Gun toting law student schools a police officer on his rights to carry a weapon in public

[frostythepoptart]

i think people are just turned off by the law student's crass and borderline hostile nature towards the officer.

the irony in this is cops bait sensible individuals witht his kind of attitude every single day.

Extra disrespectful, rude, nasty.

When I was in college and 21 a cop stopped me and my friend for being black. Afterwards lied and said we matched the description of 4 people who just robbed a house with a gun. I gave dude consent to search me as I don't smoke and did nothing wrong and dude was just being an absolute **** to me for no reason wasting my time for 10 minutes. Upon letting us go I told him this is why I go to college so I can become educated and actually contribute something worthwhile to society rather than **** like this. Dudes partner got heated because he apparently did a run in Afghanistan. Told him I'll see you later (Badge #) Dude got shook and held me an extra 3 minutes to formally report the stop.'

TLDR; I'm a rebel. screw the police. I've seriously had nothing but bad encounters in my life.

 

[nikehead]

.

 

[skip2mylou23]

The cop had a normal reaction. The law student had a proper reaction as well.

However, I am excited to see a citizen know the laws and defend himself. Law student takes the W. Close thread.

 

[meek meals]

The fact that there are people calling the guy a douche bag for knowing the law and not allowing a policeman to violate his rights points to the fact that the government has citizens so mind ****** that it's not even funny.

Nobody's calling him a douchebag for knowing the law

He's a douchebag for walking out of the house that morning with the sole intention of waving around a gun just to bait someone to call an officer, and pulling out a camera with the sole intention of trying to make the officer look dumb/victimize himself

It's not like the officer randomly pulled him over to harass him, someone called and complained . . .

What right was the officer violating by asking him for his ID to make sure he was supposed to have that gun. He would have had no interaction with the police officer period if he didn't presumably have it out messing around, for someone to call and complain about

 

[celticsfan9783]

The fact that there are people calling the guy a douche bag for knowing the law and not allowing a policeman to violate his rights points to the fact that the government has citizens so mind ****** that it's not even funny.
.

I think they are calling him a douche bag for going about it the way he did. He did nothing wrong and made a point, he just came off as an entitled brat.

"Ooooh look at me, I’m going to be a jobless lawyer in a few years!”  Seriously man, I hope you look at back this with extreme embarrassment after you enter the legal profession. It’s that kind of attitude that spurs legislators to make new laws that will further infringe on your gun-toting rights. You think you’re such a know-it-all hotshot but probably half of the federal inmate population could do what you did. It takes like 2 hours on Google. Bravo." -youtube comment

 

[tonyljeff]

let dat boi cook....

 

[quincy powell]

I want to see a Black or Latino Male pull this off. He'd probably die though.

 

[flasheightzero]

the objection here is that the kid is being a smartass, going out of his way to goad police into an encounter, walking down a suburban street strapped

cop should have told him he had a reasonable suspicion that the kid was dangerous/crime was about to be committed (furtive movement is a standard one, stalking or "casing" the neighborhood would work too - it wouldn't stand up in a motion to suppress or whatever but it allows the cop to detain, pretty easy for cops to tell boilerplate stories to justify Terry stops), and that reasonable suspicion allows the officer to hold the kid a while, definitely to hold his gun. depending on the state, there could be laws that allow cops to ask for ID on reasonable suspicion alone, then the kid's refusal can be a crime, disobeying a lawful order of an officer, and that gives PC to arrest, take the kid in, lock him up a few hours, "lose" his camera, whatever

even if the kid brings a civil suit later, the standard is so high (usually something like the officer's conduct was totally unreasonable) that these cases are prohibitively difficult to win

but lucky for the kid he got an honest cop who didn't lie and just rough the kid up. lot of cops know enough about the system to win these fights, even with educated citizenry



can't believe i'm siding with the government on this one but the kid's a prick

 

[a blinkin]

Nobody's calling him a douchebag for knowing the law​

He's a douchebag for walking out of the house that morning with the sole intention of waving around a gun just to bait someone to call an officer, and pulling out a camera with the sole intention of trying to make the officer look dumb/victimize himself​

It's not like the officer randomly pulled him over to harass him, someone called and complained . . .​

What right was the officer violating by asking him for his ID to make sure he was supposed to have that gun. He would have had no interaction with the police officer period if he didn't presumably have it out messing around, for someone to call and complain about​

I've never seen this video. From my understanding, it is pretty new. If all We have to go off of is what is depicted in the video, then you're not making much sense. You're whole argument is based off of assumptions though. You assume dude was "walking out of the house that morning with the sole intention of waving around a gun just to bait someone to call an officer". How do you figure dude doesn't carry every day? Give the current state of things, is it outside the realm of possibility that the guy just so happened to be carrying his gun like he always does and the wrong person saw it, felt threatened, and decided to call the police? No. It's not.

You mention the fact that he pulled out the camera. You cannot simply assume that he did it to make the cop look foolish. Unless you've been living under a rock for the past few years, you know police brutality is all to real (the type of person that is more likely to fall victim of it is a whole different argument). For all the law student knew, his presentation of legal arguments establishing his rights and his knowledge of what the policeman could and couldn't do could have provoked the cop and possibly resulted in unwarranted violence. The camera helped ensure that there would be absolutely no chance of a misrepresentation of the occurrence.

See unreasonably you assume he was "messing around" with the gun just because someone called and complained. Unless the cop suspected him of a crime, there was no reason to stop him at all. Yes, there is much reason to be alert or worried if you see a gun in public given the current state of things, but unless the laws change to reflect the times, why would you advocate violation of a citizen's rights?

It's obvious the cop doesn't fully know the law. How can he uphold what he does not know? By definition, he's unfit to serve as a policeman.

 

[thepointgod]

I've never seen this video. From my understanding, it is pretty new. If all We have to go off of is what is depicted in the video, then you're not making much sense. You're whole argument is based off of assumptions though. You assume dude was "walking out of the house that morning with the sole intention of waving around a gun just to bait someone to call an officer". How do you figure dude doesn't carry every day? Give the current state of things, is it outside the realm of possibility that the guy just so happened to be carrying his gun like he always does and the wrong person saw it, felt threatened, and decided to call the police? No. It's not.

You mention the fact that he pulled out the camera. You cannot simply assume that he did it to make the cop look foolish. Unless you've been living under a rock for the past few years, you know police brutality is all to real (the type of person that is more likely to fall victim of it is a whole different argument). For all the law student knew, his presentation of legal arguments establishing his rights and his knowledge of what the policeman could and couldn't do could have provoked the cop and possibly resulted in unwarranted violence. The camera helped ensure that there would be absolutely no chance of a misrepresentation of the occurrence.

See unreasonably you assume he was "messing around" with the gun just because someone called and complained. Unless the cop suspected him of a crime, there was no reason to stop him at all. Yes, there is much reason to be alert or worried if you see a gun in public given the current state of things, but unless the laws change to reflect the times, why would you advocate violation of a citizen's rights?

It's obvious the cop doesn't fully know the law. How can he uphold what he does not know? By definition, he's unfit to serve as a policeman.

I just responded to you on the "Secrets About your Job" post. You apparently are a bad lawyer or law student and your grammar is not up to par. Plz stop making statements that are representative of the legal profession.

 

[thepointgod]

the objection here is that the kid is being a smartass, going out of his way to goad police into an encounter, walking down a suburban street strapped

cop should have told him he had a reasonable suspicion that the kid was dangerous/crime was about to be committed (furtive movement is a standard one, stalking or "casing" the neighborhood would work too - it wouldn't stand up in a motion to suppress or whatever but it allows the cop to detain, pretty easy for cops to tell boilerplate stories to justify Terry stops), and that reasonable suspicion allows the officer to hold the kid a while, definitely to hold his gun. depending on the state, there could be laws that allow cops to ask for ID on reasonable suspicion alone, then the kid's refusal can be a crime, disobeying a lawful order of an officer, and that gives PC to arrest, take the kid in, lock him up a few hours, "lose" his camera, whatever

even if the kid brings a civil suit later, the standard is so high (usually something like the officer's conduct was totally unreasonable) that these cases are prohibitively difficult to win

but lucky for the kid he got an honest cop who didn't lie and just rough the kid up. lot of cops know enough about the system to win these fights, even with educated citizenry



can't believe i'm siding with the government on this one but the kid's a prick

This kid is an idiot. He makes everyone (police and citizens) look horrible. This is another classic case of an entitled law school prick who is rolling around for the purpose of antagonizing police officers. "Let me cite a bunch of un-codified case law and film you." Obviously these officers aren't lawyers or law students and they don't know even piece of minutia precedent that comes through the court system, nor are they expected to. If you're some dude who rolls around brandishing a firearm in plain sight, you deserve to be stopped. This kid thinks he's doing a great justice to society, but he's doing the exact opposite.

This is the absolute wrong way to effect change in our justice system.

 

[meek meals]

Nobody's calling him a douchebag for knowing the law​

He's a douchebag for walking out of the house that morning with the sole intention of waving around a gun just to bait someone to call an officer, and pulling out a camera with the sole intention of trying to make the officer look dumb/victimize himself​

It's not like the officer randomly pulled him over to harass him, someone called and complained . . .​

What right was the officer violating by asking him for his ID to make sure he was supposed to have that gun. He would have had no interaction with the police officer period if he didn't presumably have it out messing around, for someone to call and complain about​

I've never seen this video. From my understanding, it is pretty new. If all We have to go off of is what is depicted in the video, then you're not making much sense. You're whole argument is based off of assumptions though. You assume dude was "walking out of the house that morning with the sole intention of waving around a gun just to bait someone to call an officer". How do you figure dude doesn't carry every day? Give the current state of things, is it outside the realm of possibility that the guy just so happened to be carrying his gun like he always does and the wrong person saw it, felt threatened, and decided to call the police? No. It's not.

You mention the fact that he pulled out the camera. You cannot simply assume that he did it to make the cop look foolish. Unless you've been living under a rock for the past few years, you know police brutality is all to real (the type of person that is more likely to fall victim of it is a whole different argument). For all the law student knew, his presentation of legal arguments establishing his rights and his knowledge of what the policeman could and couldn't do could have provoked the cop and possibly resulted in unwarranted violence. The camera helped ensure that there would be absolutely no chance of a misrepresentation of the occurrence.

See unreasonably you assume he was "messing around" with the gun just because someone called and complained. Unless the cop suspected him of a crime, there was no reason to stop him at all. Yes, there is much reason to be alert or worried if you see a gun in public given the current state of things, but unless the laws change to reflect the times, why would you advocate violation of a citizen's rights?

It's obvious the cop doesn't fully know the law. How can he uphold what he does not know? By definition, he's unfit to serve as a policeman.

So why did he upload the video?

Cop didn't beat him . . . there was no "story"

Obviously to flex and he was thinking he was gonna get "props" . . .

I could see if dude was gonna arrest him, but all the cop wanted was ID to check if dude was a felon or not . . . What was the cop supposed to do as far as responding to the complaints of someone walking around with a gun?

 

[frankthetank]

You guys are taking the same assumption as the police. You think he's a douchebag because he's waving his gun around and there are reports of a person carrying a weapon. We don't know the whole story, but maybe this guy carry's a weapon everyday. Maybe he also has a holster which gave people the wrong impression, so they eventually called the police which brought the guy who doesn't know all his laws. The officer did handle it calm, but didn't handle it professionally. He should have told the kid what he suspected him of doing, but was reluctant because he thought the kid, like most people would cooperate like everyone else. He obviously tried to use his power.

 

[AZwildcats]

On one hand, dude is a prick. I remember this video from another thread.

On the other hand, I myself have had police take advantage of me not fully knowing my rights. They assume the average citizen wont do their research, or call them out on their infractions.

 

[elcatfisho]

Should have spent his time drinking instead of causing a ruckus and rustling many jimmies in the process.

 

[mister friendly]

I get the law student's point but come on hes gonna act like its ok to walk around with a gun on a busy street. Hes finding outdated laws and exploting them.

 

[gsgoonsquad]

So why did he upload the video?​

Cop didn't beat him . . . there was no "story"​

Obviously to flex and he was thinking he was gonna get "props" . . .​

I could see if dude was gonna arrest him, but all the cop wanted was ID to check if dude was a felon or not . . . What was the cop supposed to do as far as responding to the complaints of someone walking around with a gun?​

As stated above you all are making assumptions on what you all THINK may have happened. No one can sit here and say they know what the dudes intentions were leaving the house that morning, that's just dumb . None of us know how he was actually carrying the gun, it was likely in a holster and someone probably felt threatened. Also we did not see what happened when the cop originally pulled up on him and took his gun, the cop may have provoked him then when not on camera. Another thing is it's the 21st century and people video record everything now days, police encounters and all especially, to perhaps prevent or capture police wrongly enforcing the law. Who's to say this guy is the one who uploaded it? To "flex". It could have been sent to someone which continued it to be passed along and uploaded. Everyone's arguments against this guy are based on assumptions. I have had encounters with enough bad cops to appreciate this for what it's worth and that's just a citizen knowing the law and the officer trying to get over and exploit the law. It's not that the officer doesn't know the laws like stated previously but he obviously does since he gave the gun back and let him go freely, but rather the cop is going by his own agenda expecting the average person not to know their rights to that full extent.

 

[gsgoonsquad]

I just responded to you on the "Secrets About your Job" post. You apparently are a bad lawyer or law student and your grammar is not up to par. Plz stop making statements that are representative of the legal profession.

Yeah, you're far more grammatically correct spelling like a second grader
I hate text language or whatever you call that :x . Just simply write "please" it only takes 3 more seconds. One second per character.

 

[magic61182]

There's a lot of assumptions that could be made after watching this video...We dont know how or wear he was carrying his weapon..I do know that its not against the law to openly carry a firearm.. as a matter of fact, if you dont have a VALID CCW PERMIT, then you must open carry..(ohio at least iirc) If you open carry it is every other citizens right to call the police and for the police to respond...What is EVIDENT in this video is that the police took for granted that this citizen would easily comply with their commands and directions.... If more people actually took the time to research their rights as citizens, some people would be much better off.. And yes I carry a firearm 90% of the places I go (always holstered) with court, schools and airports being the only exceptions.

 

[solecity]

Pull that **** out here in RI, yea that student would get GOT... Walk around with a gun out here and is a wrap

 

[a blinkin]

I just responded to you on the "Secrets About your Job" post. You apparently are a bad lawyer or law student and your grammar is not up to par. Plz stop making statements that are representative of the legal profession.

99% of my posting on NT is done via mobile phone. Do you honestly think I care about your criticism about my granmar? Especially when you yourself still resort to using Internet slang such as "Plz"? Get real my man.

 

[a blinkin]

Meek Meals, you asked why he uploaded the video. It could indeed be an attempt to get props. It could be at attempt to show the public that they do not have to sit idly by and allow the police to violate their rights.

It's really a matter of the scope you choose to view the situation from. You could perceive it as some kid in law school attempting to flex his muscle by showing off his ability to cite cases, or you could approach it from the angle that a citizen was exercising his rights to carry only to be harassed by a police officer. I chose the latter because, as I've said, everyone knows some police misuse their power (to what extent is another matter). It's a common occurrence. Was this one of those officers? Was he simply trying to get the kids ID and keep things move? We can bicker back and forth about the probability of different scenarios, but that would be pointless as we are only given the one depicted on tape. The facts are:

The kid carried a weapon
A third party decided to call the police
The kid decided to record the police officer's unlawful taking of his firearm
The police officer does not know the law in which it is his duty to uphold
The law student knows his rights (however boa****l he may come off as is a matter of opinion)

Those are the events that cannot be disputed. As I said, it's a matter of how you interpret the situation.

And to the guy calling me out for grammar and poor legal prowess, how the hell can you actually say that the police are not expected to know the law? That is possibly the dumbest thing I've heard since I've taken an interest to the legal profession.

 

[solexsup]

These videos are annoying

Dudes walking around with guns purposely to record a video

 

[fraij da 5 11]

These videos are annoying

Dudes walking around with guns purposely to record a video

This... Dudes getting worked up asking the cops if this is "nazi Germany" and **** because the Officer is asking to see ID as the dude walks down the street with a gun on his hip...

The cops do need to be better versed in the laws however. (Regardless of how dumb the law currently is)

Basically you could be a Felon with a 9mm on your hip walking around town but as long as you aren't actually suspected of committing a crime at that time, you can just tell the cop that no they cannot have your name or check ID and keep it moving.  Does that make sense? No.

Cop: "Can I see your ID to confirm you're not a felon?"

Felon: "Do you suspect me of a crime at the current moment?"

Cop: "No."

Felon: "Then no you cannot see my ID."

Cop: "Okay you're free to go"

*Felon goes and commits armed robbery.*

Super.

 

[frostythepoptart]

You guys dont even get it. Listen to what nany people have stated and 100% believe. "if it was a minority" they'd be abused for obeying the law and showcasing their knowledge... And we think its acceptable. There is literaly no one to check cops on this nonsense an many are too ignorant to even try. The closest thing to policing the police was dorner