California Detective: Citizens Who Open Carry Should be Shot

[ochmude]

I'll be interested to see how this thread "swings"...

Chief of Police uses what is posted on this web site to deny someone a LTC and we all got upset...

Will we stand behind this Palo Alto Detective and show him the same support for being able to post his thoughts and ideas on his facebook page, you know the support we showed the fella here who was denied a license for what he posted here...

Funny I think we'll see a number of hyporcritical posts, because this time its "one of them" talking about "us"...We'll see

Securityboy, you are aware that law enforcement employment isn't a right, protected under the Constitution, correct? If I say something stupid on Facebook that reflects poorly on my employer (such as a cop suggesting that people be shot unlawfully), that employer should fire me. A good friend of mine who does social work with youthful offenders made a comment on her Facebook page a couple of months ago basically just venting about her day and dealing with a kid, and a multi-agency investigation resulted which just concluded last week. She was demoted and another worker was fired. She was not, however, denied her right to bear arms. Do you see the difference?

 

[gjones77]

No not really seems the same to me...article says "joking comments through his Facebook account saying “open carry” advocates who visibly carry guns in public should be shot." see that "joking comments" that is different than the spin you are trying to put on it "killing law abiding [STRIKE]CCW'er [/STRIKE]open carriers"...personal opinions/questions/humor blown out of proportion seems the same to me...just like "the chief" can't handle a few questions about his departments licensing policys, you can't handle joking bout "us"...

It's not the same at all, a person on this site was denied their Constitutional Right because he was anxious, this jack arse detective spoke of denying a person of their life for exercising their Constitutional right.

There my friend is a big difference, and if you're unable to see that you're blind.

 

[drgrant]

Securityboy, you are aware that law enforcement employment isn't a right, protected under the Constitution, correct? If I say something stupid on Facebook that reflects poorly on my employer (such as a cop suggesting that people be shot unlawfully), that employer should fire me. A good friend of mine who does social work with youthful offenders made a comment on her Facebook page a couple of months ago basically just venting about her day and dealing with a kid, and a multi-agency investigation resulted which just concluded last week. She was demoted and another worker was fired. She was not, however, denied her right to bear arms. Do you see the difference?

+1....

It's also worth mentioning that she wasn't denied her right to free speech, either- only that there was hell to pay professionally. Nobody threw her in jail for saying what she said.

The main thrust of the first amendment is to keep people from being arrested or prosecuted for speaking out or printing something- not to prevent judgement by employers or peers. I I say something inflammatory or dumb, I don't expect to be arrested- but I might expect to be called out on it by someone else.

Another thing worth mentioning is "high visibility" public service jobs generally have special rules (often unwritten, but definitely implied!) attached to them which effectively limit or control your conduct off the job, like it or not. If a teacher puts up a Facebook page under her real name, and then posts a link to the nudie bar she dances at after school, what do people think is going to happen? This really isn't much different. I don't think I would fire the guy over it, but if I was his supervisor I'd tell him to stop posting crap like that on the net- especially in something which is as public as Facebook. This is in the category of "Seriously, what the f**k are you thinking, dude?"

-Mike

 

[Tim94gt]

It is clear to me that this Detective is clearly abusing his powers as an LEO and he should be dealt with immediately. What he said was completely unprofessional and disturbing. For him he would shoot an innocent civilian that is armed and joke about getting two weeks of paid leave should be more than enough to fire him.

I do believe that he has the RIGHT to say what he wants without fear of prosecution, but that does not mean he can't be FIRED.

 

[ochmude]

<snip>
what do people think is going to happen?
<snip>

She's gonna make more in tips.

 

[SeanT]

This is probably going to make me unpopular but I'm reading the cop's post differently.

I started reading this thread last night and re-read it again this morning after thinking about it a bit. I might be splitting hairs too fine here, but reading the FB posting again, "proning out" is not shooting people. I'm reading "proning out" as stopping and searching citizens by having them prone on the ground. His post says that if they make a furtive movement, it will result in "2 weeks off" which I'm reading as shooting them.

That distinction hasn't been called out by the other posts I've seen, I think. I'm not sure if everyone automatically recognizes it and I'm restating the obvious or if it might make people reconsider their thoughts on this.

Joking about it is not a smart move, as it probably opens the PD up to problems/lawsuits if something like that ever goes down.
However, if a cop has someone carrying firearms stopped who then begins acting suspicious, I would think the cop has reason to be jumpy and try to protect him/herself. Shooting them is too far, but it's a FB post, so I'm not taking it completely seriously.

 

[Alien]

And if thats what he posts on facebook what does he say to his partner/buddies that isn't in print. It is attitudes like this that help create the great us/them divide. Someone like this has no place being an officer of the law or in any position of power over other citizens.

 

[terraformer]

This is probably going to make me unpopular but I'm reading the cop's post differently.

I started reading this thread last night and re-read it again this morning after thinking about it a bit. I might be splitting hairs too fine here, but reading the FB posting again, "proning out" is not shooting people. I'm reading "proning out" as stopping and searching citizens by having them prone on the ground. His post says that if they make a furtive movement, it will result in "2 weeks off" which I'm reading as shooting them.

That distinction hasn't been called out by the other posts I've seen, I think. I'm not sure if everyone automatically recognizes it and I'm restating the obvious or if it might make people reconsider their thoughts on this.

Joking about it is not a smart move, as it probably opens the PD up to problems/lawsuits if something like that ever goes down.
However, if a cop has someone carrying firearms stopped who then begins acting suspicious, I would think the cop has reason to be jumpy and try to protect him/herself. Shooting them is too far, but it's a FB post, so I'm not taking it completely seriously.

Read this story. http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14282441?source=rss&nclick_check=1
You will note he was referring to his colleagues in the Palo Alto PD when he mentioned proning out which is what they did to a solitary OC activist in Palo Alto (the story at the link). What he then said is that all of the OC activists should be brought to Oakland. The implication is that he believes up against gang bangers the OC activists are no match. I think it's clear he is advocating violence on OC activists, just not violence directly from cops, but indirectly caused by cops or other government agents who would have the power to harass and transports said activists to Oakland.

 

[SeanT]

Read this story. http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14282441?source=rss&nclick_check=1
You will note he was referring to his colleagues in the Palo Alto PD when he mentioned proning out which is what they did to a solitary OC activist in Palo Alto (the story at the link). What he then said is that all of the OC activists should be brought to Oakland. The implication is that he believes up against gang bangers the OC activists are no match. I think it's clear he is advocating violence on OC activists, just not violence directly from cops, but indirectly caused by cops or other government agents who would have the power to harass and transports said activists to Oakland.

I think I missed where he said that someone would be transporting OC advocates to bad neighborhoods. Could you point that which FB post that is?

There's a difference between saying "if you think you're so tough, why don't you try this in Dorchester" and "I'm putting you in the cruiser and dropping you off in Dorchester"

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

'Him and the horse he rode in on.

 

[terraformer]

I think I missed where he said that someone would be transporting OC advocates to bad neighborhoods. Could you point that which FB post that is?

There's a difference between saying "if you think you're so tough, why don't you try this in Dorchester" and "I'm putting you in the cruiser and dropping you off in Dorchester"

I was speaking about what was said in the OP, but on second read, you are right, there was no kidnap implication there. In that facebook thread, this though escaped me the first time. After an officer involved shooting they get paid time off. Furtive movement is one legal standard for employing deadly force. It can be abused though and this is why.

"Your honor, he made a furtive move towards his side and I was forced to employ deadly force as I feared for my safety. The fact that my boot was crushing his ribcage on his right side had no bearing on the subjects movements."

On second read, he was joking about direct violence on the OC activist. If he is ever involved in a shooting with any semblance of doubt, he will cost his employer millions of dollars.

"A furtive movement in such cases is a movement reasonably consistent with going for a weapon and not reasonably consistent with anything else under the circumstances.

"The law does not demand that your perceived antagonist have a real weapon in order for you to employ lethal force in self defense. It only demands that his actions create in your mind a reasonable and prudent belief that he has a weapon. If he is close enough to employ such a weapon, and if his actions are consistent with an armed person trying to kill you (Diallo turned suddenly and thrust the hand with the black object toward the officers), then the requirements have been met for you to justifiably use deadly force in order to defend your own life."

"Skulking in the Vestibule" by Massad Ayoob

Yeah, unfortunately he was the first one I could find with a clear definition of it.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Securityboy, you are aware that law enforcement employment isn't a right, protected under the Constitution, correct? If I say something stupid on Facebook that reflects poorly on my employer (such as a cop suggesting that people be shot unlawfully), that employer should fire me. A good friend of mine who does social work with youthful offenders made a comment on her Facebook page a couple of months ago basically just venting about her day and dealing with a kid, and a multi-agency investigation resulted which just concluded last week. She was demoted and another worker was fired. She was not, however, denied her right to bear arms. Do you see the difference?

+3
This guy is free to make whatever comments he wants, it is his Constitutional right. However, there are consquences for what you say. In his case, he is no longer fit to wear the uniform. I don't think he was joking at all, but even if he was, there was some level of truth. He does not deserve the public's trust or their tax dollars. Hopefully he will be "coming to a mall near you" soon.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

It's not the same at all, a person on this site was denied their Constitutional Right because he was anxious, this jack arse detective spoke of denying a person of their life for exercising their Constitutional right.

There my friend is a big difference, and if you're unable to see that you're blind.

Yeah....the Nazis had such beliefs....and look how well that turned out. Maybe he can apply for a job in New Boston, NH. I hear that department likes Nazis.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

On a side note, I completely support the OC movement, but for different reasons. Flaunting it is not the right approach. I know in NH there have been demonstrations with AKs in open view. That to me is flaunting. However, I do think reasonable OC of a side arm is good to get the Lemmings used to seeing guns. To me it isn't about slamming it in someone's face, but to make them a little more desensitized. For years guns have been taboo and it is time to show people that a perfectly fine upstanding citizen can patronize an establishment while carrying a weapon and there is no harm to them.

 

[lupis42]

On a side note, I completely support the OC movement, but for different reasons. Flaunting it is not the right approach. I know in NH there have been demonstrations with AKs in open view. That to me is flaunting. However, I do think reasonable OC of a side arm is good to get the Lemmings used to seeing guns. To me it isn't about slamming it in someone's face, but to make them a little more desensitized. For years guns have been taboo and it is time to show people that a perfectly fine upstanding citizen can patronize an establishment while carrying a weapon and there is no harm to them.

I'm sorry, but WTF?

You're saying that:
You support the right of citizens to carry.
You agree that the fears of other people who observe citizens carrying are irrational.
You agree that exposing the irrational people to the sight of citizens carrying a firearm will help remind them that their fears are irrational.
As long as the gun in question isn't too scary?

If carrying is a right (and it is),
and If gun owners are not obliged to conceal to spare the anti's some anguish (and they aren't),
then why should it matter what type of firearm is displayed?

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

I'm sorry, but WTF?

You're saying that:
You support the right of citizens to carry.
You agree that the fears of other people who observe citizens carrying are irrational.
You agree that exposing the irrational people to the sight of citizens carrying a firearm will help remind them that their fears are irrational.
As long as the gun in question isn't too scary?

If carrying is a right (and it is),
and If gun owners are not obliged to conceal to spare the anti's some anguish (and they aren't),
then why should it matter what type of firearm is displayed?

Maybe my intent didn't come across.....I'm talking about ATTITUDE here....not the act. I have noticed a difference in attitude with different demonstrations. It is not the "scary gun thing".

 

[lupis42]

Maybe my intent didn't come across.....I'm talking about ATTITUDE here....not the act. I have noticed a difference in attitude with different demonstrations. It is not the "scary gun thing".

I'm not sure I follow. What attitude did the New Hampshire displays involve?

(I don't remember the details of any NH displays other than the topless one and the Town hall one, both of which were limited to holstered sidearms)

 

[bhmax16]

Maybe my intent didn't come across.....I'm talking about ATTITUDE here....not the act. I have noticed a difference in attitude with different demonstrations. It is not the "scary gun thing".

Agreed. Remember that when we're talking about the sheeple, the only way to make progress is to break them in slowly a little bit at a time. If you want to make them more acceptable of open carry, it's best not to freak them out with an "evil" looking black rifle slung over your shoulder, and instead do it by means of a sidearm (therefore the image portrayed is not much different than one who could be seen as an officer out of uniform). Once they become accepting of this, then you can take it to the next level. This is no different than the method the anti's have used to slowly strip us of our rights over the years...it goes both ways

 

[mikem317]

Umm yeah, if you got pulled over this AM and were pissed off about your ticket, and wrote on your personal facebook account "I coulda killed that Supa Troopa for that" do you really think anyone will care? More so do you think there is any chance you will recieve a reprimand at work becasue of it???

Yes I do. You can't discern commentary criticizing capricious Massachusetts licensure laws and murderous vitriol targeting law-abiding citizens?

 

[GSG]

I do think that it is a conflict of interest for police officer to suggest that law obiding citizens should be harassed and or shot, for practicing law-obiding activities.

First off, I 100% support the right of any free man to own or carry any kind of arms (knives, guns, brass knuckles, etc.), openly or concealed, and given the option, I would choose to carry concealed, because it's my personal choice. But with that said, in the real world now, I think that law abiding citizens should carry guns lawfully, and they should do it in a way that promotes our cause, not detracts from it. I also think that guns are a hot topic for most people, and depending on the culture of the area you're in, an openly carried gun could be a huge deal or go completely unnoticed. California is not a gun friendly state, and if it's making the newspapers and the police are being called, then obviously this is not a normal thing for people in that area to see.

It is perfectly legal for a gay couple to make out in public. But, if a gay couple chooses to passionately make out on LDS church property(link to the story here), things might not be recieved so well. Now this doesn't mean that the cops and security guards involved hate gays, but it does mean that certain behavior, even when legal, is unwanted and innapropriate with certain groups of people.

It is also perfectly legal to carry three samurai swords into Logan Airport a month after the 9/11 attacks when you have no plans to fly anywhere (link here). Still, it might make people uncomfortable, and chances are, it would result in police response, and chances are, if he made furtive movements when the cops showed up, he'd get shot. The cops might even joke about it later on, the way they joked about the domestic that they responded to before that and the homeless guy with AIDS after. I've heard firefighters joke about the guy who was in pieces after a motorcycle accident, not because they hate and disrespect bikers, but because most of them learn fast that the more you laugh about what you deal with the less you cry.

What it sounds like to me, having seen and read about a few of the more, shall we say, interesting open carry events, is that the local cops don't like dealing with unpleasant people, and that when they happen to be visibly armed for no reason other than "because I can" in a culture where it's frowned upon, that it might result in the cops proning people out. And since many cops aren't gun guys, especially ones who live in a state where guns in private hands are frowned upon, chances are they aren't as passionate about open carry rights as some of the people who read what they say on the internet.

I think they may be referring to incidents like this. http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14282441?source=rss&nclick_check=1

ETA: To be clear, this is an incident in his town of employment that occurred a week before his comment. I wonder if he was involved or his co workers are just as screwed up.

If the guy was walking aimlessly around the grocery store with a scanner, trying to drum up attention the way that Doobie does in downtown Manchester, than I'd disagree that responding cops are "screwed up." They were probably left scratching their heads the way I am after trying to figure out what a "protest" accomplishes that an infomercial couldn't.

Another thing worth mentioning is "high visibility" public service jobs generally have special rules (often unwritten, but definitely implied!) attached to them which effectively limit or control your conduct off the job, like it or not. If a teacher puts up a Facebook page under her real name, and then posts a link to the nudie bar she dances at after school, what do people think is going to happen? This really isn't much different. I don't think I would fire the guy over it, but if I was his supervisor I'd tell him to stop posting crap like that on the net- especially in something which is as public as Facebook. This is in the category of "Seriously, what the f**k are you thinking, dude?"

Good point.

I think I missed where he said that someone would be transporting OC advocates to bad neighborhoods. Could you point that which FB post that is?

There's a difference between saying "if you think you're so tough, why don't you try this in Dorchester" and "I'm putting you in the cruiser and dropping you off in Dorchester"

Exactly.

I was speaking about what was said in the OP, but on second read, you are right, there was no kidnap implication there. In that facebook thread, this View attachment 8775 though escaped me the first time. After an officer involved shooting they get paid time off. Furtive movement is one legal standard for employing deadly force. It can be abused though and this is why.

Earlier tonight I joked on Facebook about sleeping naked. I don't sleep naked, but it was a funny joke, and when I log on again I'll see if it made my brother laugh. If someone else reads it and gets upset, I sure hope they don't read too much into it.

Maybe my intent didn't come across.....I'm talking about ATTITUDE here....not the act. I have noticed a difference in attitude with different demonstrations. It is not the "scary gun thing".

A big +1 to this. If the cops get called to respond to an a-hole with a bad attitude and a gun on his hip, how is that any different from the dozens of other a-holes they see in a week?

 

[GSG]

Yes I do. You can't discern commentary criticizing capricious Massachusetts licensure laws and murderous vitriol targeting law-abiding citizens?

Murderous? How does someone making a threatening movement with a legal gun different than someone making a threatening movement with an illegal gun?

 

[Martlet]

interesting[/I] open carry events, is that the local cops don't like dealing with unpleasant people, and that when they happen to be visibly armed for no reason other than "because I can" in a culture where it's frowned upon, that it might result in the cops proning people out. And since many cops aren't gun guys, especially ones who live in a state where guns in private hands are frowned upon, chances are they aren't as passionate about open carry rights as some of the people who read what they say on the internet.



If the guy was walking aimlessly around the grocery store with a scanner, trying to drum up attention the way that Doobie does in downtown Manchester, than I'd disagree that responding cops are "screwed up." They were probably left scratching their heads the way I am after trying to figure out what a "protest" accomplishes that an infomercial couldn't.

The difference is, cops are employees of the State. They shouldn't have the luxury of saying "oh, that man is suspicious simply because he has a firearm, it's going to get stolen" then prone him out as a result and find it funny because HE'S not a gun guy. I don't give a shit WHAT kind of a guy he is. If you have questions about my firearm, ask me. Otherwise, move along. Prone me out and laugh about it on faceplant? I'm going for your job. You aren't fit to have it.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

I'm not sure I follow. What attitude did the New Hampshire displays involve?

(I don't remember the details of any NH displays other than the topless one and the Town hall one, both of which were limited to holstered sidearms)

I saw an video from an open carry on one of the town centers in NH (Manchester I think) with ARs and AKs. The attitude was very IN YOUR FACE. Now, why would anyone need to carry an assault rifle in the downtown area? It is perfectly within their rights, but why do it? Again, it's not about the scary guns, but practicality. Now open carrying a sidearm is reasonable.....a very practical self defense weapon for personal carry. Letting the anti-gun folks see it will hopefully desensitize them and realize that a good person carrying a gun is still a good person.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

The difference is, cops are employees of the State. They shouldn't have the luxury of saying "oh, that man is suspicious simply because he has a firearm, it's going to get stolen" then prone him out as a result and find it funny because HE'S not a gun guy. I don't give a shit WHAT kind of a guy he is. If you have questions about my firearm, ask me. Otherwise, move along. Prone me out and laugh about it on faceplant? I'm going for your job. You aren't fit to have it.

+5

You know, most people who take a moment to ask me about guns actually come away with the "I didn't know that" kind of a response. I'm pretty non-threatening....dress business casual most times....but if I have a gun apparently I should be shot? WTF?

 

[BossHarley]

I saw an video from an open carry on one of the town centers in NH (Manchester I think) with ARs and AKs. The attitude was very IN YOUR FACE. Now, why would anyone need to carry an assault rifle in the downtown area? It is perfectly within their rights, but why do it? Again, it's not about the scary guns, but practicality. Now open carrying a sidearm is reasonable.....a very practical self defense weapon for personal carry. Letting the anti-gun folks see it will hopefully desensitize them and realize that a good person carrying a gun is still a good person.

+1 I remember the scenes during the presidential election where Obama was doing 'town halls' etc, and there were protestors openly carrying AR's & AK's. I think there is a point where excercising your rights (or how you exercise them) harms the cause not helps.

Do I think these individuals were doing anything wrong - no
Do I think they should be stopped from carrying openly - no
Would I expect an overreaction by law enforcement - yes, and yet there was no response that I could see from the secret service etc (and I don't remember any news stories regarding overreaction by law enforcement etc).

To the OP's point....
I think this officer exhibited poor behavior and should be seriously reprimanded, not fired. If he continues to make 'public' comments detrimental to his position he should be fired.
People holding high stress jobs with daily violence like law enforcement, fire, armed services tend to become cavalier about it. Is it right hell no, but it is a defense mechanism.

 

[Half Cocked]

Another thing worth mentioning is "high visibility" public service jobs generally have special rules (often unwritten, but definitely implied!) attached to them which effectively limit or control your conduct off the job, like it or not. If a teacher puts up a Facebook page under her real name, and then posts a link to the nudie bar she dances at after school, what do people think is going to happen? This really isn't much different. I don't think I would fire the guy over it, but if I was his supervisor I'd tell him to stop posting crap like that on the net- especially in something which is as public as Facebook. This is in the category of "Seriously, what the f**k are you thinking, dude?"

-Mike

This.... it sucks...but... it is what it is.....that whole...higher standard thing.

 

[drgrant]

I saw an video from an open carry on one of the town centers in NH (Manchester I think) with ARs and AKs. The attitude was very IN YOUR FACE.

The video I saw there were just guys with slung rifles hanging around talking about crap. Things LEOs do with the same kind of guns every day, with the only difference being is they
have badges, BDUs or some other uniform on. Do those LEOs get a pass from the "in your face" clause?

Not something I would do but I would support anyone else's right to do it.

Now, why would anyone need to carry an assault rifle in the downtown area? It is perfectly within their rights, but why do it? Again, it's not about the scary guns, but practicality.

Uhhh.... because it's their right to do so. And also for the same reason a dog licks itself- because it can. Practicality? Have you driven on the roads around here? 90% of the vehicles out there are probably "impractcal" by definition. Hell, my V6 Camry is overkill for what I do- so by practicality alone, I should be driving a Yaris or Corolla to work. We do things because we WANT to do them, not always because it's practical.

Or, as I stated in another thread... why does someone buy a MK23.... because they want to. It's not always about how practical it is. That's one of the upsides of living in the US.

-Mike

 

[BossHarley]

"The video I saw there were just guys with slung rifles hanging around talking about crap. Things LEOs do with the same kind of guns every day, with the only difference being is they
have badges, BDUs or some other uniform on. Do those LEOs get a pass from the "in your face" clause? "
In my mind yes, if their job/duty requires they carry openly like that yes. I just thought that the same point could be made with a little less fanfare - but to each their own.

"Not something I would do but I would support anyone else's right to do it."

I agree 100% I also support their right to do this.


IMO just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, but still support your right to do it 100%.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

The video I saw there were just guys with slung rifles hanging around talking about crap. Things LEOs do with the same kind of guns every day, with the only difference being is they
have badges, BDUs or some other uniform on. Do those LEOs get a pass from the "in your face" clause?

Not something I would do but I would support anyone else's right to do it.



Uhhh.... because it's their right to do so. And also for the same reason a dog licks itself- because it can. Practicality? Have you driven on the roads around here? 90% of the vehicles out there are probably "impractcal" by definition. Hell, my V6 Camry is overkill for what I do- so by practicality alone, I should be driving a Yaris or Corolla to work. We do things because we WANT to do them, not always because it's practical.

Or, as I stated in another thread... why does someone buy a MK23.... because they want to. It's not always about how practical it is. That's one of the upsides of living in the US.

-Mike

Mike, I support their right.....but sometimes you also need to use your head. Just because they can do it doesn't mean they should.

 

[namedpipes]

___________________________________________________

O..O..O.....O..O..O.....O..O..O.....O..O..O.....O. .O..O