Freedoms, liberties and rights.

[biggles1]

Now I've had a few arguments with these guys before, but this one really takes the cake. I'd like to hear your guys opinions on it. It's a bit of a long convo, but please try to read it all.

This video (more or less) was posted on a uni society page on facebook.


This is the conversation that followed. I've removed everyone elses names for obvious reasons.

Martin Squirrell: Can't stand people who stuff like this. They try to claim a ugh ground that doesn't exist at the waste of other people's time and energy.

D: Martin who are you referring to? the Officer or the Law Student?
With Regards to the officer, many police officers, especially the so called armed response 'experts' don't have a fucking clue. I was unfortunate enough to be sitting in a cafe in Heathrow when 2 armed response officers decided to come down for a sit, one placing his MP5 on the table pointing directly towards me. I politely asked the officer if he could stack his rifle upright, so that I didn't not have the muzzle of a loaded weapon pointing directly at me. The response, Fuck off, or we'll cause you trouble. Had a similar incident in the US (for some reason police like pointing guns at me) the officer couldn't have been anymore apologetic and gave his excuses for not looking to see who was on the table in front of him

Martin Squirrell: *high ground
the law student.he fails to use.common sense. There's a report of something, the police just do a few stop checks and ID checks, you show your stuff and move on. It's not complicated yet he insists on throwing out of context legal stuff at him to nobody's gain. He wastes time, and the officers time which could have been spent searching for the person they were looking for. The law is all well and good but it has to applied with a dash of common sense.
Plus D those incidents are completely different and are firearms safety issues rather than simple stop and check ones.

L: the person they were "looking for" was the law student..he was waling down the road carrying a firearm as is completely legal. He didn't want to give ID because he didn't feel as though they had a right to put him into the database under a police report, and according to law where he was, they did NOT have the right

Martin Squirrell In the UK if you carry a firearm you need to carry a license with you for this exact reason. I don't know of the law in that particular state so I won't comment on it. Nevertheless taking a minute to show he hasn't committed a crime and has ID and the legal right to do so isn't that difficult. No matter which way he dealt with it he was going to get logged, as all police incidents are logged.I personally had an incident a few years ago where I was spoken to by the police, but no charges were ever brought. During my license interview it was brought up, up and explained away in 30 seconds. Incidents like this are easily dealt with with the minimum of fuss and only become a problem when you make them a problem. Firearm safety issues are different and should be pointed out however, but this student and many others I have seen go about these sort of things in completely the wrong way.

L: As he said in the video, no its only required if you're a suspected felon. This is not the wrong way, he is standing up for his rights. The point is, he would have been logged as an individual, a "john doe" if you will but if he'd given ID he would have been put in full name and if ever there was another incident with law enforcement, they could just pull his name out with the previous event that would make him LOOK LIKE a gun criminal and use that to their advantage.

D: Martin you cannot give Governments and police forces a single liberty, they must obey the law themselves, something this officer was not doing. The officer himself was being obstructive, not giving decent reasons etc.
also my example is relevant, you missed the point, I was trying to demonstrate the arrogance law enforcement can have, not their lack of safety, which in itself is absolutely shocking

Martin Squirrell: Just because the officer didn't give particular reasons for everything doesn't mean he's doing wrong. How much stuff he have to deal with every day? He's a human being too and people seem to forget that. In any case if he had been a killer who was planing a mass attack, attack and the police hadn't stopped and searched him, the first words out of people's lips would have been that the police weren't doing a good enough job! People expect miracles from the police but don't give them the ability to do anything. Yes the police officer in this case was a bit of a twit, but his intent makes perfect sense to me. me The police these days are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

D: He's paid to do a job, and he should do it properly. Concealed Carry is not that an uncommon sight in the states and it is obvious that the student meant no harm as he easily handed his gun over. I have a lot of friends and family who are in the police and yes people make mistakes but that officer was not operating lawful procedure. You'll find there's a huge difference in style between local sheriffs, city cops (like this guy) and feds in the way they handle things.

Martin Squirrell: So he wasn't following exact procedure, fair enough, but trying to act all superior and throwing legal shit at him right then is not the way to deal with it.you cooperate, take his details, and file a complaint.

D: no you shouldn't be compliant if the procedure is wrong. It has happened here, several constabulary's have told FAC holders that they will turn up at random for spot checks, they have no right to do so, but people are compliant and give in, if it wasn't for the effort of the NRA and BASC it could have become procedure due to peoples compliance. Attitude here is if the police turn up at random to check your guns you tell them to go away and either return with an appointment or a warrant. The more ground we give them when they don't follow correct protocol the more they'll take

Martin Squirrell: What's wrong with random spot checks? If.you give.people warning you'll never spot problems before they occur. Just because someone obeys the law on the one day the police say they will turn up doesn't mean they are on any other day. Schools have spot checks, as do groups have spot checks from other protection groups (the names escape me at the moment). Obviously harassment is a different issue and certainly isn't acceptable, but if the police are not allowed to do.occasional random spot checks then how on earth how are they meant to do anything? So often you hear of criminals being caught out by random spot checks, how many would go unnoticed without them?

D: Seriously Martin? That's tantamount to a Police state, and sets the country up nicely to become one. There are over 50 offences you can commit with you firearms without even removing them from the cupboards. For example having a single round over your limit is enough to have your permits revoked. Look at the UK licensing system, 3 major spree shootings in 30 years, all caused by police fuck ups that spot checks wouldn't have done fuck all for. My home club, whilst I was on the committee tried to get rid of a member we felt was totally unsafe and unstable, didn't want to do it but he had become a genuine liability. We inform the police, they say thanks, ban him from the club we have a reason to take his guns, we get rid of him and the police say oh yh not our problem

Martin Squirrell: And I'm not saying that's something that doesn't need to be fixed, but assuming all police at evil and stopping them from doing half their job won't do anything. If you needed absolute evidence to do anything half the prisoners in jail wouldn't be there! You can't always wait for proof to do something otherwise it's often too late. You make it sound like I say everyone should be spot checked once a week which is absurd. Yes the system is flawed and it always will be, but forcing the police to sit back and do nothing most of the time will do nothing to help anyone. You are afraid of something that doesn't exist.

D: Martin our civil liberties have been eroded away over the last century due to the government fearing the people, more proposed 'snoopers bills' etc.. we need to make a stand on any encroachment that comes our way. For example Gwent police wanted to restrict the usage of ammo. Every shooter was to record the exact ammount of rounds fired per shoot, have it signed off by an RCO, if it didn't fit with his total then his license would come under review, it was stopped by one bloke, who started doing a version of this prematurely, sending in far too much paperwork, all hand written, in blue ink on green paper, so it couldn't be scanned properly, Gwent got the hint. The police aren't evil, they are a necessary part of society, but they must be controlled and checked. The fact the shooting community kept comprising is why we are in the shitty state we are in now. The police are a reactionary force, they are respond to the situation, but the CCW debate itself will be saved for another day, I have an essay to write and a daughter to take to nursery at 8am

Martin Squirrell: And indeed a rand will be.made when they go too far. I do not disagree with that. I do disagree with the idea that the police should be SO limited in that they have almost no power at all. Random spot checks are an essential Part of that, it keeps people on their feet. What's the point of having rules if they can never be properly enforced? If everyone always had time to prepare then those who fail to follow rules could never be caught. They would continue to flout the rules, and when an incident was caused because of that lack of attention to rules what then? Do we just say 'oh well' and move on? Say someone failed to store their firearms and ammo properly, leaving live firearms carelessly around.one day their young daughter picks it up and kills herself with it. All because the person had no reason to follow the rules. My example may be extreme, extremely it already happens. Failing to enforce rules is worse than having no rules at all.

A: Martin, just what is your problem with people's rights? Stop making arguments on topics you confess to knowning nothing about.
Just because someone made a law, it just not justify a police state to enfroce it, or in this case a police state to intimidate people into doing things which they are legally entitled to do.
A police officer is not just "a person" thier job is to suppress you!
How about you go about your buisness, and I'll go able mine and so long as I don't hurt you, leave my liberty alone!

Martin Squirrell: First of all, I never confessed to knowing nothing about any of the topics. I gladly point out that I do not always know the finer details about many situations, but then who does? Just because you don't know the finer points of Newtons theory of gravity, does not mean you don't understand that gravity works.
Secondly, lets look at the definition of a police state.
'Police state - Noun
A totalitarian state controlled by a political secret police force.'
'A police state is a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.'

I don't know about you, but last time I looked outside we were pretty free to do as we pleased within the law. The government does not control the police exclusively, nor do the police go knocking down peoples doors because they wrote a book on how smelly their local MP was. The Governments and Polices controls over everyday lives are, frankly, minimal. They do not care what we write, do or say to whom, within reason. There is no social control, no political control of the population (however shitty the political parties may be), and there is most certainly a distinction between the law and political power.

And I don't know about you, but last time I saw a police officer they were very much human beings. They have parents, families, hopes, dreams, and expectations of their own future, just like all of us. They do a difficult job for frankly not much pay, and get a lot of shit week in week out. I passed by multiple police officers today on my travels, and not one was doing the slightest amount of oppression to anyone. Yes we have rights, I support those rights, and there always people who forget their place and ignore those rights. But there are frankly much better ways to go about it than acting like a pretentious douche on youtube and wasting time that could be better spent on other ventures.

Try living in North Korea, China or Afghanistan for a while, THEN come back to me and tell me how much the UK is harassing your freedoms and liberties

D: Martin you are missing the point, no were are not a totalitarian state at the moment, neither A or I have claimed that, what we are trying to say though is that 'pretentious douches' like the guy in the video are needed to ensure that we do not become one. As it stands we are one of the most monitored populations in the world, certainly the most monitored of the western civilizations. Emails are already tracked, scanned and checked by GCHQ. The government are trying to pass more bills that will allow them to spy on us. We need to stop it and it's pretentious douches that help stop it by becoming a nuisance and highlighting where the law is being broken.

Martin Squirrell: "or in this case, a police state to intimidate..."
"Their job is to suppress you..."
^that certainly looks like he is.

And the problems you are talking about right now are ones with the government, with the people who write legislation. They are the ones you should be harassing to stop it. Not the local cops who are doing their day to day business.

Getting back to the original video, lets take a point by point look at what happened.

The police got a call about someone with a gun in the area. Who made this call we do not know, but all calls to the police are taken seriously. Who is this person? What are their intentions? Where are they headed? Are they even allowed to have a gun? So they go out and investigate.

The police officer spots someone with a gun, and stops them and searches them. What's he trying to do? he wants to know who they are, what their intentions are, ect. The easiest way to do that is an ID check and a gun license check (or whatever the local equivalent is). a clean pass on both means there is no problem, the person is allowed to go on their way with a casual warning to try and avoid raising alarm if possible. If there are discrepancies, they may get taken back to the station and questioned. Again if it all checks out, they are given an apology and sent on their way, at worst with a few hours wasted. If however this person were planning some sort of attack, or were an illegal gun holder, then the police investigation would likely spot this, and the person would be apprehended and a serious crime potentially avoided. Is this a bad thing? To occasionally at worst have a few hours wasted at the possibility of, for every hundred false alarms you find one criminal? The only people at threat of taking away your freedoms are the people in power. Take your problems to them, not the local people who spend most of their time doing paperwork nowadays.

 

D: This is the last I'm going to say on it, we've gone full circle, and frankly I'm now bored, The police are part of the Government and act as individuals, therefore are responsible for their own actions. I also would have a pop about the Government who write the legislature, but that was not the topic of conversation. The police do lobby for more power, and many take the attitude that the general public cannot be trusted with more than a eraser. The fact of the matter was the officer had no legal right to take that man's gun. He had no right to essentially detain him and withhold his property when he was doing nothing wrong. Half assed reply I know, but fuck it got better things to do

So yeah, and this is still ongoing. If you want to post your own thoughts I'd appreciate it.

[killshot]

I couldn't even finish watching the video. People who can rattle off extremely specific details about laws are the most obnoxious people on the planet. The cop here is just responding to a call and the student is being a dickhead. No one's rights are being eroded, its just a cop who clearly doesn't want to put up with this shit and a paranoid jackass who thinks the shadow police are out to enslave the country. Your friends are idiots.

[biggles1]

EDIT: extra convo stuff added

Originally Posted by killshot

I couldn't even finish watching the video. People who can rattle off extremely specific details about laws are the most obnoxious people on the planet. The cop here is just responding to a call and the student is being a dickhead. No one's rights are being eroded, its just a cop who clearly doesn't want to put up with this shit and a paranoid jackass who thinks the shadow police are out to enslave the country. Your friends are idiots.

That was my point entirely. He didn't take away any of his stuff, he didn't have an issue with the person owning the gun, he was just dealing with a potential public safety threat and wanted to neutralise any danger and clear up the situation as fast as possible. What's so hard to see about that?

They are typical paranoid conspiracy theorists, twisting every tiny detail into a mountain of imaginary threats.

[biggles1]

EDIT UPDATE

Stupidity level went up by 9000

Important quote bolded.

A: I'm not going to bother with a lengthy reply, if you think you live in a fairly free society then that's up to you, but we do not really differ that much at all to nations Like China.
As for the police, if you think checks, licenses, ID's and all forms of monitoring and information being at the immediate disposal of police officers then that's your opinion, but unless I'm denying someone their liberty or life, no police officer has the right to talk to me, detain me, anything without my permission. You say they are humans too, but that's no justification for their behavior, police are by nature very right-wing and always things we need more suppression so they can go about their job, that is only deemed necessary in the first place but legislators made so many things illegal.

[Fat1Fared]

May I ask, whom these people are?

Also may I ask, who said this?

The response, Fuck off, or we'll cause you trouble.

First of, armed response offices are not allowed to 'sit' down in public. If they are on duty, they cannot sit period (within logical reason), if they are on a break, then they must instantly remove their weapons and would be expected to their break out of public sight.

Furthermore, while the police do their fair share of silly things; no police-officer in his right mind would say this in the middle of an airport. He would be on suspended within seconds.

I basically stopped reading after that part.

[biggles1]

People from my university shooting society, and the 2 main talkers (A and D) are Firearms certificate holders.

Oh trust me keep reading. It gets MUCH better. :V

[biggles1]

Originally Posted by RebornZombie

BIGGLE'S OPINION IS THE ONLY OPINION THAT MATTERS, EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG, GO HOME

First time I ever agreed with you Rebbie

[gwtyler1985]

I got up to "Their job is to suppress you" before having to call bull. And apparently that's where you cracked a bit, too.

Though I do ask that should my home sweet home come up again in further conversation in a more direct fashion, please contact me immediately via messenger, Steam, or however you can reach me so I my elucidate your compatriots on how things work in the heart of the ever loving red states with regards to what people will gladly do for their liberty and their safety and to assist in maintaining those rights, as well as the traditionalist view on such treatment to local men in uniform.

[Fat1Fared]

Ok, so I watched the video; appealing legal analyse to the case:

Facts:

The guy's gun was on public display, as we can deduce from the fact people felt the need to report him.

The police-officer stopped him to ascertain why he was wondering about with his substitute-dick on the display.

He claims this is illegal.

Legal issues

Stopped without due-cause
Request for identification without legal right
False imprisonment

Law: Now, due to the officers' uniforms and cars, I am guessing this is LA; this is important because There you can carry a 'concealed' gun with a permit, and it is illegal to openly carry any loaded weapon. PS Ironically, the concealed part does not differentiate between loaded and unloaded, so in theory, a concealed unloaded gun is more likely to be illegal than a openly held unloaded gun...erm...derp.

This means that if, as is logically deductible from the facts, this gentlemen's loaded gun (I think it was loaded) is on display, then the officer has every right to stop him and ask for his identification, and even charge him.

Now, if this is not LA or the gun is not loaded, then there is still threatening behaviour (which I suspect is in most, if not all states a crime of some description), and walking down the street with your gun out on open display has caused people to feel alarm, thus the police-officer is under a duty to investigate that as their is a public safety threat. Now, it may be that it would not be enough to charge him, but that is why this is an investigation, not a charge (derp), but it would certainly be enough to fulfill the very low bar for reason suspicion to stop and question him, once that bar is passed, then he is allowed to request your license for your gun, as for the ID, well yes, you are allowed to refuse, if you refuse, you are not obstructing him in the course of his duty, but here is a better object, just do not go round with your gun out ass-hole.

The officer here clearly did not really know how to handle the situation, but he did nothing wrong and was probably just tired from having to deal with twits like this guy, who actually seems to think we should kiss his ass for being an ass-hole. This guy needs to get over himself and that is coming from me, another stuck-up Law student. [ Actually, on the whole, I hate Law students, I rarely, if ever, hung out with any of the other Law students on my course; you think I am pretentious prick, one of these guys once cried because a girl he knew got 2% higher than him on his coursework. ]

PS If your friends hate US law, then they will loath our law, where judges have basically said, yes police should follow procedure, but if breaking procedure prevents a crime, then the ends justify the aims. <<

[biggles1]

^well said

[musigal]

I actually agree with most of what Fared said. My own thoughts about the video are as follows:

*The police officer had no legal right to detain him without suspecting him of a crime, so why didn't he just A) say that he suspected him of carrying a loaded gun if that was illegal in his area or B) let him go? The police officer was not following protocol, and could therefore have acted better in this situation.

*That being said, the law student ALSO could have handled himself better in the situation. He was very obviously trying to make a point, which in-and-of-itself is ok, but he was being a dick about it. He could have been more civil in explaining his position to the police officer instead of shoving his face repeatedly into his failings.

TL;DR: There is no golden boy of the situation. They both kind of suck.

EDIT: HEY FARED, THEY'RE IN PORTLAND, OREGON (if you want to research local laws to make a more informed comment. I know I will!)

Open carry of long guns and handguns are both permitted in Oregon by anyone who is not prohibited (not a felon [like the police officer was trying to determine about the student], not convicted of a violent misdemeanor, not addicted to drugs or alcohol, and not involuntarily committed to a mental institution). Permits are only required for concealed carry of handguns (and MUST be issued if requirements of application are met, not issued on discretion). However Portland as a city has banned all loaded guns in public places, and the state law does not preempt in regard to unlicensed open carries. But guns may be carried openly if unloaded.

Analysis of new info: The police officer should have said that he suspected the man of carrying a loaded firearm in public (which would have been illegal in Portland, and therefore a legitimate reason to detain the student). Then the student should have shown him that the gun was not loaded, and then have been released as he had not broken any laws. Simple solution. Morons on both sides of the interaction.

[gwtyler1985]

It seems that gun laws are rather relaxed in the state, though I'm unsure about the city. From what I can discern, open carry is allowed in the state though permits are issued, generally guns are allowed to be carried in the open though some cities require a concealed carry license to do so. Otherwise, it seems to be a rather lax state requiring no permits for purchase or ownership nor a need to register guns.

Though that being said, the more I watch this video, the more I think that there is only one party in the wrong. My voice of reason and logic: A subject carrying a small and easily concealed firearm down a public residential street in a manner so noticeable and concerning to the general public as to have them file reports to police officers about it seems to warrant some sort of investigation; if not in any official capacity, then to at least to serve as an assurance to the concerned individuals who reported this student. That said, the student was right about his rights and was well within them to refuse to cooperate so long as it was done peacefully.

Though now that I've covered what facts of the situation I can present, I feel compelled, as is customary in the lands of family, to share my honest, if not entirely humble nor unbiased, opinion:

 

It may or may not be known to some that I am born to, and thus grew up with, the cultures of two states along the gulf rim famously known for their traditionalistic views that put the utmost value on states' and individuals' rights (those who know a bit about US history and recent politics can probably guess which two (those for those who need a hint, neither of them are known for alligators in the yard or oranges the size of melons)). And, like my family and neighbors, I have a certain interest in firearms and the laws that regulate them myself (though in honesty I doubt that any state would let me stroll down the street with a bolt action slung over my shoulder, permit or not. Especially not here). That being said, quite a few of us are also fond of our common sense, knowledge of how guns may affect those around us, and respect for those charged with keeping the peace, which any of us would say is noticeably absent from this video on the part of the student. As said, the man was rather foolish in the handling of his weapon, as anything attracting so much attention as to have reports filed or at the very least flag down police officers in a state with relaxed gun laws can't seem wholly safe. The presentation and the fact that a video camera was ready to catch all of this strikes me as more than a little odd, though I can't really say anything more on that unless it were taken, edited, and posted by one of the film's lead actors. And as much as I hate to display a case of school pride, especially when said school has differing laws, but should that have happened here, I doubt that not only would the officer have given that student a rather stern talking to about respecting people, whether or not they are in authority, but also that one among the passers by would have stepped in to chastise him, if not, as those who have spent the time instilling these values would have said, "bent the sorry bastard over their knee so that camera could get a nice shot of them beating some respect into his sorry hide."

The only part that amazes me is that knowing them, they would only have to hand the gun to the officer after they were finished.

Thank you for that small indulgence and for your time. I hope that I have made at least one point for you to take with you in the following posts.

EDIT: And you may quote me on all of this.

[biggles1]

Thanks for the replies. It's glad to see not everyone thinks the police are forming some kind of dystopian police state behind our backs.

[Fat1Fared]

Originally Posted by musigal

I actually agree with most of what Fared said. My own thoughts about the video are as follows:

*The police officer had no legal right to detain him without suspecting him of a crime, so why didn't he just A) say that he suspected him of carrying a loaded gun if that was illegal in his area or B) let him go? The police officer was not following protocol, and could therefore have acted better in this situation.

*That being said, the law student ALSO could have handled himself better in the situation. He was very obviously trying to make a point, which in-and-of-itself is ok, but he was being a dick about it. He could have been more civil in explaining his position to the police officer instead of shoving his face repeatedly into his failings.

TL;DR: There is no golden boy of the situation. They both kind of suck.

EDIT: HEY FARED, THEY'RE IN PORTLAND, OREGON (if you want to research local laws to make a more informed comment. I know I will!)

Open carry of long guns and handguns are both permitted in Oregon by anyone who is not prohibited (not a felon [like the police officer was trying to determine about the student], not convicted of a violent misdemeanor, not addicted to drugs or alcohol, and not involuntarily committed to a mental institution). Permits are only required for concealed carry of handguns (and MUST be issued if requirements of application are met, not issued on discretion). However Portland as a city has banned all loaded guns in public places, and the state law does not preempt in regard to unlicensed open carries. But guns may be carried openly if unloaded.

Analysis of new info: The police officer should have said that he suspected the man of carrying a loaded firearm in public (which would have been illegal in Portland, and therefore a legitimate reason to detain the student). Then the student should have shown him that the gun was not loaded, and then have been released as he had not broken any laws. Simple solution. Morons on both sides of the interaction.

Well, my position does not change at all because my comment was informed enough -_-. If you read what I wrote, you will see that the two states have almost identical laws in relation to this case's legal issues as the limited facts of the video present them to us.

1=Concealed firearms require permit.
2=Unloaded firearms do not require permit when openly carried.
3=Loaded firearms are illegal when openly carried.

All three key issues are the same here.

=The only difference which could be important here is the city/countryside area issue; however, as we do not have enough facts to ascertain if this is part of the main city or not, we cannot comment fairly there.

=As I said, the gun appears loaded, but even if it is not, he behaviour caused alarm which is enough for the Police to question him. Note carrying an unloaded gun in public is not illegal, bt carrying it in a manner which causes alarm can be, therefore the officer has every right to question him.

I am actually one 100% on the side of tyler, the fact the guy had a camera and was walking around with his gun on display is 'strange'. I did not include this in my legal review of the case because it irrelevant to the legal facts and would have constituted hearsay at best, but him walking around with his gun and camera read, in my mind, shows this guy is ether paranoid or doing this purposefully, just to get stopped and challenged by the police, so he could fight the man and show how much smarter than a cop he is. :P I suspect the latter because he went to the effort of memorising the name of any case he could find on google which vaguely linked to his point, as if that somehow made him a Queen's Counsel.
Yer, well, Mr Douche, I could ring off 1223 case-names for my final third year exams, that does not make me a legal expert. [ Note, to those who do not know, a Queen's Counsel is the highest rank of Barrister (Lawyer with rights of advocacy) in the UK and certain commonwealth countries. I know several QCs and they would have disgusted by his behaviour. ]

Furthermore, this guy's disrespectful and irresponsible behaviour only provides people like myself with more evidence that easy access to guns is not a good thing, which means he has done his own side no favours.

You should also know that a police-officer stopping you to talk is not a form of detention, so the officer did nothing wrong there. It is only detention if he acts to stop you in the belief you are, have, are going to or would otherwise have committed a crime. Notice, the officer, for his failings, was smart enough to show he was merely carrying out an investigation of a report of possible safety violation. He never accused this man or stopped him from walking away. In fact, he openly said he was free to leave. This is probably why he did not try to bring any crimes against the guy, he just wanted to confirm that the guy was just a douche with little-man symodrone and not a psycho (thus wanting to run his name). Furthermore, the student appears to have willingly and without duress handed over the gun, so the Police-officer did not de-facto detain him through duress of property. Moreover, the Police-officer was then within his rights to keep hold of the Gun if he felt a safety threat existed, which the antagonistic nature of the student could be seen to present.

[biggles1]

Fared, any words on the whole "Police are there to limit our freedoms" half of the conversation?

[Fat1Fared]

Originally Posted by biggles1

Fared, any words on the whole "Police are there to limit our freedoms" half of the conversation?

It is plain dumb. Yes, there are woeful laws, especially in relation to Freedom of Association and Assembly. And, unfortunately, often they are very poorly administrated by the police. IE Banning away fans from football games. <facepalm>. Moreover, I agree there are breaches of our freedoms which need a addressing, (research Doctor Julian Huppurt MP, and the Freedom Bill and the Securities Bill) and again the Police have no helped themselves here; however, most of these problems are with the laws themselves, not the police. These laws are generally so badly drafted that the Police could not not fudge them up.

Furthermore, the idea that police want to limit our freedoms and that this is worse than ever before, complete fantasy:

Point 2=Laws restricting our freedoms, rights of assembly...etc have existed as long as the concept of law has existed. I mean, we are going right back to the Sheriff of Nottingham here.

Point 1=There are not enough police out there to restrict our freedom, even if they wanted to, which most do not. Most just want to do a good job and help your everyday citizen get on in life, but they cannot do this because of douchebags.

I think what pisses me off about this guy is that part of my job, a part I take real pride in, is holding public bodies and officers of the state, such as police-officers, to account. So, watching this prancing clown make a mockery of that just to prove a point irks me no end.

I not only support people knowing their rights, I implore them to, but not so they can stroke their own ego, but so they can actually defend themselves when right and necessary to do so. What this guy does not realise is that most of the things the police get wrong, they do so wholly by mistake. It is complete human-failing, and most of those mistakes are caused because of the massive volume of work they have, high pressure work at that. So, not only is this guy making their cop's life more difficult, but even worse by adding to that cop's workload he is stopping that cop dealing with potential other, more important issues and adding to his stress, thereby making the cop even more likely to make even more mistakes that day.

I am not saying every mistake a cop makes is down to time-wasters, but time-wasters like this guy do not realise that they are actually only adding to the problem. So I do not object to this guy out of morality, but as on a practical level as someone who actually does, for his work, hold the police to account.

[gwtyler1985]

To a point, it was mentioned that said pistol was indeed loaded and live. That, and many of us familiar with the term Barrister could probably guess easily enough the purpose (at least in theory) and rank of the title Queen's Counsel, as implied by the name. Rather interesting job description, that.

Though one thing does bring up further interesting speculation: is there any proof that the person in the video studied law other than, as our friend confirmed to study law as put it, the names of "any case he could find on google which vaguely linked to his point"? Without further information presented voluntarily by this man, I do believe the assumption that this person is a law student doesn't quite take hold as it is quite possible that this is just a regular douchebag with access to google and mislabeled as a law student by whoever posted the video. Though given their displayed paranoia and insistence on keeping themselves off the record, I rather doubt that they would be willing to provide more information (though should our speculation about the man be just that, I still rather doubt that he would give the necessary information on principle, should he be anywhere near as intelligent as the video implies).

But as Fared said, all of that apart from the pistol being loaded and live is merely hearsay. I honestly didn't expect anyone to pick that up and run with it.

And as a final note for this post, I do indeed object to this person out of morality, but also as a representative of the demographic that this person is supposedly making an asshole out of himself for.

[musigal]

Didn't mean to offend, Fared. Didn't mean to imply that your opinion wasn't well informed. I just merely wanted to share my enthusiasm about researching with you, who I know also enjoy researching topics in order to be thorough.

On a different note, the police officer WAS detaining him by not returning his gun to him. The student says multiple times, "May I have my gun back."
Also, he didn't have his camera out the whole time. The filming begins in the middle of their interaction.

And just because this guy's a nimrod doesn't mean that everyone who has guns is or will be. Labeling a group based on the behavior of one individual is just silly.

[gwtyler1985]

Actually, surprise that it is, we've yet to actually bring up the topic of gun rights apart from my personal position and that, taking care to speak for my demographic, this man was not doing his part, as a gun owner, to be mindful of how he portrays the groups the video claims he is a part of.

On your note, the officer did appear return the weapon after a cursory inspection and the overall presentation of the video's "opening credits" leads me to believe that the video was edited, giving no indication of how long the actual interaction was nor what happened before or after this clip. That is why we have so far analyzed the clip, as well as some student analysis of the clip and their dissension with one of our friends.

[biggles1]

Mostly because I didn't want a debate on Gun laws themselves. More so on the standing of the officer and student from a legal perspective, plus some discussion on the replies I was given in the original argument.