• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Just got my carry permit illegally seized by deputy. (Video)

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,623
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
Joe - I don't know. I'll try to find out this weekend when I'm back in town.

I don't know what people say when making a complaint call. I'm guessing a LEO needs to follow-up on a complaint call and need to verify the guy isn't causing problems, brandishing or whatever. If he's playing the 'Baiting Game' well, he appears to be playing to win, whatever prize that may be. 'Theater', interesting choice of words, still evaluating who's really trying to be the star, OP or LEO.
First, You don't know me or even IF my given name is Joe..... On this forum and others I am JoeSparky! Assuming otherwise is just.... well many have heard what "assume" means!

And to further, why is the lawful exercise of a right suddenly "baiting" the LEO's. No one is forcing them to violate the rights of anyone! The LEO's get dispatched to the report of a person NOT BREAKING the LAW should result in nothing more than a drive-by, IF THAT, ESPECIALLY if they've been dispatched to the same individual NOT BREAKING THE LAW multiple times.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,342
Location
White Oak Plantation
First, You don't know me or even IF my given name is Joe..... On this forum and others I am JoeSparky! Assuming otherwise is just.... well many have heard what "assume" means!

And to further, why is the lawful exercise of a right suddenly "baiting" the LEO's. No one is forcing them to violate the rights of anyone! The LEO's get dispatched to the report of a person NOT BREAKING the LAW should result in nothing more than a drive-by, IF THAT, ESPECIALLY if they've been dispatched to the same individual NOT BREAKING THE LAW multiple times.
Lighten up Joe...it's the Interwebz fer Jiminy Crickets.
 

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,165
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
Sadly, there is only one way for them to learn their lesson. Are you willing to pursue it?
Here we go again. Citizenship means DOING something right. If offended, pursue. Citizenship IS a Verb.

I can't comprehend why baiting LEOs is a good idea.

You might end up crippled or dead, but hey, you got some video! I'll pass on baiting LEOs.
Baiting LEOs? He was a KNOWN entity. The had interacted with him repeatedly and still harassed( yes, harassed) him at each encounter. As for recording, the LEOs have demonstrated a reason to mistrust them. I would do so in his place.

I open carry every day. I know there are MWAGS on me occasionally. The dispatch operators have been trained, here, to not waste resources. These LEOs seem to be "out to get" this guy.
 

Lthrnck

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
656
Location
Englewood, Ohio, USA
Baiting vs Testing

As a citizen of the United States it is my obligation and duty to test the actions of the public servants at all levels of government.

This is especially true when it involves issues of constitutionally protected rights.

The only way to accurately get the correct information is to do the "Test" either covertly or with no notice.

If I call the police up and tell them I am going to "Test" them, what kind of response do you think I would get.

Of course they would behave, they would cross the T's and dot the I's correctly. But that would not give me an accurate indication of how they would act if they didn't know they were being "Tested".

Police are allowed to lie to us... so the use of some kind of video/audio recording device is necessary.

We the citizens of the United States are the true "watchdogs" of our public servants, "Testing" is required to keep us safe.
 

77BD

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2015
Messages
16
Location
Iowa
First, You don't know me or even IF my given name is Joe..... On this forum and others I am JoeSparky! Assuming otherwise is just.... well many have heard what "assume" means!
I suggest eating a Snickers bar, it works in the commercials, make it a king sized....sheesh

And to further, why is the lawful exercise of a right suddenly "baiting" the LEO's. No one is forcing them to violate the rights of anyone! The LEO's get dispatched to the report of a person NOT BREAKING the LAW should result in nothing more than a drive-by, IF THAT, ESPECIALLY if they've been dispatched to the same individual NOT BREAKING THE LAW multiple times.
Open carrying in itself is not the baiting. The baiting was in reference to other youtube videos where people argue with a LEO to where a point of no return is achieved. The baiting is when the video camera starts and the dialogue begins. 'That's the biggest lie I ever heard' is not a good thing to say to a LEO at the start of a discussion. Heck, the officer in the video offered to give the card back if the OP would get an updated photo. Does OP say, 'ok, I'll get a new card', nope, he likely would've had the card returned and been on his way. The OP's response is 'You don't need to tell if that's me'. :banghead: At that point a threshold was crossed. Officers with lesser control may go full retard at that point. That's the baiting game. You asked me 'why not bait them'. Tell me why should you bait them?
 

77BD

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2015
Messages
16
Location
Iowa
Baiting LEOs? He was a KNOWN entity. The had interacted with him repeatedly and still harassed( yes, harassed) him at each encounter. As for recording, the LEOs have demonstrated a reason to mistrust them. I would do so in his place.
I discussed baiting in a post above. I see another guy calls it 'testing'. I hope he doesn't test the wrong guy. There are bad apples everywhere. Even good people will snap if pushed too far. Can be a dangerous game.

No one here knows what call was made to have the deputy stop the OP. You can't say the deputy had repeatedly interacted with the OP before. I suggested earlier that the Police Department has likely interacted with the OP (since in city limits) more than the Sheriff's Office. If that was harassment, well, then some people have thicker skin than others. Some people have better 'people skills' then others. OP can be snarky in the video, then come here and complain that he didn't even get an apology...what did he expect?
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
I discussed baiting in a post above. I see another guy calls it 'testing'. I hope he doesn't test the wrong guy. There are bad apples everywhere. Even good people will snap if pushed too far. Can be a dangerous game.

No one here knows what call was made to have the deputy stop the OP. You can't say the deputy had repeatedly interacted with the OP before. I suggested earlier that the Police Department has likely interacted with the OP (since in city limits) more than the Sheriff's Office. If that was harassment, well, then some people have thicker skin than others. Some people have better 'people skills' then others. OP can be snarky in the video, then come here and complain that he didn't even get an apology...what did he expect?
Some citizens may be willing to give up their liberty for a short time for the good of the future. If a dangerous game must be played, it is not the fault of the LAC. What other form of activism is as effective? There is only one way to test EGO, which is what's being tested - not the law. The law is plain as day.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,623
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
I suggest eating a Snickers bar, it works in the commercials, make it a king sized....sheesh



Open carrying in itself is not the baiting. The baiting was in reference to other youtube videos where people argue with a LEO to where a point of no return is achieved. The baiting is when the video camera starts and the dialogue begins. 'That's the biggest lie I ever heard' is not a good thing to say to a LEO at the start of a discussion. Heck, the officer in the video offered to give the card back if the OP would get an updated photo. Does OP say, 'ok, I'll get a new card', nope, he likely would've had the card returned and been on his way. The OP's response is 'You don't need to tell if that's me'. :banghead: At that point a threshold was crossed. Officers with lesser control may go full retard at that point. That's the baiting game. You asked me 'why not bait them'. Tell me why should you bait them?
I doubt the officer had ANY legal justification to demand the OC'er get a new photo for his issued card as a condition of the officer returning the valid card he had been issued. And did the paper card the officer seemed to want so bacly even have a pic on it of the holder it had been issued too? Sheesh, keep the Snickers for yourself!
 
Last edited:

77BD

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2015
Messages
16
Location
Iowa
I doubt the officer had ANY legal justification to demand the OC'er get a new photo for his issued card as a condition of the officer returning the valid card he had been issued. And did the paper card the officer seemed to want so bacly even have a pic on it of the holder it had been issued too? Sheesh, keep the Snickers for yourself!
I don't think we are talking about the same thing. 'The Truth' understands what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the baiting. I stated earlier the baiting is not the open carry. The baiting is the subsequent interaction between 2 individuals where one individual tries to push the other to a snapping point. Here it is done by answering questions with non-answers, not communicating, being rude, poor people skills, etc. in order to cause frustration to build to a snapping point. The problem is, the person doing the baiting doesn't know what can come of the snapping point. It can be a terrible result for the one doing the baiting and the one that was sucked in and snapped. I hope that is a more clear description of baiting. It can be a dangerous game.

As an example; in an early post I referred to you as 'Joe'. I was trying to make the response more personal to you by acknowledging a name. You had commented on my earlier posts point by point, agree and disagreeing, good dialogue. Me using 'Joe' wasn't meant to belittle or taunt, just to shorten JoeSparky. Based on your reaction to me using 'Joe' and your follow up response to a subsequent post that called you 'Joe'; it appears I could've caused you more frustration by taunting you by calling you 'Joe' every chance I could in my follow-up post. I could've baited you but, I didn't. I used the snickers comment to respond to your reply, less personal, sort of silly if you've seen the commercials. I reeled it back because you appeared to be quite agitated by being called 'Joe'. I didn't want to push your buttons hard. I didn't want to escalate the situation and push you to a boiling/snapping point. I don't get off on making people mad. It isn't good for either of us. So, I didn't bait you.

Does the paper permit have a picture on it? No. Do I need to provide a picture ID along with the paper permit? Not sure because the law isn't clear on what is required. Minnesota is quite clear on the need for the photo ID with the paper permit, Iowa isn't. If I need to provide a paper permit with a name on it, I'm pretty sure I'll need to produce a photo ID too; DPS could clarify. I need to provide the paper permit and a photo ID to an FFL for a transfer or purchase a firearm. If a photo ID isn't needed, then why have a photo on the Courtesy Card?
 

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
77, you're missing the point. The ID in question is NOT a "courtesy card." If you go to the 4:33 mark in the vid and pause it, you can clearly see and read (surprisingly for a vid) in the top red section of the card "PERMIT TO CARRY WEAPONS IOWA NON PROFESSIONAL" Operative word: PERMIT. This means that little piece of plastic with the licensee's pic and info on it IS ALL HE NEEDS contrary to the mistaken belief of the OEO. At that point its not "baiting" as you call it. It's perfectly understandable indignation and anger at having some tryhard puffer fish illegally seize lawfully owned and issued property.

http://plymouthcountysheriff.com/plugins/show_image.php?id=309

Question: Will Iowa be issuing a wallet sized card or plastic card?

Answer: Current administrative rules allow for the issuance of a wallet sized nonprofessional to carry for those sheriffs offices that choose to do so. At present, it is anticipated that this optional practice will continue to be authorized by DPS rule.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
People cannot be baited to commit crime, either they will, or they won't. If the opportunity is not present, they will eventually find the opportunity. Using baiting as an excuse for criminal behavior is downright stupid.

A fish that is not hungry will not take the bait.
 
Last edited:

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,272
Location
Iowa, USA
I don't think we are talking about the same thing. 'The Truth' understands what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the baiting. I stated earlier the baiting is not the open carry. The baiting is the subsequent interaction between 2 individuals where one individual tries to push the other to a snapping point. Here it is done by answering questions with non-answers, not communicating, being rude, poor people skills, etc. in order to cause frustration to build to a snapping point. The problem is, the person doing the baiting doesn't know what can come of the snapping point. It can be a terrible result for the one doing the baiting and the one that was sucked in and snapped. I hope that is a more clear description of baiting. It can be a dangerous game.
Poor people skills? Maybe. But where in the law does it saw we have to cooperate by answering questions and being polite? Yeah, it may be rude to argue, but we have no duty to be nice to our public servants. Its a good idea, but not required.

Does the paper permit have a picture on it? No. Do I need to provide a picture ID along with the paper permit? Not sure because the law isn't clear on what is required. Minnesota is quite clear on the need for the photo ID with the paper permit, Iowa isn't. If I need to provide a paper permit with a name on it, I'm pretty sure I'll need to produce a photo ID too; DPS could clarify. I need to provide the paper permit and a photo ID to an FFL for a transfer or purchase a firearm. If a photo ID isn't needed, then why have a photo on the Courtesy Card?
There is no law requiring one to identify themselves (as far as state issued ID/Drivers License is concerned, and if you have not committed a crime) in the state if Iowa. Furthermore, there is nothing in Iowa Code 724 that even mentions the requirement to carry or provide a state issued ID while carrying a firearm. The only thing that is required is that you produce a permit upon demand.

FFL's are different. Its a different law for different circumstances. I believe its federal law requiring one to ID themselves to purchase a firearm, although I cant be sure.

Some counties in Iowa provide just a paper permit. Some provide a card. I have been told that the reason is due to cost. Some of the small, more rural departments simply dont have the funding to buy the machine that makes the cards. I have offered to donate a laminating machine to my local office, and was turned down. Linn county provides cards with pictures. Scott county doesn't.
 

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,272
Location
Iowa, USA
Originally Posted by 77BD
Why video every encounter? What's he worried about if he is within the law? What's the point?

You mention in previous posts that you have at least some knowledge of the thousands of videos out there of police employees doing wrong. But then you ask the same question, over and over again.

If take some time to research some of the videos out there, you would know that most of the time the citizens are COMPLETELY WITHIN THE LAW! And as someone put it earlier in this thread, the officer enforces his opinion of the law, not actually the law itself. And they do it with the threat of violence.

IMHO, EVERY CITIZEN should audio and video record EVERY ENCOUNTER with EVERY public official. If for no other reason than to expose the criminal activity being committed on a daily basis by our elected officials, Federal/State/County/City/Village/Township employees, and police departments.

One of the points I often make to people is the fact that if we, the lowly, non elite citizen commit the crimes that these officials are committing, we would not be given the same treatment. We would be immediately charged, arrested, and hung out to dry. And forever labeled as a criminal. And it would happen immediately! You dont have a license? Jail. Now. You were driving drunk?! Jail. Now. You put your hands on someone who wasn't a threat to you?! Jail. Now. You were driving drunk?! Jail...wait...is that a badge? Ill let you off with a warning.

To get back on topic: The officer in the OP video, for the sake of our discussion, and IMHO, broke the law. It may be a minor infraction. But police employees dont operate under the law, they operate under department policy, and enforce the law. They are a protected class of individuals who have been granted extra rights because of their position in society.

I am not saying the police employees shouldn't be given some sort of benefit. But not free reign to do as they please without punishment.
 
Last edited:

Liberty-or-Death

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2014
Messages
411
Location
23235
Truly, some bait, but not all. Some perform 2A audits. Others try to hold court on the street.

In my opinion, the best of the baiters are the silent ones. Or, those smart enough not to hold court, but manage to get cops to incriminate themselves while not losing their own cool. I like watching Jeff Grey and The Battousai do their work.

I may not endorse all the methods of such activists, but I admire their passion for a just cause.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,623
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
I don't think we are talking about the same thing. 'The Truth' understands what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the baiting. I stated earlier the baiting is not the open carry. The baiting is the subsequent interaction between 2 individuals where one individual tries to push the other to a snapping point. Here it is done by answering questions with non-answers, not communicating, being rude, poor people skills, etc. in order to cause frustration to build to a snapping point. The problem is, the person doing the baiting doesn't know what can come of the snapping point. It can be a terrible result for the one doing the baiting and the one that was sucked in and snapped. I hope that is a more clear description of baiting. It can be a dangerous game.

As an example; in an early post I referred to you as 'Joe'. I was trying to make the response more personal to you by acknowledging a name. You had commented on my earlier posts point by point, agree and disagreeing, good dialogue. Me using 'Joe' wasn't meant to belittle or taunt, just to shorten JoeSparky. Based on your reaction to me using 'Joe' and your follow up response to a subsequent post that called you 'Joe'; it appears I could've caused you more frustration by taunting you by calling you 'Joe' every chance I could in my follow-up post. I could've baited you but, I didn't. I used the snickers comment to respond to your reply, less personal, sort of silly if you've seen the commercials. I reeled it back because you appeared to be quite agitated by being called 'Joe'. I didn't want to push your buttons hard. I didn't want to escalate the situation and push you to a boiling/snapping point. I don't get off on making people mad. It isn't good for either of us. So, I didn't bait you.

Does the paper permit have a picture on it? No. Do I need to provide a picture ID along with the paper permit? Not sure because the law isn't clear on what is required. Minnesota is quite clear on the need for the photo ID with the paper permit, Iowa isn't. If I need to provide a paper permit with a name on it, I'm pretty sure I'll need to produce a photo ID too; DPS could clarify. I need to provide the paper permit and a photo ID to an FFL for a transfer or purchase a firearm. If a photo ID isn't needed, then why have a photo on the Courtesy Card?
Maybe a different thread for "baiting" might alleviate the confusion.

I accept your apology regarding how and why you shortened my logon name. But I do desire to be addressed as JoeSparky on this and other forums hence my attempt at limit setting. FTR you are not the first I've made this request of. You are however are the first to explain your intent in this matter.
It also seems the consumption of your Snickers bar has had the suggested effect made by the advertizers. LOL
 
Last edited:

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,272
Location
Iowa, USA
Truly, some bait, but not all. Some perform 2A audits. Others try to hold court on the street.

In my opinion, the best of the baiters are the silent ones. Or, those smart enough not to hold court, but manage to get cops to incriminate themselves while not losing their own cool. I like watching Jeff Grey and The Battousai do their work.

I may not endorse all the methods of such activists, but I admire their passion for a just cause.
They are two of the best.
 
Top