• 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.

Positive Stop recorded and Shared Online

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,540
Location
Quarryville, PA
Yep, this exact video has been posted no less than 7 times in the last 30 days. I still find it humorous that this is the only positive police encounter video I have seen on here in awhile.
 

dmatting

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
441
Location
Durham, NC
Yeah, I've seen this video posted a number of times and I really don't understand how this is being portrayed as a positive stop at all. I could care less how polite the cop was - he still detained the man for doing nothing illegal!!!!!! How is that nice?!?!?! How is that positive?!?!?!
 

bradco

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
140
Location
Puerto Rico
Yeah, I've seen this video posted a number of times and I really don't understand how this is being portrayed as a positive stop at all. I could care less how polite the cop was - he still detained the man for doing nothing illegal!!!!!! How is that nice?!?!?! How is that positive?!?!?!
Sorry for the repeated post, well at least my view of being positive is more than what would have happend in Connecticut anyway,
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,283
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Yeah, I've seen this video posted a number of times and I really don't understand how this is being portrayed as a positive stop at all. I could care less how polite the cop was - he still detained the man for doing nothing illegal!!!!!! How is that nice?!?!?! How is that positive?!?!?!
+1

There is no law in California requiring police to check to ensure an empty chamber in an OCed gun. This was a suspicionless fishing expedition, even if approved by the CA legislature.
 

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
908
Location
Oklahoma
Yeah, I've seen this video posted a number of times and I really don't understand how this is being portrayed as a positive stop at all. I could care less how polite the cop was - he still detained the man for doing nothing illegal!!!!!! How is that nice?!?!?! How is that positive?!?!?!
He was acting properly under Kalifornia's laws and he was extremely polite and nonconfrontational. I count him as a good guy.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
"Positive?" How is this "positive?"

I agree the officer was both polite and professional.

The officer also conducted a Terry Stop WITHOUT Reasonable Suspicion as required by the U.S. Supreme Court, and as upheld by Chief District Judge Bruce D. Black. More info on that...

In a nutshell, he concluded (very rightly in my opinion) "that as a matter of law the police officers violated Mr. St. John’s Constitutional Fourth Amendment Rights because they physically seized and disarmed him."

Put simply: There is NO cause for stopping an honest, law-abiding citizen on the basis of that citizen engaging in a lawful activity.

Coincidentally, the link you provided contained this, as well.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
"Positive?" How is this "positive?"

I agree the officer was both polite and professional.

The officer also conducted a Terry Stop WITHOUT Reasonable Suspicion as required by the U.S. Supreme Court, and as upheld by Chief District Judge Bruce D. Black. More info on that...

In a nutshell, he concluded (very rightly in my opinion) "that as a matter of law the police officers violated Mr. St. John’s Constitutional Fourth Amendment Rights because they physically seized and disarmed him."

Put simply: There is NO cause for stopping an honest, law-abiding citizen on the basis of that citizen engaging in a lawful activity.

Coincidentally, the link you provided contained this, as well.
The officer was following California law. He made what is a lawful stop under that law, and did so in a polite way and a way that respected rights as much as possible under that law.

The problem is not the officer's actions. Kudos to him for that. The problem is the California law which should be struck down as unconstitutional. Until that happens (and there is no certainty that it ever will), then officers should not be criticized for following it politely and professionally.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,854
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
The officer was following California law. He made what is a lawful stop under that law, and did so in a polite way and a way that respected rights as much as possible under that law.

The problem is not the officer's actions. Kudos to him for that. The problem is the California law which should be struck down as unconstitutional. Until that happens (and there is no certainty that it ever will), then officers should not be criticized for following it politely and professionally.
I agree. The cop seems like a good guy, retired Jarhead and sincere about respecting rights. He is acting under departmental policy, I have no doubt, to support the BS, unconstitutional PDR laws. Seems there was another thread on this, or two. He did not have to make the e-stop, but it probably was policy as I said, and he made it as painless for the honest, lawful subject as he could. I think I commented on his not being able to slide lock an M&P though!!! CO Staties carry them, btw, so do a bunch of other agencies. Wonder what the cop was carrying?
 

Schlitz

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,567
Location
Florida
The officer was following California law. He made what is a lawful stop under that law, and did so in a polite way and a way that respected rights as much as possible under that law.

California law does not over ride the U.S. Constitution. This man's 4th and 2nd Amendment rights were violated, and the state could not have done it with out police officers like this who are willing to shred the constitution. Ironically, this former Marine took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foriegn and domestic.

I don't care if it is "california law and if you don't like it beat it in the courts." How far do we go into violating citizens before we say, "HELL NO, NOT IN MY COUNTRY!" If california passed a law tomorrow that said round up the jews and force them to wear a star on their sleeve would we all be "cool" with it if the cop did such with a smile on his face? Remember, in this scenario it would be under california law.

HELL NO you wouldn't think that was okay, because it is an obvious violation of human rights. But this cop violates two of this man's most important rights, so important they are spelled out within the first 10 Amendments of the constitution AKA the Bill of RIGHTS and you guys are like, "OH DUDE HE WAS SO NICE WHEN HE PUT THAT GUY IN A WRIST LOCK HE SMILED WHEN HE ENFORCED UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS BUT ITS COOL BECAUSE CALIFORNIA IGNORED THE CONSTITUTION WHEN THEY MADE THIS LAW AND WELL.....ITS A LAW WHATEV's!"



did so in a polite way and a way that respected rights as much as possible under that law.
Quote of the week. respected rights as much as possible...lulz.
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
California law does not over ride the U.S. Constitution. This man's 4th and 2nd Amendment rights were violated, and the state could not have done it with out police officers like this who are willing to shred the constitution. Ironically, this former Marine took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foriegn and domestic.
Agreed. The Cop's oath is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. If a California law violates the Constitution, then it is the Cop's sworn duty to IGNORE the California law.

Here in Colorado, most of the county sherrif's ignored a VALID Colorado State law prohibiting the sharing of their concealed carry permit databases. Fortunately, some sheriff's, including the shining example of Sheriff Terry Makita here in El Paso County, followed the law and refused to share the CHP database.

Similarly, a law was passed last year concerning the carry of firearms on public college campuses, and several country sheriff's in Colorado came out and said, "The law is illegal. It violates both the U.S. Constitution and Colorado State Law, and we will NOT be enforcing it."
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
California law does not over ride the U.S. Constitution...
No, it doesn't, BUT...

The question of whether this law goes against the Constitution has not been decided by a court. While you and I may be of the same opinion that the law goes against the Constitution, until that is established, the way the officer handled the situation is the best possible.

While I personally believe that I have the absolute best take possible on what the Constitution says and means, I would not be so arrogant as to insist that my take is the one that will be borne out. Those who think that theirs is are good for a chuckle. I hope the law is struck down, but until it is, I hope all officers follow it as professionally and respectfully as this one did.
 
Last edited:

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
California law does not over ride the U.S. Constitution. This man's 4th and 2nd Amendment rights were violated, and the state could not have done it with out police officers like this who are willing to shred the constitution. Ironically, this former Marine took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foriegn and domestic.

I don't care if it is "california law and if you don't like it beat it in the courts." How far do we go into violating citizens before we say, "HELL NO, NOT IN MY COUNTRY!" If california passed a law tomorrow that said round up the jews and force them to wear a star on their sleeve would we all be "cool" with it if the cop did such with a smile on his face? Remember, in this scenario it would be under california law.

HELL NO you wouldn't think that was okay, because it is an obvious violation of human rights. But this cop violates two of this man's most important rights, so important they are spelled out within the first 10 Amendments of the constitution AKA the Bill of RIGHTS and you guys are like, "OH DUDE HE WAS SO NICE WHEN HE PUT THAT GUY IN A WRIST LOCK HE SMILED WHEN HE ENFORCED UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS BUT ITS COOL BECAUSE CALIFORNIA IGNORED THE CONSTITUTION WHEN THEY MADE THIS LAW AND WELL.....ITS A LAW WHATEV's!"




Quote of the week. respected rights as much as possible...lulz.

The Founding Fathers gave the power of deciding whether a law is Constitutional or not to the Supreme Court Of The United States, not the citizenry. If CA passed a law like you present, it would immediately be brought before a court of law and a ruling issued. It would probably be appealed by the losing side and quickly move it way to the SCOTUS. They would make a decision as to it's Constitutionality, not the citizenry.

Understand if you want to "rise up" against what you perceive as an Unconstitutional law that has not been ruled on by the highest Court of our land, then you are the domestic threat. The Founding Fathers did not intend for revolution every time someone disagreed with some law. Point of fact, I disagree with the CA law and think it is unconstitutional. It has not, however, been challenged by CA citizens yet. Until it has and a decision issued by the High Court it is still the Law.

I swore an oath when I joined the military to protect the Constitution, that means the processes it sets up as well. If you are not happy with the law, challenge it. If you don't have standing, find and support someone who does. Don't like the Government and it's laws, great, work to change them. Rise to change them and know that I and others, who still hold to their oath , will stand and oppose you.
 

xd shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
337
Location
usa
I swore an oath when I joined the military to protect the Constitution, that means the processes it sets up as well.
You were also instructed on what to do with an order that was unlawful, were you not?

If CA passed a law like you present, it would immediately be brought before a court of law and a ruling issued. It would probably be appealed by the losing side and quickly move it way to the SCOTUS.
How long did it take heller to make it through the Supreme Court? 4 or 5 YEARS?

McDonald took 2 years or more?

Not too sure about the quickly thing...:)
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
You were also instructed on what to do with an order that was unlawful, were you not?



How long did it take heller to make it through the Supreme Court? 4 or 5 YEARS?

McDonald took 2 years or more?

Not too sure about the quickly thing...:)

The procedures are in place though. The process works, maybe not always to our liking, but it does work.

As to unlawful orders. Any member of the military who refuses an order, better be 105% sure that it's unlawful. If not they are going to find themselves standing tall before the man. The same is true with laws, you can believe a law unconstitutional all you want. Act on it, and the the SCOTUS rules against you.... you go from patriot to criminal in the blink of an eye. The Founding Fathers had faith in the system they set up, so do I. That doesn't mean we should not always keep a sharp eye out for those people or laws that would corrupt that system. We must, however, be careful that we don't allow that same vigilance and zeal to do it for them.
 

Schlitz

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,567
Location
Florida
While I personally believe that I have the absolute best take possible on what the Constitution says and means, I would not be so arrogant as to insist that my take is the one that will be borne out. Those who think that theirs is are good for a chuckle.
I have not "take" on the amendments violated in this video. They are clearly written. I have no opinion, it is what it is. You have a right to bear arms and a right to not be searched with our warrant issued upon probably cause.

Close....
We use the word former marine, but once a marine always a marine. So no....not close. He did take an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states against ALL ENEMIES! He is a Marine.



First off, no one said we should "rise up" and revolt. Just throwing that out there, I don't know where that came from.
Understand if you want to "rise up" against what you perceive as an Unconstitutional law that has not been ruled on by the highest Court of our land, then you are the domestic threat.
So if one was to rise up to protect the constitution, they would be an enemy of the constitution? o_O

Don't like the Government and it's laws, great, work to change them. Rise to change them and know that I and others, who still hold to their oath , will stand and oppose you.
Negative, if you become an enemy to the constitution then you're really not holding your oath to defend it from all enemies. Think about it.

you can believe a law unconstitutional all you want. Act on it, and the the SCOTUS rules against you.... you go from patriot to criminal in the blink of an eye
My favorite part. You do all this "believe in the system the system works if you oppose the system I will stand to oppose you, change it if you don't like it! challenge it!" crap, but then you show the truth, that if you dare challenge the proper way and the broken system rules against you, which it will, you are going to be a criminal so you better not do it. You do realize our patriotic founding fathers were these "criminals" you speak of, right? You know they broke laws right?

So SavageOne I leave you with this:
How far do we go into violating citizens before we say, "HELL NO, NOT IN MY COUNTRY!" If california passed a law tomorrow that said round up the jews and force them to wear a star on their sleeve would we all be "cool" with it if the cop did such with a smile on his face? Remember, in this scenario it would be under california law.
I found it interesting that you failed to mention this scenario when you replied. You pretty much said "If it's a passed law I will follow it and oppose anyone who rises against it if it has not been shot down in the courts." Because to you any law is constitutional until the courts shoot it down, you would probably be okay with a "round up the jews" scenario if it was signed into law. It scares me that people like you exist in government. Blind.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,833
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
COP: "Excuse me, sir. Are you a yard maintenance person or a landscaper?"
YOU: "Ahh, no sir I'm not."
COP: "The reason I ask is because I see you are operating a lawnmower out in public."
YOU: "Yes sir. Am I doing anything illegal?"
COP: "No, you're fine. I just want to check out your lawnmower... make sure it has all of the required safety gear."
YOU: "Am I being detained?"
COP: "Nope. Just want to take a look at your mower."
.
.
.
.
COP: "Ok, thanks sir... have a nice day."


While the officer was certainly a pleasant and non-confrontational appearing individual, his actions still beg the question, "why". Yes it was in California, but we also see this sort of thing in other states and in many cases, the officer(s) are not so "friendly"... some actually abusive (re: the case in Ohio recently).

LEO's are generally very good at profiling individuals and one would think that would come into play a lot when they see someone OC'ing. The perfect stop for the OC'er is no stop at all. A simple, 'Morning' from the officer or perhaps, "whatcha carrying" to engage a polite and genuine conversation is fine. But I have never been stopped, asked for an ID, or detained so in fact I haven't a clue what might be the outcome of such an incident were it to happen to me (for example, what type of LEO might I have to deal with in terms of attitude and aggressive nature).

So a big plus for this LEO's demeanor, respect, and friendly nature but along with that, a question of why he bothered to approach the guy in the first place (I know... MWAG calls). Gotta watch out for MWAL call, too (Man With A Lawnmower).
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
COP: "Excuse me, sir. Are you a yard maintenance person or a landscaper?"
YOU: "Ahh, no sir I'm not."
COP: "The reason I ask is because I see you are operating a lawnmower out in public."
YOU: "Yes sir. Am I doing anything illegal?"
COP: "No, you're fine. I just want to check out your lawnmower... make sure it has all of the required safety gear."
YOU: "Am I being detained?"
COP: "Nope. Just want to take a look at your mower."
.
.
.
.
COP: "Ok, thanks sir... have a nice day."

...
And that officer did something that the officer in the video did not. The lawnmower cop broke the law, going beyond the authority specifically given him by the law. The analogy falls apart on this critical point.

The law permitting officers to stop carriers is likely unconstitutional, but, until a court says so, I would recommend that all citizens and officers handle themselves in such a civil manner as demonstrated in this video. IMO, the laws in Alabama that bar carry at demonstrations and require permits to OC in a car are unconstitutional. Until they are ruled as such, I will follow them and will praise officers who enforce them in a professional and civil manner. You see, MO doesn't matter. The O of the courts does.

However, your analogy would be spot on for making the argument that the court should find the law permitting those stops in California to be unconstitutional.
 
Top