry two pistols and have a shotgun slung across my back and have no criminal intent it is my legal right, and that's all that is important. If we say a person has to practice their right a certain way we are attacking our own cause, you are attacking another person's rights and claiming you do it to protect the rights of everyone, suppose we can call it patriotism and defense against terrorism and get a free pass though, it has worked in the past.

 

[cshoff]

It's that way with all rights, what gives you the right to speak loudly about your opinion gives the next person the right to denounce your opinion in the same manner, even if you are basing your opinion on known facts. What gives you the right to worship a god gives the next person the right to question your practice openly and freely without legal persecution. What gives a person the right to openly carry because it's more convenient gives the next man the right to carry to see the reaction he will get. There are cases that are not protected as well such as speaking in a harassing, slanderous, or threatening manner, you may not force your religion on anyone or use it as protection for causing harm or for discrimination, and you cannot openly carry with criminal intent or if you cannot possess a firearm.

It's not a question of if what was done was the best way to represent open carrying. There is however matter of people that are saying because he didn't do it the right way he shouldn't do it. If we are going to require a code of conduct to open carry it's not a right anymore, if I want to wear a ballistic vest, open carry two pistols and have a shotgun slung across my back and have no criminal intent it is my legal right, and that's all that is important. If we say a person has to practice their right a certain way we are attacking our own cause, you are attacking another person's rights and claiming you do it to protect the rights of everyone, suppose we can call it patriotism and defense against terrorism and get a free pass though, it has worked in the past.

Well said. It seems as though there are a lot of folks here who claim to be staunch advocates for freedom and liberty yet who are so very vocal in condemning those who don't exercise that freedom and liberty in a manner with which they agree.