View Full Version : Aurora teen walks on busy streets with shotgun, videotapes encounter with police
SuperiorDG
08-01-2014, 21:18
Here we go again. [Pop]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Gx73R3p1U
AURORA, Colo. — A teenager carrying a loaded shotgun on a busy street in Aurora was stopped by police. But he says he should not have been stopped and he videotaped his encounter with officers. Police have a different opinion.
The 18-year-old posted his cell phone video online. He spoke exclusively with reporter Dave Young Friday.
Young also spoke with police as the two sides debated open carry gun laws and public safety.
Steve Lohner claims he was well within Colorado law while he walked in the area of South Buckley Road and East Iliff Avenue while carrying a shotgun.
Police who were called to the scene say they weren’t able to determine if he was doing it legally. Lohner refused to show them an ID to prove he’s 18.
“I simply carry this for the protection of myself and those around me,” Lohner says.
His shotgun is a Stoeger P-350 12 gauge.
“I’ve been stopped close to a dozen times for this and this is actually the first time I’ve been forced to provide ID,” he says.
The teen says he’s on a campaign to call attention to open carry laws. “I feel like a lot of people now they see a weapon like that and they think, you know, James Holmes or Sandy Hook,”
Lohner says that’s why he started walking along major streets with his gun.
“It’s alarming to the citizens — alarming enough to where they call,” says Aurora police spokesman Frank Fania.
Colorado law backs up Aurora police when asking to see an ID while investigating a possible crime.
“He may be within his rights and legal, within the law to carry this gun but if we’re investigating it and he refuses to cooperate that may violate other municipal laws,” Fania says.
In fact, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that police who are investigating a suspected crime can require an ID from people reasonably believed to have information or were involved with that crime.
In this case police couldn’t even determine if Lohner, who they determined looks younger than 18, was old enough to legally possess the weapon.
Lohner says, “The police treat open carry like you’re a criminal until proven innocent.”
But police say it raises questions of public safety and takes officers off of other calls. “It ties up our resources whether you’re right or wrong,” Fania says.
Lohner, who just turned 18, plans to continue his protest walks. “If enough people were to lawfully open carry in those areas and do it in a safe and lawful manner then these people would end up feeling comfortable around it.”
The teen admits that the Aurora theater shooting makes police in the city cautious.
Police say they have to respond to 911 calls when people call about what Lohner is doing. They reiterate they may be getting pulled away from other real, life-threatening situations.
Lohner faces a misdemeanor obstruction charge for refusing to show his identification.
We spoke to Lohner’s mother and she told us she is concerned about his safety.
http://kdvr.com/2014/08/01/aurora-teen-walks-on-busy-streets-with-shotgun-videotapes-encounters-with-police/
Aloha_Shooter
08-01-2014, 21:25
47793
I am amazed at the patience those 2 officers displayed. Extremely professional throughout.
Great-Kazoo
08-01-2014, 21:44
Had it been open chambered he might had less contact.
Someone mentioned it before, are these OC folks actual gun owners, or grass root agent provocateurs?
boomerhc9
08-01-2014, 21:59
would like to hear more of the back story of his alleged assault that he mentioned.
however, this was not played well on his part. shure he has the right and doesn't even need a reason, but he was also video taping, just to put it online. i'm seeing more and more videos like his on youtube lately, and all i can do is sigh.
stoner01
08-01-2014, 22:10
I hate these attention whores.
There is no way that these open carry nut jobs are on our side. I am a big fan of open carry but using long guns to make this point is going about it all the wrong way. There is no possible way that any sane gun owner can think this a good idea.
He's young. He'll outgrow this. I wouldn't open carry a shotgun around in Aurora though.
Who cares. I call bullshit on the officers saying they have other serious life threatening issues. If that is the case why do I see them constantly sitting around watching for minor traffic violations.
HoneyBadger
08-01-2014, 22:40
I wouldn't open carry a shotgun around in Aurora though.
Are you kidding? I wouldn't pass through Aurora without a shotgun! [ROFL1]
Are you kidding? I wouldn't pass through Aurora without a shotgun! [ROFL1]
You could pull it off. I obviously don't know for sure, but I'm not convinced this 18 year old could.
Bailey Guns
08-01-2014, 22:50
What a PITA these people are.
Aurora is only bad in some areas! That's like saying all of Colfax is bad.
beast556
08-01-2014, 23:04
What a dumb shit. Open carrying a handgun is cool, these people carrying rifles and shotguns just make us gun owners look bad.
I absolutely HATE people like this. They only cause more trouble against us real gun owners!!
I hope he is charged with obstruction and his shotgun is taken away...
I hate these attention whores.
That Makes two of us.
Hey he does have a point. Being 18, a handgun is not an option. Constitutional Carry nationwide where a firearm is viewed as a firearm at 18 would solve this problem and the ones in Texas too. After all, he did pass two democrat approved background checks at the state and federal levels.
I know Frank Fania. He's a good officer and has always done good work. As far as this particular individual and doing what he's doing...well, I'm just going to leave it alone. If I don't the OC community will crap chickens all over this thread.
Dalendenver
08-02-2014, 01:02
Who cares. I call bullshit on the officers saying they have other serious life threatening issues. If that is the case why do I see them constantly sitting around watching for minor traffic violations.
You obviously don't live in Aurora if you think they sit around watching for traffic violations. You can never find a policeman when someone is driving crazy around here.
I think these people are just going to get dumb laws passed because of their actions and i truly dislike these open carry protesters but i have to be partly on their side because i truly value the Colorado and United States Constitution. What he did was not illegal and the entire argument about having to show his ID was BS, the article totally skipped over what a terry stop is. Nobody can be accused of a crime for no reason but he was. The obstruction to an investigation clam was also total BS in turn.
Legally the kid was in the right and the police were in the wrong. However logically this kid was in the wrong and i hate to say it but the police were too. If he never has anything to ruffle feathers on you tube he would quite his worthless shenanigans.
There is no need for any cop to make contact with a citizen lawfully carrying a gun in public. They could have followed him to make sure there was nothing going on. Tell the alarmed cry baby public that carrying in public is 100% lawful.
Whistler
08-02-2014, 08:03
I hate these threads where people pretend to be about freedom, Second Amendment and the Constitution then trash other people for engaging in perfectly legal behavior because some drama queens got their panties in a twist. If we actually believed in freedom we'd tell the drama queens that their ruffled feathers are just worthless shenanigans and perhaps they'd quit. I grew up walking down the road with a shotgun but the world had a few less pussies in it and a few less people afraid to tell them to STFU.
These are the words of a 2A supporter, gun owner and freedom lover? [Puke]
They only cause more trouble against us real gun owners!!
I hope he is charged with obstruction and his shotgun is taken away...
"He's making me look bad!!!" No he's not he's making himself look bad if anything but he's not breaking the law and some crying nimbys make us eat our own, pathetic.
SuperiorDG
08-02-2014, 08:25
I hate these threads where people pretend to be about freedom, Second Amendment and the Constitution then trash other people for engaging in perfectly legal behavior because some drama queens got their panties in a twist. If we actually believed in freedom we'd tell the drama queens that their ruffled feathers are just worthless shenanigans and perhaps they'd quit. I grew up walking down the road with a shotgun but the world had a few less pussies in it and a few less people afraid to tell them to STFU.
These are the words of a 2A supporter, gun owner and freedom lover? [Puke]
"He's making me look bad!!!" No he's not he's making himself look bad if anything but he's not breaking the law and some crying nimbys make us eat our own, pathetic.
I'm sure you carried your shotgun back in the day because you were on your way to go hunting or some other meaningful gun related activity. This guy is trying to make contact with LEOs to make his point that does not need to be made.
Why are we bashing something that is legal? It is in the book as legal. Just because you dont partake doesn't mean it should be demonized. The kid is 18, can't get a handgun, can't get a ccw. He has just as much right to defend himself as anyone on here who call themselves a "real gunowner".
Maybe those concerned citizens need some training on what is legal and what is not.
I Dont agree with the kid giving them a hard time about his ID and but that's his own problem. It seems like he has been stopped enough where he needs to record the incident. He should have never been stopped by police in the first place.
Its easy for guys with CCW to posture up and call this wrong but this is his only option. Or go without a weapon for defense.
The comments where open carrying a handgun is cool but not a rifle or shotgun? Well you obviously Dont need those high capacity automatic magazine clips or those assault rifles of death either. What an ignorant statement.
stoner01
08-02-2014, 08:45
We're not bashing him doing something legal. We, as far as I can tell, are bashing him for being an attention whore. The guys that go out and try and get contacted so they can record it annoy the shit out of me and many of my fellow LEOs. I agree it's legal and is his only option. I don't blame him.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. He did it to make a point, fine, well done young man. I think his mother has every right to be concerned, this kid is not the brightest bulb in the pack. My life experiences (I'm almost 58) have taught me that if someone were intent on doing harm and they spot a kid-or virtually anyone-open carrying that person would be the first target.
Against my better judgement I replied to that kid's youtube video. So I guess 2/10 to him for getting me to reply.
BPTactical
08-02-2014, 10:13
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. He did it to make a point, fine, well done young man. I think his mother has every right to be concerned, this kid is not the brightest bulb in the pack. My life experiences (I'm almost 58) have taught me that if someone were intent on doing harm and they spot a kid-or virtually anyone-open carrying that person would be the first target.
Ayup
Whistler
08-02-2014, 10:31
We're not bashing him doing something legal. We, as far as I can tell, are bashing him for being an attention whore. The guys that go out and try and get contacted so they can record it annoy the shit out of me and many of my fellow LEOs. I agree it's legal and is his only option. I don't blame him.
Seems to me you should be annoyed with the people calling you, half the content of the internet is just attention whores, including here. I really think his ultimate goal is to not be contacted and the attention whores are the crybabies pretending he's some sort of imminent threat. Maybe not the best way to make the point but a good point nonetheless and I agree pretty limited choices to make that point. If I have the right to walk down the road with a shotgun I shouldn't have people sending the police to contact me whether Joe Blow agrees with it or not. I hear "just because you can doesn't mean you should" and I say why not? Because some people don't like it and raise a big stink? That's just ridiculous, too many people are way too worried about what someone else is doing. If he's walking down the road shooting street signs and stray cats (well maybe not the cats) people have a reason to fuss. Having a right and not being able to exercise it because people call the law or it upsets some people who take it as a negative reflection on them doesn't sound like much of a right to me.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. He did it to make a point, fine, well done young man. I think his mother has every right to be concerned, this kid is not the brightest bulb in the pack. My life experiences (I'm almost 58) have taught me that if someone were intent on doing harm and they spot a kid-or virtually anyone-open carrying that person would be the first target.
There is no evidence that supports that assertion, in the same vein as the "wild west" straw man arguments. It is often quoted though (mostly by anti-gunners) and maybe if we say it a few more times...
I'm totally bashing this stupid kid for following every YT attention whore who has come before him. For those too dense to get it, if you call 911, especially for a MWAG call, the police have to show up and investigate. They see a 2A "activist" who explains that he's 18, can't buy a pistol yet, and isn't suspected of committing a crime, good, investigation can move on to verification that he is actually 18 if he reasonably doesn't appear to be. For the record, I'm terrible at guessing age, so an ID would greatly help. But no, this kid decides to stand on principle or whatever, try to look like Billy Badass on the intenets, and makes everyone's life difficult. Had he just furnished that same ID he used to buy cigarettes (don't tell me he wasn't carded for that!), they would have ended the contact and he could go on his way. But instead, dipshit needed a YouTube worthy video out of this contact. Seriously? Someone please tell me the harm in just showing your damn ID when a LEO asks? You do it when your waiter asks, what is the harm? Really? This isn't 1938 Germany or the Soviet Union, so spare me the "Papers, please" bovine feces.
speedysst
08-02-2014, 10:48
Lets cut the crap. He isn't walking around with a shotgun and a camera because he wants to "defend himself." He's doing it to get his 15 min of fame. Its as simple as that.
Why are we bashing something that is legal? It is in the book as legal. Just because you dont partake doesn't mean it should be demonized. The kid is 18, can't get a handgun, can't get a ccw. He has just as much right to defend himself as anyone on here who call themselves a "real gunowner".
Maybe those concerned citizens need some training on what is legal and what is not.
I Dont agree with the kid giving them a hard time about his ID and but that's his own problem. It seems like he has been stopped enough where he needs to record the incident. He should have never been stopped by police in the first place.
Its easy for guys with CCW to posture up and call this wrong but this is his only option. Or go without a weapon for defense.
The comments where open carrying a handgun is cool but not a rifle or shotgun? Well you obviously Dont need those high capacity automatic magazine clips or those assault rifles of death either. What an ignorant statement.
StagLefty
08-02-2014, 10:52
^ yup-whole incident was over with showing the ID and never would have been an issue. He got his point across about open carry and then it should have ended.
SouthPaw
08-02-2014, 11:39
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Just because you can own an AR-15 doesn't mean you should. Legal is legal whether everyone agrees with it or not. Just playing the devils advocate a bit. That is my favorite answer when people ask "Why do you need so many guns?" My answer "Because I can."
Is the kid a total PITA? Of course he is. He was clearly following the same script as everyone else does when the OC for youtube. "Am I being detained?" "What crimes do you suspect me of committing?" "Am I free to leave?" To me, bottom line is he was 100% legal and within his rights. I agree the officers displayed quite a bit of patience. Their reasoning for him to produce I.D. was pretty weak. Maybe if they would have kept the encounter to less than a minute, the kid what stop trying to get his 15 minutes of fame. Who knows, maybe he will end with some money out of the deal. Anyone remember this guy? (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2691132/posts)
Whistler
08-02-2014, 11:42
I'm totally bashing this stupid kid for following every YT attention whore who has come before him. For those too dense to get it, if you call 911, especially for a MWAG call, the police have to show up and investigate. They see a 2A "activist" who explains that he's 18, can't buy a pistol yet, and isn't suspected of committing a crime, good, investigation can move on to verification that he is actually 18 if he reasonably doesn't appear to be. For the record, I'm terrible at guessing age, so an ID would greatly help. But no, this kid decides to stand on principle or whatever, try to look like Billy Badass on the intenets, and makes everyone's life difficult. Had he just furnished that same ID he used to buy cigarettes (don't tell me he wasn't carded for that!), they would have ended the contact and he could go on his way. But instead, dipshit needed a YouTube worthy video out of this contact. Seriously? Someone please tell me the harm in just showing your damn ID when a LEO asks? You do it when your waiter asks, what is the harm? Really? This isn't 1938 Germany or the Soviet Union, so spare me the "Papers, please" bovine feces.
For those too dense to get it this is the problem. That we have reached a point where a right can only be exercised under police scrutiny and "contact" (I love those fuzzy little euphemisms). In other words yes you have the right but no you can't exercise it unless you want to have "contact" with LE and prove you aren't doing anything wrong.
Let's put it in context of the First Amendment, you'd be the first to scream if every time you made a statement overheard by your neighbor or seen on your blog he disagreed with they called the law who then made "contact" with you. Do you not perceive some chilling effect to the exercise of that right? It's called intimidation and LE is being used to legitimize persecution and demonization of individuals who exercise their 2A rights. It's a side-door method for effectively achieving an anti-gun agenda without support of legislation.
I'm not blaming LE in this scenario and what happened after "contact" is on that kid. I am saying LE should not have been called to start with and we need at some point to hold people accountable for making the call, creating the fuss. The "see something, say something" mentality is certainly 1938 Germany and sadly I'm afraid you are pissed at the wrong people. If I have the right to walk down the road with my shotgun I should not be subject to any interference not even well-intentioned LE "contact". I don't have the time or the energy to go get arrested and try to get on TV to protest this but I'm not going to join the antis in condemning a guy that does. I personally think the bar needs to be just a bit higher before my accuser can send LE to "contact" me.
If it becomes common place to confront everyone with a gun because "it scared someone" it discourages exercise of that right and eventually becomes the norm which leads to elimination of that right. I mean "why do you need it? nobody does it" Let's be mad at the right people here, not the guy exercising a right (attention whore or not, doesn't matter if you like him) but the people making a federal case of it, calling 911 and generally acting like a teenage girl seeing her first...
SuperiorDG
08-02-2014, 12:06
For those too dense to get it this is the problem. That we have reached a point where a right can only be exercised under police scrutiny and "contact" (I love those fuzzy little euphemisms). In other words yes you have the right but no you can't exercise it unless you want to have "contact" with LE and prove you aren't doing anything wrong.
Let's put it in context of the First Amendment, you'd be the first to scream if every time you made a statement overheard by your neighbor or seen on your blog he disagreed with they called the law who then made "contact" with you. Do you not perceive some chilling effect to the exercise of that right? It's called intimidation and LE is being used to legitimize persecution and demonization of individuals who exercise their 2A rights. It's a side-door method for effectively achieving an anti-gun agenda without support of legislation.
I'm not blaming LE in this scenario and what happened after "contact" is on that kid. I am saying LE should not have been called to start with and we need at some point to hold people accountable for making the call, creating the fuss. The "see something, say something" mentality is certainly 1938 Germany and sadly I'm afraid you are pissed at the wrong people. If I have the right to walk down the road with my shotgun I should not be subject to any interference not even well-intentioned LE "contact". I don't have the time or the energy to go get arrested and try to get on TV to protest this but I'm not going to join the antis in condemning a guy that does. I personally think the bar needs to be just a bit higher before my accuser can send LE to "contact" me.
If it becomes common place to confront everyone with a gun because "it scared someone" it discourages exercise of that right and eventually becomes the norm which leads to elimination of that right. I mean "why do you need it? nobody does it" Let's be mad at the right people here, not the guy exercising a right (attention whore or not, doesn't matter if you like him) but the people making a federal case of it, calling 911 and generally acting like a teenage girl seeing her first...
Wright or wrong, continued exercise of this right is not going to stop citizens from calling 911 and the police doing their job. To the general public it makes gun owners look bad, plan and simple. A lot of us gun owners may not like how society "feels" about OC or guns, but it is what it is. We are not Rosa Parks.
Whistler
08-02-2014, 13:55
Right or wrong we lose if we don't, if we only exercise our right in the basement at midnight. If we cower like a guilty dog at the first sign of displeasure, right or wrong. No not Rosa Parks, she had balls.
lead_magnet
08-02-2014, 15:58
We all understand that a Terry stop is based off of reasonable suspicion correct? What defines a reasonably suspicious activity? I would say suspicious is something far outside of what the general public would consider a normal safe practice. I.e. it isn't necessarily against the law to stand in the alley behind a bank wearing a ski mask at 3 am, but it is suspicious. I think it is suspicious to be walking around a metropolitan area with a shotgun. It's not like he was dressed in mossy oak with a dead pheasant and a hunting shotgun. Ever hear of totality of the circumstances? This kid intentionally made himself look out of the ordinary and tried to push the limits. To me it seemed he knew full well that he was going to be considered a suspicious person. Perhaps someone trying to push the extent of the law should read it. Specifically:
CRS 16-3-103. Stopping of suspect
(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.
(2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.
Hmmm... what crime could he be suspected of? Beings that he is only 18 it could be a stop to make sure he is old enough to posses said firearm. The list goes on and on, and I am not familiar at all with the municipal codes in that location. We can nit-pick these things to death but what is the point. I think we all unanimously agree that this kid is engaging in a stupid practice, and the cop is clearly within his legal bounds (in this state) to demand I.D.
There is one aspect where I agree with this kid. He stated (something to the effect of) if more people did this no its be no big deal. He's absolutely correct, if 2/5 people we saw everyday had a long gun slung over their shoulder, then the activity would no longer appear suspicious. But who the hell wants to get groceries with a shotgun over their shoulder? Probably why nobody does that. I for 1 vote for smoking hot chicks carrying long guns ... maybe we need to import some from Israel.
https://txlady706.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/israeliwomensb2.jpg?w=300 ​http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Israelihotteesatthebarwithguns.jpg
For those too dense to get it this is the problem. That we have reached a point where a right can only be exercised under police scrutiny and "contact" (I love those fuzzy little euphemisms). In other words yes you have the right but no you can't exercise it unless you want to have "contact" with LE and prove you aren't doing anything wrong.
Let's put it in context of the First Amendment, you'd be the first to scream if every time you made a statement overheard by your neighbor or seen on your blog he disagreed with they called the law who then made "contact" with you. Do you not perceive some chilling effect to the exercise of that right? It's called intimidation and LE is being used to legitimize persecution and demonization of individuals who exercise their 2A rights. It's a side-door method for effectively achieving an anti-gun agenda without support of legislation.
I'm not blaming LE in this scenario and what happened after "contact" is on that kid. I am saying LE should not have been called to start with and we need at some point to hold people accountable for making the call, creating the fuss. The "see something, say something" mentality is certainly 1938 Germany and sadly I'm afraid you are pissed at the wrong people. If I have the right to walk down the road with my shotgun I should not be subject to any interference not even well-intentioned LE "contact". I don't have the time or the energy to go get arrested and try to get on TV to protest this but I'm not going to join the antis in condemning a guy that does. I personally think the bar needs to be just a bit higher before my accuser can send LE to "contact" me.
If it becomes common place to confront everyone with a gun because "it scared someone" it discourages exercise of that right and eventually becomes the norm which leads to elimination of that right. I mean "why do you need it? nobody does it" Let's be mad at the right people here, not the guy exercising a right (attention whore or not, doesn't matter if you like him) but the people making a federal case of it, calling 911 and generally acting like a teenage girl seeing her first...
I agree that people who call 911 every time someone says the word "gun" is a bit much. What I'm saying is that there are those who freely exercise their right, and those who provoke confrontation with LE. This kid was clearly looking for the latter otherwise he wouldn't have brought along his scripted BS and his figurative soap box to put on YouTube. If he truly was carrying for protection he wouldn't have been so confrontational. I completely agree that someone should explain to the public when they call 911 that every OC person out there is not Charles Whitman or James Holmes, but sadly that is not the society in which we currently live. Had he just been a bit less of an internet tough guy, maybe this whole thing wouldn't have been an issue.
ETA: it's not the open carry I'm against, it's how one handles the contact that may occur with LE that I am critical about. If you're nice, courteous, and respectful then I take no issue and you should walk away all good. Otherwise, stop trying to be a YouTube holding-cell lawyer.
Just because you can own an AR-15 doesn't mean you should. My answer "Because I can."
See I can quote only a small part of what is written to make it appear as a silly statement too.
This kid is expressing an incredible level of ignorance for what purpose? Reaching 18 is not a sign of maturity or intelligence. No reason for him to get a single penny for anything. Sorry, no reason to defend anything he did.
When I went to high school it was common to have shotguns and .22s in the trunks/pick-up windows for plinking/blasting in the desert after school or during the proper season for hunting. Nobody thought a thing about it. It was a different time, common sense still ruled. It's a different world today, nothing to be accomplished by doing the "oh look at me, I'm walking around with a shotgun because I can" trek through Aurora.
As Ronin13 pointed out, it's not the act as much as it was his attitude once the contact was made. The kid was looking for a confrontation and he got it.
Whistler
08-02-2014, 17:01
I agree that people who call 911 every time someone says the word "gun" is a bit much. What I'm saying is that there are those who freely exercise their right, and those who provoke confrontation with LE. This kid was clearly looking for the latter otherwise he wouldn't have brought along his scripted BS and his figurative soap box to put on YouTube. If he truly was carrying for protection he wouldn't have been so confrontational. I completely agree that someone should explain to the public when they call 911 that every OC person out there is not Charles Whitman or James Holmes, but sadly that is not the society in which we currently live. Had he just been a bit less of an internet tough guy, maybe this whole thing wouldn't have been an issue.
ETA: it's not the open carry I'm against, it's how one handles the contact that may occur with LE that I am critical about. If you're nice, courteous, and respectful then I take no issue and you should walk away all good. Otherwise, stop trying to be a YouTube holding-cell lawyer.
Something good to remember, on both sides of a "contact". It would also be good to remember the goal was not to piss LE off, they should try not to take it personal but they are caught in the middle, crappy spot to be in. Quiet protests no one notices aren't all that effective really, I vote for the smoking hot chicks carrying long guns.
47823
osok-308
08-02-2014, 18:29
I hate these attention whores.
This^^ why on earth do people try to do this?
Chad4000
08-02-2014, 18:44
I am amazed at the patience those 2 officers displayed. Extremely professional throughout.
Even though that had no reason to contact. .....
Are you kidding? I wouldn't pass through Aurora without a shotgun! [ROFL1]
I had the same thought. In all seriousness though, these types are not helping the cause, in general, but I'm very reluctant to bitch about them exercising their rights at the same time. I like how the cops responded in this case.
Even though that had no reason to contact. .....
As was previously pointed out, police are obligated to respond when some idiot calls in a MWaG. This twit went out looking for a confrontation, and he got one. He was a dick to the cops(very confrontational, despite being relatively polite), so they responded in kind. There's a big difference between carrying a shotgun slung over your shoulder, and walking down the street with one in your hands, much like the difference between a holstered pistol and having one in your hand. Based on his baby faced appearance, the cops had reasonable suspicion that he was a minor in possession of a firearm, and thus had cause to stop him and investigate. People like this do nothing except draw the attention of the antigun crowd, getting them motivated to "close the loophole" that allows for open carry.
I hate these threads where people pretend to be about freedom, Second Amendment and the Constitution then trash other people for engaging in perfectly legal behavior because some drama queens got their panties in a twist. If we actually believed in freedom we'd tell the drama queens that their ruffled feathers are just worthless shenanigans and perhaps they'd quit. I grew up walking down the road with a shotgun but the world had a few less pussies in it and a few less people afraid to tell them to STFU.
These are the words of a 2A supporter, gun owner and freedom lover? [Puke]
"He's making me look bad!!!" No he's not he's making himself look bad if anything but he's not breaking the law and some crying nimbys make us eat our own, pathetic.
I think you should take those rose colored glasses off, this kid did it with the INTENTION of gathering attention and getting police attention. Why do you think he recorded it and sounded so rehearsed? He knew what he was doing.
Let's take two examples from recent history, Starbucks and Chipotle now have a policy against guns, when they were "neutral" to begin with. Doing what these morons do is merely BAD practice and only passes more laws. I stand by what I said and I am a proud supporter of the 2A, I just don't tolerate stupid. :)
The issue escalated because the kid would not show his ID, NOT because of the shotgun.
Took Aurora PD 20 minutes to respond to a 911 call I made at Chambers and Hampden a few years back for a bunch of armed men breaking down my neighbor's door.
Was Krispy Kreme still open then?[ROFL1]
Probably not at midnight.
Lets cut the crap. He isn't walking around with a shotgun and a camera because he wants to "defend himself." He's doing it to get his 15 min of fame. Its as simple as that.
So why did he mention he had been assaulted. Should a woman that has been raped just let it go and not get a CCW or training in self defense? Even if he had not, it shouldn't take something bad happening to you to protect yourself. Do you total a car and then get insurance coverage on the next one?
i believe it was mentioned he had been contacted 8 time by LEO. If I'm contacted that much I'm sure as shit recording everything. I would want proof of what was said, the actions taken etc. especially if I'm in the right. 2 cops word against yours, a lost dash cam tape and a beat down and arrest due to a shotgun involved? That would never happen....or maybe a dead elk after a few texts. I don't need to search to far to find multiple stories like that.
so maybe he wants to get some exposure because he is wrongly being contacted, he wants people to be aware. And I'll mention again, he is 18, he can't get a handgun or a CCW. Powhatan do you suggest he do? The law allows him to carry his shotgun, yet you guys are calling him an attention whore. Pretty sad.
Let's take two examples from recent history, Starbucks and Chipotle now have a policy against guns, when they were "neutral" to begin with. Doing what these morons do is merely BAD practice and only passes more laws. I stand by what I said and I am a proud supporter of the 2A, I just don't tolerate stupid. :)
The issue escalated because the kid would not show his ID, NOT because of the shotgun.
I think the credit also goes to the liberal folks that have nothing better to do than harass companies that don't fit their mold, just like chik-fil-a.
and I agree on the ID thing. He should have definitely just gave it and got it over with. I have no issue with the recording at all, protection for him.
But calling him stupid I think goes too far for the reasons in my above post. this is his only option for LEGAL self defense with a firearm. Maybe we need to change the law to allow 18+ handguns and CCW permits.
Maybe we need to change the law to allow 18+ handguns and CCW permits.
If you can send them to war to use handguns, why cant they be trusted with them at home?
If people dont like what he is doing then fight to have the law changed to allow handgun conceal carry for 18 year olds. The fact that an 18 year old can go buy an AR but can't buy a revolver does not seem to make a bunch of sense. What problem does this law solve?
Really hoping November is good to us and we can get Constitutional Carry in Colorado. No reason to have to pay fees in order to put my glock in my pocket or backpack while hiking. Afterall, all firearm transfers go through a background check right? No need to double check.
newracer
08-02-2014, 23:53
Hey he does have a point. Being 18, a handgun is not an option. Constitutional Carry nationwide where a firearm is viewed as a firearm at 18 would solve this problem and the ones in Texas too. After all, he did pass two democrat approved background checks at the state and federal levels.
Actually at 18 you can open carry a handgun.
Sorry. Wrong. I don't care if it's legal. You choose to "open carry" a loaded shotgun or rifle in the city you are a retard. Cops have a legitimate reason to contact him because of multiple 911 calls. Plus he is walking through Aurora with a shotgun. Apparently he does not have a father figure in his household. Someone needs to take his shotgun away and explain to him why he is wrong. This might entail judicious use of a belt or Hot Wheels track.
SuperiorDG
08-03-2014, 06:21
Sorry. Wrong. I don't care if it's legal. You choose to "open carry" a loaded shotgun or rifle in the city you are a retard. Cops have a legitimate reason to contact him because of multiple 911 calls. Plus he is walking through Aurora with a shotgun. Apparently he does not have a father figure in his household. Someone needs to take his shotgun away and explain to him why he is wrong. This might entail judicious use of a belt or Hot Wheels track.
Not the Hot Wheels track!!
Whistler
08-03-2014, 08:13
Sorry. Wrong. I don't care if it's legal. You choose to "open carry" a loaded shotgun or rifle in the city you are a retard. Cops have a legitimate reason to contact him because of multiple 911 calls. Plus he is walking through Aurora with a shotgun. Apparently he does not have a father figure in his household. Someone needs to take his shotgun away and explain to him why he is wrong. This might entail judicious use of a belt or Hot Wheels track.
^this is why I bother to take the time to post in these threads, can you not see this mindset is infinitely more dangerous to our cause than a kid with a shotgun?
Exercising your right is only half the equation, to have and keep freedom you must defend the other persons right to that freedom even if you disagree with how they exercise it.
Maybe if I describe how it sounds to me; I have the right to carry a shotgun, I have the right to carry the shotgun in town, the gun is "legal" and I am "legal" but you think it's "retarded" behavior, pisses you off so he should have his gun taken away and be beaten because "you don't like" the way he's doing nothing legally wrong. Do you really see nothing wrong with that?
How about you decide to grill burgers in your yard, not a right but a legal behavior. All your neighbors decide it's "retarded" for you to have a fire "right there in the middle of town!" "it's scaring the kids and the dogs!" so they call LE. Every time you fire up your grill LE pays you a visit to check your grill, burgers, charcoal.. because of multiple 911 calls, wait what's this? Lighter fuel?!? Not because you are breaking any laws but because someone else just doesn't like the same things you do. Sounds "retarded" eh? What about the poor cops who have to deal with it over and over, do you think they should be pissed at you or the idiots calling them?
When I was growing up a common phrase I remember was "I disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it", when our supporters mirror our detractors the cause is lost. We'd do well to consider the larger issue and look past an immediate emotional response to the behavior or appearance.
A privilege is a special entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. It can be revoked in certain circumstances. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth.
HoneyBadger
08-03-2014, 08:17
^this is why I bother to take the time to post in these threads, can you not see this mindset is infinitely more dangerous to our cause than a kid with a shotgun?
Exercising your right is only half the equation, to have and keep freedom you must defend the other persons right to that freedom even if you disagree with how they exercise it.
Maybe if I describe how it sounds to me; I have the right to carry a shotgun, I have the right to carry the shotgun in town, the gun is "legal" and I am "legal" but you think it's "retarded" behavior, pisses you off so he should have his gun taken away and be beaten because "you don't like" the way he's doing nothing legally wrong. Do you really see nothing wrong with that?
How about you decide to grill burgers in your yard, not a right but a legal behavior. All your neighbors decide it's "retarded" for you to have a fire "right there in the middle of town!" "it's scaring the kids and the dogs!" so they call LE. Every time you fire up your grill LE pays you a visit to check your grill, burgers, charcoal.. because of multiple 911 calls, wait what's this? Lighter fuel?!? Not because you are breaking any laws but because someone else just doesn't like the same things you do. Sounds "retarded" eh? What about the poor cops who have to deal with it over and over, do you think they should be pissed at you or the idiots calling them?
When I was growing up a common phrase I remember was "I disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it", when our supporters mirror our detractors the cause is lost. We'd do well to consider the larger issue and look past an immediate emotional response to the behavior or appearance.
AMEN.
hghclsswhitetrsh
08-03-2014, 08:20
We don't call the police if someone is driving the speed limit and using their turn signals, and a car is scary too! Sometimes I wonder if we are on the same team here. I don't open carry often but I believe you should be able to exercise your rights.
I don't like hippie speak but I don't think they should be silenced because I don't approve of their opinion.
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 08:25
^this is why I bother to take the time to post in these threads, can you not see this mindset is infinitely more dangerous to our cause than a kid with a shotgun?
Exercising your right is only half the equation, to have and keep freedom you must defend the other persons right to that freedom even if you disagree with how they exercise it.
Maybe if I describe how it sounds to me; I have the right to carry a shotgun, I have the right to carry the shotgun in town, the gun is "legal" and I am "legal" but you think it's "retarded" behavior, pisses you off so he should have his gun taken away and be beaten because "you don't like" the way he's doing nothing legally wrong. Do you really see nothing wrong with that?
How about you decide to grill burgers in your yard, not a right but a legal behavior. All your neighbors decide it's "retarded" for you to have a fire "right there in the middle of town!" "it's scaring the kids and the dogs!" so they call LE. Every time you fire up your grill LE pays you a visit to check your grill, burgers, charcoal.. because of multiple 911 calls, wait what's this? Lighter fuel?!? Not because you are breaking any laws but because someone else just doesn't like the same things you do. Sounds "retarded" eh? What about the poor cops who have to deal with it over and over, do you think they should be pissed at you or the idiots calling them?
When I was growing up a common phrase I remember was "I disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it", when our supporters mirror our detractors the cause is lost. We'd do well to consider the larger issue and look past an immediate emotional response to the behavior or appearance.
fucking well said...
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 08:33
As was previously pointed out, police are obligated to respond when some idiot calls in a MWaG. This twit went out looking for a confrontation, and he got one. He was a dick to the cops(very confrontational, despite being relatively polite), so they responded in kind. There's a big difference between carrying a shotgun slung over your shoulder, and walking down the street with one in your hands, much like the difference between a holstered pistol and having one in your hand. Based on his baby faced appearance, the cops had reasonable suspicion that he was a minor in possession of a firearm, and thus had cause to stop him and investigate. People like this do nothing except draw the attention of the antigun crowd, getting them motivated to "close the loophole" that allows for open carry.
as previously pointed out... cops need to know the law. they need to make good judgment calls based on what they hear and see for themselves. This man was doing nothing illegal. in several of these types of videos, the cops check to see what the call was about, and they go on their way... these cops were more confrontational then the kid. and yes, probably trying to bring attention to himself but also the fact that we are treated like lepers for open carrying.
and you cant simply look at the guy and call it a reasonable suspicion.... remember, innocent till proven guilty. not the other way around my friend...
Oh no, another clown spotted in public? Outlaw the clowns! They scare women and children. "No intelligent person would want to be a clown," said the man with the big red nose and oversized shoes. [panic]
Crime is an activity, not an expression.
Be safe.
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 08:40
For those too dense to get it this is the problem. That we have reached a point where a right can only be exercised under police scrutiny and "contact" (I love those fuzzy little euphemisms). In other words yes you have the right but no you can't exercise it unless you want to have "contact" with LE and prove you aren't doing anything wrong.
Let's put it in context of the First Amendment, you'd be the first to scream if every time you made a statement overheard by your neighbor or seen on your blog he disagreed with they called the law who then made "contact" with you. Do you not perceive some chilling effect to the exercise of that right? It's called intimidation and LE is being used to legitimize persecution and demonization of individuals who exercise their 2A rights. It's a side-door method for effectively achieving an anti-gun agenda without support of legislation.
I'm not blaming LE in this scenario and what happened after "contact" is on that kid. I am saying LE should not have been called to start with and we need at some point to hold people accountable for making the call, creating the fuss. The "see something, say something" mentality is certainly 1938 Germany and sadly I'm afraid you are pissed at the wrong people. If I have the right to walk down the road with my shotgun I should not be subject to any interference not even well-intentioned LE "contact". I don't have the time or the energy to go get arrested and try to get on TV to protest this but I'm not going to join the antis in condemning a guy that does. I personally think the bar needs to be just a bit higher before my accuser can send LE to "contact" me.
If it becomes common place to confront everyone with a gun because "it scared someone" it discourages exercise of that right and eventually becomes the norm which leads to elimination of that right. I mean "why do you need it? nobody does it" Let's be mad at the right people here, not the guy exercising a right (attention whore or not, doesn't matter if you like him) but the people making a federal case of it, calling 911 and generally acting like a teenage girl seeing her first...
another great post.. well said..
Bailey Guns
08-03-2014, 08:43
Frankly, people like this kid who open carry a long gun in town looking for a confrontation tend to piss me off. I'm not convinced his motives were altruistic in terms of simply and innocently exercising a "right". As to whether or not he has a "right" or a "privilege" to open carry is up for debate but I think Whistler makes some good points.
Is open carry a right in Colorado or a privilege? After all the state allows local jurisdictions to restrict this behavior and even recent supreme court decisions have mentioned guidelines on where/how gov't can restrict our 2A rights. Regardless of what I or anyone else thinks about our 2A rights or any others, they aren't absolute. You and I may think they are but they aren't...at least according to the highest court in the land. You can stand on principle all you want until the gov't satisfies a court(s) that what you did was illegal. Right or wrong, that's the way it is.
I don't think it's completely unreasonable the police contacted this kid and requested his ID just to make sure he was acting within the current law. And yes, in this case, I don't think it would have been unreasonable for him to simply provide his ID, prove his age, and go on his way. But no, he had a point to make and by God, he was gonna make it...on YouTube for everyone to see.
So my position is I think he has the privilege to carry the gun in public, not the right. At least according to the way the law is written. That privilege is subject to verification. It's no different than lawfully carrying a concealed handgun and having an officer who contacts you ask for ID and your permit and even disarming you temporarily. They are allowed to do that after all. And remember, others have rights and privileges, too. So a reasonable compromise that satisfies everyone needs to be reached and I think the police in this instance went above and beyond in trying to reach that compromise.
The kid needs to grow up and learn some life lessons in my opinion.
MarkUSMC88
08-03-2014, 09:14
In today's world, the police are in a no-win position in situations such as this. If they don't investigate and the gun toting dude is a deranged killer, they will have been in a position to investigate and disarm the future killer and save lives, but didn't. The police department and the officers will be eaten alive by the media.
If they do investigate the person they are demonized for attempting to get identification on someone without reasonable articulable suspicion. And, YouTube videos like this exist.
I think, the solution is to make contact like these officers did, field interview and show patience. Then, if the person goes on to be a deranged killer, they will have some protection from liability as given by the citizens constitutional rights blanketed by the officers response to calls for concern. It's a balance
Whistler
08-03-2014, 09:31
In my opinion it's not about this kid but no argument he should not direct his frustration at LE. Sometimes LE is complicit in discouraging legal behavior they (or their bosses) disagree with but I don't think that's the case here. Occasionally we see courts overturn various restrictions on firearm rights and these restrictions are the point of concern, at the very least we shouldn't allow a de facto "stop & frisk" policy to germinate. Not the case here but the potential is great. I think the courts have validated the right to carry but allowed too much discretion in restrictions to that right for "government concern/interest". There are some pretty interesting discussions on the 'net regarding the courts interpretations of right vs privilege but I think principal is all there is to stand on to bring about change.
Gotta go with both Bailey & MarkUSMC88 on this one. I'll say again, these officers handled this as well as could be expected. Had they not questioned him and he then walked into some establishment and murdered several people, most of us would be critical of the police not following up on this. We would be calling out the media for blaming the gun when they should be blaming LE.
As for an 18 year old being able to purchase a handgun and applying for a concealed carry, I have always believed that we can go to war at 18 and should be able to own and carry a handgun. Anything else just does not make sense to me.
Aloha_Shooter
08-03-2014, 09:40
It would be perfectly legal and just as intelligent to go swimming off the Great Barrier Reef in a seal suit right after chumming the waters. Legal-but-stupid is the kind of thing that gets legal-and-reasonable regulated then banned.
Bailey Guns
08-03-2014, 10:18
It's already been mentioned that an 18 yoa can own, possess and open carry a handgun in Colorado so that's really not an issue. And until last year they could purchase one privately. So he did have the option of carrying a handgun if he could come about one legally, ie: a gift from parents.
What most people forget is that with every right comes an obligation to exercise it in a responsible manner. Freedom of speech is not unlimited, it is restricted by both statute and social custom. The right to open carry (for self defense) is governed by the same principals. What this kid is doing is equivalent to yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. I'm not at all questioning his right to carry for self defense, but doing so in such a manner as to deliberately provoke a confrontation with police is both irresponsible and unproductive, IMO.
Bailey Guns
08-03-2014, 10:28
There are some pretty interesting discussions on the 'net regarding the courts interpretations of right vs privilege but I think principal is all there is to stand on to bring about change.
Well, that's all fine and good but are you willing to give up your freedom when the state satisfies a court that what you did was illegal? I'm not saying that might never be the case but is it in a situation like this? Especially when you have other options for lawfully carrying a firearm for your protection. I'd fight and die for a lot of things but I don't think there's anything wrong with picking your battles either.
In my opinion this is not a battle I'd fight...a simple matter of showing a polite officer that it was legal for me to be carrying a gun in public is not worth going to jail over. Seriously...what's the kid losing in the long run? A few minutes of his time. He lost more by extending the contact for as long as he did and may have made things worse for the next guy that does this. I don't think providing the police ID in this situation is moving us closer to a police state nor is it infringing on any freedoms. I certainly don't feel like I've lost anything over this other than maybe some goodwill by the police in Aurora.
osok-308
08-03-2014, 10:35
Even though that had no reason to contact. .....
Police don't NEED a reason to contact. They need a reason to detain or arrest.
In today's world, the police are in a no-win position in situations such as this. If they don't investigate and the gun toting dude is a deranged killer, they will have been in a position to investigate and disarm the future killer and save lives, but didn't. The police department and the officers will be eaten alive by the media.
If they do investigate the person they are demonized for attempting to get identification on someone without reasonable articulable suspicion. And, YouTube videos like this exist.
I think, the solution is to make contact like these officers did, field interview and show patience. Then, if the person goes on to be a deranged killer, they will have some protection from liability as given by the citizens constitutional rights blanketed by the officers response to calls for concern. It's a balance
They can also not act like smug assholes. While the kid was cringeworthy, they could have presented themselves better by not just laughing in his face.
Whistler
08-03-2014, 11:38
Well, that's all fine and good but are you willing to give up your freedom when the state satisfies a court that what you did was illegal? I'm not saying that might never be the case but is it in a situation like this? Especially when you have other options for lawfully carrying a firearm for your protection. I'd fight and die for a lot of things but I don't think there's anything wrong with picking your battles either.
In my opinion this is not a battle I'd fight...a simple matter of showing a polite officer that it was legal for me to be carrying a gun in public is not worth going to jail over. Seriously...what's the kid losing in the long run? A few minutes of his time. He lost more by extending the contact for as long as he did and may have made things worse for the next guy that does this. I don't think providing the police ID in this situation is moving us closer to a police state nor is it infringing on any freedoms. I certainly don't feel like I've lost anything over this other than maybe some goodwill by the police in Aurora.
I think if the state wants to it's likely they can satisfy a court anything you did was illegal. I'd hope this wouldn't come to a fight and die situation, my thought is nip it in the bud, avoid the slippery slope greased by tolerance/acceptance of any infringements. Much like the onerous restrictions recently rolled back for our north-eastern cousins that unchecked such things evolve to be. We can't let the chickens set the rules for the barnyard just so they won't be noisy, chickens are simply noisy.
I wouldn't fight this situation, no percentage in it and most of my comments are aimed at getting folks to understand when it comes to freedom the hard part is letting the other guy have his, to hold freedom one must defend it for everyone, even people we don't like. Dissecting this specific situation I don't think it was handled well, he had a bit of an ax to grind, etc. but that's a far cry from calls to take his firearm and generally berating the guy for exercising a legal right which speaks to the bigger issue of the perceptions of our peers. Honestly I don't see this kid doing much except being a radical attention seeking kid as they (we?) are/were prone to do at that age. I really find this particular encounter less than interesting, my ire is at my peers condoning censure of expressing rights we hold precious. My passion is for the topic, I'm not advocating a life and death struggle over a 18 year old with a chip on his shoulder.
This individual was behaving in an irresponsible, immature, and arrogant manner, "patrolling" his neighborhood while displaying a shotgun to passing motorists . . . who had NO IDEA what his motivation was. If you want to defend this spoiled ignoramus and "defend his right" to brandish a loaded firearm on the side of a busy road then you are part of the problem. I would not be surprised to see this clown on the front page within the next couple of years for doing something thoughtless which resulted in casualties. If he wanted to "patrol" some dirt road out in the mountains, fine, but he was at a major intersection in the middle of the city. No training, no uniform, no legitimate reason he could articulate for brandishing that weapon other than "I want people to pay attention to me." But some folks would prefer to defend his "right" than admit his behavior is troublesome and makes gun owners look bad. I would not defend this idiot's behavior. Just because something is technically legal doesn't mean you should do it, and be congratulated for doing it. Honestly, would you want to go shooting with this guy? Would you want him dating your daughter? Something is seriously wrong with that kid.
Whistler
08-03-2014, 13:17
Who could argue with that logic? Time to mow grass, drink beer.
This was a political statement. When the officer asked the kid if he was trying to make some type of statement with the filming and open carrying, the officer essentially acknowledged that he understood what was going on.
Political protest/statements often make people feel uncomfortable; see lunch counters in the south during the 1960's. Just because a statement makes you feel uncomfortable doesn't make the speaker wrong, ignorant, irresponsible, etc... Whether I agree with the statement or not, I will defend the citizen's right to make that statement.
The officers had a duty to investigate. They did so and IMO, they quickly established that this was not a violent criminal who either just committed or was about to commit a crime. The one officer correctly assessed the situation. Asking for ID or additional information is appropriate. If the information asked for is not given, then send the young man on his way. If there are unresolved concerns, keeping a periodic or concentrated observation on the young man may be appropriate based on the unresolved concern. Part of police work is assessing situations, resolving issues and clearing scenes as quickly and efficiently as possible. If these officers had calls backing up, they were not operating efficiently by spending more time with the young man.
My $.02.
Be safe.
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 15:11
They can also not act like smug assholes. While the kid was cringeworthy, they could have presented themselves better by not just laughing in his face.
agreed....
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 15:21
Police don't NEED a reason to contact. They need a reason to detain or arrest.
Fine... but either way, they didn't have a reason to contact... and after they did, they could have just realized he posed no threat and moved along just like the other officers that have contacted him before..
also, the idea that had he been gifted a handgun is entirely irrelevant... nobody gave him a handgun. soooo,,, he bought a shotgun so that he could protect himself after an assault.
osok-308
08-03-2014, 15:48
Fine... but either way, they didn't have a reason to contact... and after they did, they could have just realized he posed no threat and moved along just like the other officers that have contacted him before..
also, the idea that had he been gifted a handgun is entirely irrelevant... nobody gave him a handgun. soooo,,, he bought a shotgun so that he could protect himself after an assault.
TBH it's both sides acting like idiots in a d**k measuring contest. The police do have reason to contact if they've received calls. When I say contact, I mean have a discussion with him, not act like fools. The guy is clearly doing it to be obnoxious, but being obnoxious is not a crime. The problem is guys like this who are giving gun owners a bad name and it's cops like this who give cops a bad name.
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 16:42
TBH it's both sides acting like idiots in a d**k measuring contest. The police do have reason to contact if they've received calls. When I say contact, I mean have a discussion with him, not act like fools. The guy is clearly doing it to be obnoxious, but being obnoxious is not a crime. The problem is guys like this who are giving gun owners a bad name and it's cops like this who give cops a bad name.
that works for me lol
"The Open Carry idiots are the WWE of the gun world."
That made me laugh.
I still say they are *not* on our side.
NISQ7Aeq9OQ
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 16:46
I think a lot of the in-fighting on this side of the political spectrum has been whats caused this problem for us all. The republicans do more fighting with each other then they do trying to win elections.
as far as this topic is concerned, if we were going to pick a baseline that we should 100% agree with,,, shouldn't it the be constitution? The guy was all legal...
I think these people are just going to get dumb laws passed because of their actions and i truly dislike these open carry protesters but i have to be partly on their side because i truly value the Colorado and United States Constitution. What he did was not illegal and the entire argument about having to show his ID was BS, the article totally skipped over what a terry stop is. Nobody can be accused of a crime for no reason but he was. The obstruction to an investigation clam was also total BS in turn.
Legally the kid was in the right and the police were in the wrong. However logically this kid was in the wrong and i hate to say it but the police were too. If he never has anything to ruffle feathers on you tube he would quite his worthless shenanigans.
This is pretty close to my feelings. Making yourself a target is just not good for anybody but then again this should not be making yourself a target but obviously it does in light of the shootings and other idiots with guns..... Arrrggg. The cops seemed to handle this pretty well. It is a case of (interestingly) both sides being both right and wrong at the same time.... End result nobody wins and it puts all of our gun rights in more danger. The whole thing just sucks that we even have to deal with it.
I think a lot of the in-fighting on this side of the political spectrum has been whats caused this problem for us all. The republicans do more fighting with each other then they do trying to win elections.
as far as this topic is concerned, if we were going to pick a baseline that we should 100% agree with,,, shouldn't it the be constitution? The guy was all legal...
Nah, we should nitpick and call this guy an attention whore, an idiot, a YouTube tool etc. just like the fudds when they saw those 30 round mags and those assault rifles. Ain't nobody need to use an assault rifle on a deer or a scary looking tactical shotgun for shooting birds. I don't like those so I don't care if those guys go to jail or get them taken away. Won't be my problem because I've got my Remington 700 deer gun and my 870 shotgun.
stoner01
08-03-2014, 17:26
I think a lot of the in-fighting on this side of the political spectrum has been whats caused this problem for us all. The republicans do more fighting with each other then they do trying to win elections.
as far as this topic is concerned, if we were going to pick a baseline that we should 100% agree with,,, shouldn't it the be constitution? The guy was all legal...
So are the westboro baptists.
For those who have not seen the young man from Aurora and would like to play the "How Old Does He Look" game, here is a brief news story with an interview of Mr. Lohner: http://kdvr.com/2014/08/01/aurora-teen-walks-on-busy-streets-with-shotgun-videotapes-encounters-with-police/
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 17:34
Nah, we should nitpick and call this guy an attention whore, an idiot, a YouTube tool etc. just like the fudds when they saw those 30 round mags and those assault rifles. Ain't nobody need to use an assault rifle on a deer or a scary looking tactical shotgun for shooting birds. I don't like those so I don't care if those guys go to jail or get them taken away. Won't be my problem because I've got my Remington 700 deer gun and my 870 shotgun.
exactly...
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 17:37
So are the westboro baptists.
so as a "responsible" gun owner and 2a advocate,, you are comparing a man open carrying, to the westboro Baptists....
kinda sums up what Im talking about... we need to stick together guys.. and lambasting a guy for open carrying isn't where that starts....
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 17:41
For those who have not seen the young man from Aurora and would like to play the "How Old Does He Look" game, here is a brief news story with an interview of Mr. Lohner: http://kdvr.com/2014/08/01/aurora-teen-walks-on-busy-streets-with-shotgun-videotapes-encounters-with-police/
is the point here that you think cops should be able to determine whether or not somebody might have committed a crime literally based on the way they look?
(not sure what side of the argument youre on sorry if I assumed something)
osok-308
08-03-2014, 17:44
I think a lot of the in-fighting on this side of the political spectrum has been whats caused this problem for us all. The republicans do more fighting with each other then they do trying to win elections.
as far as this topic is concerned, if we were going to pick a baseline that we should 100% agree with,,, shouldn't it the be constitution? The guy was all legal...
He was legal. That is true. If in this situation again, I'd only suggest that this kid give his ID, not on the grounds that anything wrong was done on his part, but it's the old adage "you catch more flies with honey than you do sugar". If we as citizens show the police and others how helpful gun owners can be. That way, gun owners are not seen as the extremists, the anti-gunners are. If you show people how normal gun owners are, there won't be as much of the stigma that there is.
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 17:45
He was legal. That is true. If in this situation again, I'd only suggest that this kid give his ID, not on the grounds that anything wrong was done on his part, but it's the old adage "you catch more flies with honey than you do sugar". If we as citizens show the police and others how helpful gun owners can be. That way, gun owners are not seen as the extremists, the anti-gunners are. If you show people how normal gun owners are, there won't be as much of the stigma that there is.
totally fine with that.. and that's exactly what I would have done myself...
Jumpstart
08-03-2014, 17:55
Cops have to follow the rules too.
The only possible crime I heard articulated was possession of a firearm by a minor (under 18). If the police have reasonable suspicion that a crime has, is, or will be committed, and they are investigating, then under the Hiibel decision (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-5554) police may demand a name and date of birth in states that have "stop and identify" laws on the books. Colorado does have such a statute, CRS 16-3-103(1).
It really doesn't matter where I stand on this argument...see arguing on the Internet.
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 18:04
The only possible crime I heard articulated was possession of a firearm by a minor (under 18). If the police have reasonable suspicion that a crime has, is, or will be committed, and they are investigating, then under the Hiibel decision (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-5554) police may demand a name and date of birth in states that have "stop and identify" laws on the books. Colorado does have such a statute, CRS 16-3-103(1).
It really doesn't matter where I stand on this argument...see arguing on the Internet.
slippery slope much?? I don't know what you look like, but I think you look under 18.. so give me your ID....
and ..".It really doesn't matter where I stand on this argument...see arguing on the Internet" and yet youre here arguing your point ;)
For those who have not seen the young man from Aurora and would like to play the "How Old Does He Look" game, here is a brief news story with an interview of Mr. Lohner: http://kdvr.com/2014/08/01/aurora-teen-walks-on-busy-streets-with-shotgun-videotapes-encounters-with-police/
LOL, ok, he looks like he's slightly younger... I would like to make a video now..... who's got a camera that can make a semi professional video with me? I want to stage this same kind of stop, with my 5 year old (carrying an airsoft that we will play as real). I want the same questions as the cops asked, but with the emphasis of age. I can get my 5 year old to do the whole "prove it" game too. I think that would be hilarious. I can see him saying it now "I'm not doing anything illegal, you don't have the right to stop me because I don't 'look' 18" lol. So, come on, who's in?
On a more serious note, the cops were in a hard spot, the kid does look like he just got his drivers license, so he could pretty easily be suspected of carrying illegally. Did the cops have the "right" to stop him? Well the off the wall second amendment supporters would say no, but the kid looks like a child still..... probable cause of suspicion of under age possession of a firearm? Who knows. The kid however was just being another dip shit with a gun trying to "make a statement" which is the wrong friggen thing for the rest of us. It's dumb shit like this dip shit that keeps putting us a step back. I open carry, and have for years and years. The *only time I was ever stopped was by an officer that wanted to check out my firearm that I was passing on the street (it was my highly polished USP). He didn't ask my name for the entire encounter. He just compared his Glock, to my Hk. Of course, I am usually with my family, and I don't look like a dumb ass while carrying.........
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 18:25
^^^
I just want you to say that you are ok with cops looking at you, and based on how you look, coming to the conclusion that you might be committing a crime.
will you say it like that for us??
^^^
I just want you to say that you are ok with cops looking at you, and based on how you look, coming to the conclusion that you might be committing a crime.
will you say it like that for us??
Stand next to a car with a broken window, with a hammer in your hand, surrounded by vehicle glass shards, and yes, the cops will look at you like you are a criminal. Expect to answer a few questions.
Justice may be blind, but police officers shouldn't be.
DavieD55
08-03-2014, 18:30
Nah, we should nitpick and call this guy an attention whore, an idiot, a YouTube tool etc. just like the fudds when they saw those 30 round mags and those assault rifles. Ain't nobody need to use an assault rifle on a deer or a scary looking tactical shotgun for shooting birds. I don't like those so I don't care if those guys go to jail or get them taken away. Won't be my problem because I've got my Remington 700 deer gun and my 870 shotgun.
No kidding.
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 18:31
Stand next to a car with a broken window, with a hammer in your hand, surrounded by vehicle glass shards, and yes, the cops will look at you like you are a criminal. Expect to answer a few questions.
Justice may be blind, but police officers shouldn't be.
what you described is entirely different then what we are debating.....
and remember,, INNOCENT until proven guilty....
The police had every right to make a decision on whether they believed the young man was a minor or not. If they had reasonable suspicion that he was a minor then they had a right to ask him for his name and date of birth.
That is the current law in Colorado.
Don't like it, change it.
Bailey Guns
08-03-2014, 18:40
RACIST!
There. Can we end this now before it gets more stupid?
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 18:41
The police had every right to make a decision on whether they believed the young man was a minor or not. If they had reasonable suspicion that he was a minor then they had a right to ask him for his name and date of birth.
That is the current law in Colorado.
Don't like it, change it.
ahhhhhh ok.. say I were to agree with that, and want to change the perception of the law that I currently don't like. which might actually (eventually) lead to real change... youtube-ing an interaction like that,,,, might be literally the best way to do that.
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 18:42
RACIST!
There. Can we end this now before it gets more stupid?
[MOD: ENOUGH! Members comment edited. The comment was made in gest and you're taking and using it to turn the conversation into a race-based issue. Don't we have enough issueswithout creating our own?]
Can we end this now before it gets more stupid?
Too late......
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 19:24
Too late......
say about post 3? ;)
(edited to include the fact that was meant as a joke.. just wanted to be clear!)
Aloha_Shooter
08-03-2014, 19:41
ahhhhhh ok.. say I were to agree with that, and want to change the perception of the law that I currently don't like. which might actually (eventually) lead to real change... youtube-ing an interaction like that,,,, might be literally the best way to do that.
Just remember that part of civil disobedience is taking the consequences (funny how liberals and OWS-types forget that). Instead of being an agent provocateur like this idiot, how about you YouTube an effort to educate people on the inconsistencies in the law without brandishing a loaded firearm? How about organizing a neighborhood patrol and advise the police and neighborhood of it before going "on patrol"? How about NOT engaging in ostentatious conduct guaranteed to drive the neutrals firmly on the side of the gun banners?
Bailey Guns
08-03-2014, 20:09
It seems to me I remember something about an armed neighborhood watch guy going "on patrol" and checking out a suspicious guy with Skittles and a hoodie. Now who was that...?
It seems to me I remember something about an armed neighborhood watch guy going "on patrol" and checking out a suspicious guy with Skittles and a hoodie. Now who was that...?
I think this is going too far. Not to mention Zimmerman was acquitted and found to be within the law by a jury of his peers.
the typical anti-gunner probably considers all of us who are CCW permit holders, or just even gun owners in general, as blood thirsty zealots who should all be in prison.
So if you are 17 1/2 years old the second doesn't apply?
If the average citizen were to spot what appears to be an overweight 16 year old carrying a shotgun while glaring at motorists during rush hour at a busy intersection, they would probably call 911 to report it and I do not see how they could be faulted for doing so. That clearly appears to be an unstable individual carrying a shotgun in public. No legitimate reason to do this, so folks automatically assume he is probably up to no good. Apparently he has done this numerous times recently, every time he does this there are dozens of 911 calls, and the shotgun is loaded with live ammunition. Walking down the sidewalk carrying this. I do not see how this cannot be considered "disturbing the peace" and am wondering why he has not been given his 72 hour psych hold. Is he on psychiatric medication? Does he have a history of bedwetting and firesetting? What do his former teachers and classmates have to say about him? This is abnormal behavior. Being part of an organized open carry demonstration is one thing, but this is an idiot teenager with an overly permissive mother making poor choices and drawing a lot of negative attention to himself. But I'm an "anti-gun Libtarded Fudd" for thinking he should not be "exercising his rights" in this particular way? Maybe he'll carry it into the shopping mall next week, will that still be okay? What if a citizen confronts him over this, how do you think he'll react to that? He is a public nuisance.
Whistler
08-03-2014, 22:37
Thank you Clint, I rest my case.
clublights
08-03-2014, 22:41
If the average citizen were to spot what appears to be an overweight 16 year old carrying a shotgun while glaring at motorists during rush hour at a busy intersection, they would probably call 911 to report it and I do not see how they could be faulted for doing so. That clearly appears to be an unstable individual carrying a shotgun in public. No legitimate reason to do this, so folks automatically assume he is probably up to no good. Apparently he has done this numerous times recently, every time he does this there are dozens of 911 calls, and the shotgun is loaded with live ammunition. Walking down the sidewalk carrying this. I do not see how this cannot be considered "disturbing the peace" and am wondering why he has not been given his 72 hour psych hold. Is he on psychiatric medication? Does he have a history of bedwetting and firesetting? What do his former teachers and classmates have to say about him? This is abnormal behavior. Being part of an organized open carry demonstration is one thing, but this is an idiot teenager with an overly permissive mother making poor choices and drawing a lot of negative attention to himself. But I'm an "anti-gun Libtarded Fudd" for thinking he should not be "exercising his rights" in this particular way? Maybe he'll carry it into the shopping mall next week, will that still be okay? What if a citizen confronts him over this, how do you think he'll react to that? He is a public nuisance.
So one "man" standing alone deserves a 72 hour psych hold, And Full Mental work up .....
But a group of men doing it is all fine and dandy ...
Yeah that makes sense..
Great-Kazoo
08-03-2014, 22:41
what you described is entirely different then what we are debating.....
and remember,, INNOCENT until proven guilty....
INCORRECT.
You are Presumed Innocent until proven Guilty, IN A COURT of law. Until such time, you are a suspect, or a person of interest (and) what ever technical mumbo jumbo is used.
Until you are arrested. No where during the time of contact does Innocent apply. You are merely being asked questions, . That part is up to your legal representation to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, In Court.
Great-Kazoo
08-03-2014, 22:53
is the point here that you think cops should be able to determine whether or not somebody might have committed a crime literally based on the way they look?
(not sure what side of the argument youre on sorry if I assumed something)
They call that profiling.
Not sure your age bracket. I can tell you riding choppers, even a sedate electra-glide,, heavily tattooed, WITHOUT COLORS / No Patch holder in the 70's was justification for being pulled over. On block A, then again on d, g etc. You rode with a few folks. Full court press, guns drawn, other than gentle search of body and blatant reckless search of mc's and or other vehicles.
Out side your house cleaning your bike, 1 car for contact, 2 possibly a third, withing hand gun range. Forget about being black or a PR in my area. We still took the heat way before there was an outcry o,f Driving while Black.
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 23:09
Just remember that part of civil disobedience is taking the consequences (funny how liberals and OWS-types forget that). Instead of being an agent provocateur like this idiot, how about you YouTube an effort to educate people on the inconsistencies in the law without brandishing a loaded firearm? How about organizing a neighborhood patrol and advise the police and neighborhood of it before going "on patrol"? How about NOT engaging in ostentatious conduct guaranteed to drive the neutrals firmly on the side of the gun banners?
brandishing is a crime.... not even the cops there thought he was brandishing.... argument invalid. try again
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 23:10
I think this is going too far. Not to mention Zimmerman was acquitted and found to be within the law by a jury of his peers.
the typical anti-gunner probably considers all of us who are CCW permit holders, or just even gun owners in general, as blood thirsty zealots who should all be in prison.
yes
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 23:14
If the average citizen were to spot what appears to be an overweight 16 year old carrying a shotgun while glaring at motorists during rush hour at a busy intersection, they would probably call 911 to report it and I do not see how they could be faulted for doing so. That clearly appears to be an unstable individual carrying a shotgun in public. No legitimate reason to do this, so folks automatically assume he is probably up to no good. Apparently he has done this numerous times recently, every time he does this there are dozens of 911 calls, and the shotgun is loaded with live ammunition. Walking down the sidewalk carrying this. I do not see how this cannot be considered "disturbing the peace" and am wondering why he has not been given his 72 hour psych hold. Is he on psychiatric medication? Does he have a history of bedwetting and firesetting? What do his former teachers and classmates have to say about him? This is abnormal behavior. Being part of an organized open carry demonstration is one thing, but this is an idiot teenager with an overly permissive mother making poor choices and drawing a lot of negative attention to himself. But I'm an "anti-gun Libtarded Fudd" for thinking he should not be "exercising his rights" in this particular way? Maybe he'll carry it into the shopping mall next week, will that still be okay? What if a citizen confronts him over this, how do you think he'll react to that? He is a public nuisance.
read constitution. come back when ready.
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 23:16
INCORRECT.
You are Presumed Innocent until proven Guilty, IN A COURT of law. Until such time, you are a suspect, or a person of interest (and) what ever technical mumbo jumbo is used.
Until you are arrested. No where during the time of contact does Innocent apply. You are merely being asked questions, . That part is up to your legal representation to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, In Court.
[MOD: Getting defensive & personal in the response. Keep the conversation civil or back away from the keyboard.]
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 23:18
They call that profiling.
Not sure your age bracket. I can tell you riding choppers, even a sedate electra-glide,, heavily tattooed, WITHOUT COLORS / No Patch holder in the 70's was justification for being pulled over. On block A, then again on d, g etc. You rode with a few folks. Full court press, guns drawn, other than gentle search of body and blatant reckless search of mc's and or other vehicles.
Out side your house cleaning your bike, 1 car for contact, 2 possibly a third, withing hand gun range. Forget about being black or a PR in my area. We still took the heat way before there was an outcry o,f Driving while Black.
and was that pleasant? did you enjoy that? did that hinder your pursuit of happiness?
Great-Kazoo
08-03-2014, 23:25
well my friend.. who do the vast majority of these end in the cops going along there way then???
stop over thinking this for the purposes of sounding smart
It's not about sounding smart. It's about Innocent till Proven guilty, you tossed it out there.
Without sounding smart i believe it should be Why do the vast majority of these, end with the cops going along their way, then??
They received a call, multiple ones, perhaps. Do the cops not make contact? Do the cops not check to see if there's any warrants, DV or other restraining orders on said person?
Without wagering, you'd be one of the ones howling, IN CAPS . WHY didn't these cops do something, before he started shooting people.
Have a good evening, my smart pills is starting to wore off
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 23:30
It's not about sounding smart. It's about Innocent till Proven guilty, you tossed it out there.
Without sounding smart i believe it should be Why do the vast majority of these, end with the cops going along their way, then??
They received a call, multiple ones, perhaps. Do the cops not make contact? Do the cops not check to see if there's any warrants, DV or other restraining orders on said person?
Without wagering, you'd be one of the ones howling, IN CAPS . WHY didn't these cops do something, before he started shooting people.
Have a good evening, my smart pills is starting to wore off
without sounding like a prick.. it sounds like your smart pills wore off a few hours ago... you don't know me bud.... [MOD: Pushing it with this.]
already expressed in this thread that contact was alright (although I don't think it necessary). they find out the guy was legit, and move along... not these cops... something to prove?? at least as much as the guy posting to youtube? yeah for sure...
Great-Kazoo
08-03-2014, 23:32
and was that pleasant? did you enjoy that? did that hinder your pursuit of happiness?
Many a time my happiness was greatly hindered. It became a game, after time. All part of life, you guys don't know how easy you have it..
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 23:36
Look up my feed back, ask any of the guys where i live, Tell them i said it was ok. copy this thread for verification. Drop by for lunch, Bud.
well pal.. why don't you pm me your address or phone number? Id love to meet.. dinner morrow night? Ill buy
[MOD: The implication here is clear and makes this the post that got the thread closed.]
Aloha_Shooter
08-03-2014, 23:37
8-9-106. Disorderly conduct
(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.
(3) An offense under(1)(f) of this section is a class 2 misdemeanor.
Seems pretty obvious to even a (reasonable) Second Amendment advocate that he was displaying a deadly weapon. However, this is just a class 2 misdemeanor and his real intent was obviously to create a media circus. The officers may simply have decided to not feed his desire for publicity by running him in over a misdemeanor. Of course, I'm not a lawyer and actual statutes don't mean a thing when you're being intentionally obtuse.
Chad4000
08-03-2014, 23:40
Seems pretty obvious to even a (reasonable) Second Amendment advocate that he was displaying a deadly weapon. However, this is just a class 2 misdemeanor and his real intent was obviously to create a media circus. The officers may simply have decided to not feed his desire for publicity by running him in over a misdemeanor. Of course, I'm not a lawyer and actual statutes don't mean a thing when you're being intentionally obtuse.
thank you for googling disorderly conduct when you claimed he was brandishing... different violations mind you but hey... try to prove your point?
you really ok with police officers deciding what laws they uphold? if he was brandishing then he was.. should have been charged like that...
Since there are laws that establishes a minimum age limit for possessing alcohol, tobacco, or a firearm, isn't it reasonable to expect an officer investigating an individual in possible violation of said laws to require proof of age?
Show some ID and be on your way.
Since there are laws that establishes a minimum age limit for possessing alcohol, tobacco, or a firearm, isn't it reasonable to expect an officer investigating an individual in possible violation of said laws to require proof of age?
Show some ID and be on your way.
If the police had reasonable suspicion that Mr. Lohner was under 18, and therefore committing a crime by possessing a firearm, the Hiibel decision in the US Supreme Court supports the police in requiring even a pedestrian provide their name and DOB in states that have "stop and ID" laws. Colorado has a "stop and ID" law, therefore, if you refuse to provide name and DOB, under these circumstances you can be charged with obstruction of justice.
Either the DA's office will dismiss the charge or Mr. Lohner will go to trial or plead.
When I looked at Mr. Lohner's photograph, I had reasonable suspicion he was under 18 years of age.
I support Mr. Lohner's right to make his political statement concerning open carry. I believe he is a poor candidate to carry the message until he can eliminate that reasonable doubt. Mr. Lohner appears to be affiliated with this group: http://www.copblock.org/ as well as an advocate of open carry. Sometimes people can dilute and confuse their political statement when they try to combine messages. Maybe in the future Mr. Lohner will choose to simplify his message and not combine his advocacy to the point that he alienates people who would naturally support him.
Also, Mr. Lohner should avail himself of good legal counsel prior to exercising his rights. This might also give him some insight on how he can strengthen his message and be a more effective spokesman for whichever cause he is representing.
Be safe.
Bailey Guns
08-04-2014, 09:38
^^ Give it up, man. The internet lawyers on this forum know way more than you do. [facepalm]
Chad4000
08-04-2014, 09:41
Bailey, you crack me up hahaah
^^ Give it up, man. The internet lawyers on this forum know way more than you do. [facepalm]
Too much? [LOL]
For those who do not know me, I am not an attorney and I do not provide legal advice. My opinions are my own and worth what you paid for them. I take my oath seriously and will not intentionally break it for anyone.
Be safe.
I like cake. [ROFL1]
Not in Aurora you don't.
thank you for googling disorderly conduct when you claimed he was brandishing... different violations mind you but hey... try to prove your point?
you really ok with police officers deciding what laws they uphold? if he was brandishing then he was.. should have been charged like that...
You keep using the term brandishing, in legal-speak, brandishing and displaying are two different concepts. I believe Aloha posted the CRS (which is actually 18-9-106) that states "display" not brandish. I believe you are confusing the terms display, brandish, and menace. Either way, display is simply doing just that, displaying. It's visible, to the public, and may or may not be intended to cause alarm, but in this day and age, anyone that isn't a LEO is bound to cause some people alarm if carrying a gun. I'm not saying it's right, but that's just the way the world is. Sharks may not attack many people each year, but most people are still afraid of them. Same concept.
Again, there is the big difference people can't seem to differentiate between... Free exercise of rights, which I'm all for, and trolling for a LE confrontation to make some point on YouTube. If he wasn't trolling, then why did he post the video? His rights weren't being "trampled" upon by the evil police state agents of tyranny, and he would have gone on his merry way had he not been so confrontational and saying what every OC person on YT says. And further, I don't know this kid from Adam, if I was someone walking around with a gun, regardless of their right or not, I don't trust them, and I would be wary of them and probably pay them a little more attention. They may be exercising their rights, not breaking any laws, but that doesn't mean I trust them... Lot of irresponsible gun owners out there, and many are 1 mistake or angry outburst away from doing something bad. Same with car owners, baseball bat owners, knife owners, and yes, even people who use their fists against others. Bottom line, I don't really trust anyone...
newracer
08-04-2014, 10:06
AURORA: Law barring juveniles from carrying guns no longer on the books
By BRANDON JOHANSSON, Staff Writer
08/01/14 4:18 pm :: Last updated: 08/01/14 4:26 pm
AURORA | When Aurora police stopped an 18-year-old man for carrying a shotgun Sunday — eventually citing him for obstruction when he refused to show ID — they apparently believed he may have been too young to tote the weapon.
But city law no longer bars juveniles from carrying a rifle or shotgun, said Deputy City Attorney George Zierk. The city used to have a law barring juveniles from possessing all firearms, he said, but that law was lifted. Zierk said he wasn’t sure when the city law changed, but said it likely was aimed at bringing city law in line with state law. Colorado still bars juveniles from possessing handguns in most cases.
Steve Lohner, the teen cited Sunday, is due in court next month on an obstruction charge. He said he refused to show his ID because he wasn’t breaking any law by carrying his 12-gauge shotgun down East Iliff Avenue.
A screen image from a YouTube video posted by an 18-year-old Aurora man. The man was carrying a 12-gauge shotgun on Colfax when contacted by police. He was charged with obstruction when he refused to tell police his name or show them his ID.
Police said they stopped Lohner Sunday afternoon near Iliff and South Buckley Road in part because they were;t sure he was old enough to possess a shotgun.
Gun rights advocates say because it didn’t matter what age Lohner is, police had no business stopping him.
“This young man was well within his rights. People’s fears don’t trump our Second Amendment rights,” said Danielle Thompson, a spokeswoman for Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, later adding that the right to carry a gun openly stretches far.
“A 10-year-old could walk down the street with a rifle, there is no law (against it),” she said.
Still, police said the incident Sunday with Lohner shows the difficult gray area officers face when confronted with people carrying guns openly.
Officer Frank Fania, a spokesman for the department, said that while the city law apparently allows juveniles to carry guns, they are still barred from purchasing guns. Plus, in Lohner’s case, one of the officers who stopped him recognized him as a witness in a previous burglary where guns were stolen. Officers needed to make sure the gun he had wasn’t connected to that case, Fania said.
All those variables — whether a person poses a threat, whether they are a felon, how old they are, their previous contacts with police, and their constitutional rights — have to be considered by officers in a matter of seconds, Fania said.
“This is what officers have to deal with when they come in contact with these people,” he said.
Lohner was stopped again on Thursday for carrying his shotgun in Horeshoe Park, a short distance from where he was cited Sunday. In that incident, he was not charged with a crime.
Steve Loner of Aurora in a picture he provided to the Aurora Sentinel. Police said they insisted on seeing his ID because he looked younger than 18, the legal age to carry a gun in Aurora.
Fania said officers are reviewing that incident, too, because there are questions about the legality of carrying a weapon in a city park.
Lohner, who recorded his interaction with police and posted it to youtube.com, said Thursday he regularly carries the gun for protection. He said he has had more than a dozen run-ins with police for doing so, but was never cited before.
On the video and in police reports, officers said they needed Lohner’s ID to determine whether he was old enough to possess the gun.
While legal experts said the case could hinge on whether Lohner looked 18, it’s unclear whether that will in fact matter when Lohner goes to court next month considering city law does;t bar people under 18 from having a gun.
Lohner said he plans to fight the charge.
Not in Aurora you don't.
Yet another instance of the pieist Man trying to keep us oppressed cake lovers down...Imma stage a protest!
I'd almost like to see this youngster open carry his gun in front of some schools, just outside of the school property of course, which would be legal. Just so he can school (with video again of course) law enforcement on his "rights". My take on all of these types of things is there are "your rights" and then there is "common sense". Two completely different things. The latter being something we see less and less of.
Too much? [LOL]
For those who do not know me, I am not an attorney and I do not provide legal advice. My opinions are my own and worth what you paid for them. I take my oath seriously and will not intentionally break it for anyone.
Be safe.
Thank you for the good info. Your previous post was the Best post in this thread
hghclsswhitetrsh
08-04-2014, 10:38
Common sense and common sense gun laws... Sounds familiar.
Bailey Guns
08-04-2014, 10:47
I'm gonna OC my cake. Takin' it right to the man. It's my right.
I'd almost like to see this youngster open carry his gun in front of some schools, just outside of the school property of course, which would be legal. Just so he can school (with video again of course) law enforcement on his "rights". My take on all of these types of things is there are "your rights" and then there is "common sense". Two completely different things. The latter being something we see less and less of.
Yeah, this breed of trol...er...OC'ers are a bunch of fucking morons.
"it's his right!"
Running around in 30 below weather in nothing but a speedo is your right too, but don't expect any support when you go do just that and the climate kicks you right in the nuts. Given the 2a climate out here, what the fuck do you expect? Seriously. One of the downfalls of being pro 2a today is that we are in the minority so we have to play things a little smarter than some idiot with a camera running around with a long gun strapped to his and/or her ass.
Aloha_Shooter
08-04-2014, 10:53
I don't use Google but yes, I pulled up the statutes through a search since apparently some people don't seem to know how to do it. As far as I can tell, there is no specific Colorado statute addressing "brandishing" -- I used the term originally because that's how the lawyer and police sergeant at a recent seminar said they drew a distinction between someone who was carrying openly or engaging in disorderly conduct. I believe they used the term colloquially as people in the audience were smart enough to know the difference between someone carrying openly in a holster and someone who has an apparently loaded firearm in hand and out of the case/holster, ready to use.
Note there wasn't even a hint of an allegation that Mr. Lohner was menacing which is the only other charge available for "brandishing" but menacing is a felony and requires specifically pointing the gun at someone, making a threat, etc. which Lohner clearly wasn't doing.
Deciding whether to charge someone with disorderly conduct -- and enduring all the paperwork involved -- requires the officer in question to apply some judgment. I don't mind that; in fact, when it's clear the person in question just wants some video to stir up the Internet mob, it's best not to give him/her what s/he wants. I think it's perfectly fine for the officer to make a judgment call, especially on misdemeanors -- letting some people go with a warning (for example) for doing 5-10 mph over the speed limit when it's clear they were paying attention to the road rather than the speedometer.
Not everything legal is smart, nor is everything smart legal. I happen to hold to the camp that what Lohner did was not smart, was in fact counter-productive to his stated cause of reaffirming our rights under the Second Amendment. Some here clearly hold a different opinion and no amount of evidence or reasoning is going to change that.
Chad4000
08-04-2014, 11:59
You keep using the term brandishing, in legal-speak, brandishing and displaying are two different concepts. I believe Aloha posted the CRS (which is actually 18-9-106) that states "display" not brandish. I believe you are confusing the terms display, brandish, and menace. Either way, display is simply doing just that, displaying. It's visible, to the public, and may or may not be intended to cause alarm, but in this day and age, anyone that isn't a LEO is bound to cause some people alarm if carrying a gun. I'm not saying it's right, but that's just the way the world is. Sharks may not attack many people each year, but most people are still afraid of them. Same concept.
Again, there is the big difference people can't seem to differentiate between... Free exercise of rights, which I'm all for, and trolling for a LE confrontation to make some point on YouTube. If he wasn't trolling, then why did he post the video? His rights weren't being "trampled" upon by the evil police state agents of tyranny, and he would have gone on his merry way had he not been so confrontational and saying what every OC person on YT says. And further, I don't know this kid from Adam, if I was someone walking around with a gun, regardless of their right or not, I don't trust them, and I would be wary of them and probably pay them a little more attention. They may be exercising their rights, not breaking any laws, but that doesn't mean I trust them... Lot of irresponsible gun owners out there, and many are 1 mistake or angry outburst away from doing something bad. Same with car owners, baseball bat owners, knife owners, and yes, even people who use their fists against others. Bottom line, I don't really trust anyone...
the other guy alleged that the kid was brandishing.. thats why I was referencing that
Chad4000
08-04-2014, 11:59
AURORA: Law barring juveniles from carrying guns no longer on the books
By BRANDON JOHANSSON, Staff Writer
08/01/14 4:18 pm :: Last updated: 08/01/14 4:26 pm
AURORA | When Aurora police stopped an 18-year-old man for carrying a shotgun Sunday — eventually citing him for obstruction when he refused to show ID — they apparently believed he may have been too young to tote the weapon.
But city law no longer bars juveniles from carrying a rifle or shotgun, said Deputy City Attorney George Zierk. The city used to have a law barring juveniles from possessing all firearms, he said, but that law was lifted. Zierk said he wasn’t sure when the city law changed, but said it likely was aimed at bringing city law in line with state law. Colorado still bars juveniles from possessing handguns in most cases.
Steve Lohner, the teen cited Sunday, is due in court next month on an obstruction charge. He said he refused to show his ID because he wasn’t breaking any law by carrying his 12-gauge shotgun down East Iliff Avenue.
A screen image from a YouTube video posted by an 18-year-old Aurora man. The man was carrying a 12-gauge shotgun on Colfax when contacted by police. He was charged with obstruction when he refused to tell police his name or show them his ID.
Police said they stopped Lohner Sunday afternoon near Iliff and South Buckley Road in part because they were;t sure he was old enough to possess a shotgun.
Gun rights advocates say because it didn’t matter what age Lohner is, police had no business stopping him.
“This young man was well within his rights. People’s fears don’t trump our Second Amendment rights,” said Danielle Thompson, a spokeswoman for Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, later adding that the right to carry a gun openly stretches far.
“A 10-year-old could walk down the street with a rifle, there is no law (against it),” she said.
Still, police said the incident Sunday with Lohner shows the difficult gray area officers face when confronted with people carrying guns openly.
Officer Frank Fania, a spokesman for the department, said that while the city law apparently allows juveniles to carry guns, they are still barred from purchasing guns. Plus, in Lohner’s case, one of the officers who stopped him recognized him as a witness in a previous burglary where guns were stolen. Officers needed to make sure the gun he had wasn’t connected to that case, Fania said.
All those variables — whether a person poses a threat, whether they are a felon, how old they are, their previous contacts with police, and their constitutional rights — have to be considered by officers in a matter of seconds, Fania said.
“This is what officers have to deal with when they come in contact with these people,” he said.
Lohner was stopped again on Thursday for carrying his shotgun in Horeshoe Park, a short distance from where he was cited Sunday. In that incident, he was not charged with a crime.
Steve Loner of Aurora in a picture he provided to the Aurora Sentinel. Police said they insisted on seeing his ID because he looked younger than 18, the legal age to carry a gun in Aurora.
Fania said officers are reviewing that incident, too, because there are questions about the legality of carrying a weapon in a city park.
Lohner, who recorded his interaction with police and posted it to youtube.com, said Thursday he regularly carries the gun for protection. He said he has had more than a dozen run-ins with police for doing so, but was never cited before.
On the video and in police reports, officers said they needed Lohner’s ID to determine whether he was old enough to possess the gun.
While legal experts said the case could hinge on whether Lohner looked 18, it’s unclear whether that will in fact matter when Lohner goes to court next month considering city law does;t bar people under 18 from having a gun.
Lohner said he plans to fight the charge.
Kind of mic drop situation huh guys???
they thought he might be committing a crime that isn't even a crime....
PugnacAutMortem
08-04-2014, 12:01
I'd almost like to see this youngster open carry his gun in front of some schools, just outside of the school property of course, which would be legal. Just so he can school (with video again of course) law enforcement on his "rights". My take on all of these types of things is there are "your rights" and then there is "common sense". Two completely different things. The latter being something we see less and less of.
There's actually quite a large area around school grounds where open carry isn't legal. I don't remember what the exact area is, but I know that I used to live on a street that the houses across the street backed to an elementary school. I was legal to open carry on my lawn and driveway, but if I were to step foot on the sidewalk it would have been illegal.
There's actually quite a large area around school grounds where open carry isn't legal. I don't remember what the exact area is, but I know that I used to live on a street that the houses across the street backed to an elementary school. I was legal to open carry on my lawn and driveway, but if I were to step foot on the sidewalk it would have been illegal.
That's kind of the way it is in a town I grew up in. The schools grounds, so to speak, were defined by a certain distance from the schools. Don't remember for sure, I think it was 100 feet. So students that smoked, etc. couldn't be just across the street. I wouldn't know what they thought about guns except it was long enough ago that we had guns in our vehicles if we were heading out after school to hunt. Nobody gave it a second thought. Early 70's.
Kind of mic drop situation huh guys???
they thought he might be committing a crime that isn't even a crime....
Nonetheless, given that CO is a "stop and ID" state, they needed no other reason to initiate a contact, and they charged him with misdemeanor obstruction because he refused to identify himself. The kid is correct that carrying a shotgun openly is not a crime. Failing to identify himself to a police officer when requested is, technically.
Nonetheless, given that CO is a "stop and ID" state, they needed no other reason to initiate a contact, and they charged him with misdemeanor obstruction because he refused to identify himself. The kid is correct that carrying a shotgun openly is not a crime. Failing to identify himself to a police officer when requested is, technically.
...if the police are investigating a crime and they have reasonable suspicion that the person they are talking to has, is, or will commit a crime.
Reasonable suspicion is based on the information that a reasonable person would have at the time they made the decision. I will refrain from speculating on what the officers knew or did not know at the time they cited Mr. Lohner.
Now we wait to see what happens in the Aurora Municipal Court. [Pop]
...if the police are investigating a crime and they have reasonable suspicion that the person they are talking to has, is, or will commit a crime.
Reasonable suspicion is based on the information that a reasonable person would have at the time they made the decision. I will refrain from speculating on what the officers knew or did not know at the time they cited Mr. Lohner.
Now we wait to see what happens in the Aurora Municipal Court. [Pop]
Would a MWAG 911 call be reasonable suspicion of a possible or imminent crime?
buffalobo
08-04-2014, 18:22
I'm gonna OC my cake. Takin' it right to the man. It's my right.
You're not really on our side and you're gonna get cakes banned. [emoji33]
lobbed from my electronic ball and chain
SideShow Bob
08-04-2014, 18:31
You should have heard the ruckus from some of the employees at the nursing home my wife works at when off duty DPD officer in street clothes bent down to retrieve a pillow that fell to the floor and his off duty weapon became exposed while pushing his mother around the facility.
The wife was laughing her ass off when she told me about it. She said half the staff ran away once someone screamed " Oh My Dog, He has a Gun !!!" and said the other half of the staff just stood there wide eyed in shock and dang near pee'd themselves.
The wife said she was laughing so hard at everyone that she actually pee'd herself a little.
this place is Not posted "No Firearms" at any entrance.
Would a MWAG 911 call be reasonable suspicion of a possible or imminent crime?
If that was all the information given, IMO, the answer would be "no." If after receiving the dispatch, I rolled onto the block and a male was walking about the street waving a gun in the air, yelling obscenities, appeared to be under the influence, and most importantly was wearing less clothing than anyone else... I would have to say, "yes" I'm pegged on the reasonable suspicion meter and pushing right up to the probable cause scale.
Most of law enforcement is observation and assessment. No one does it right all of the time and getting it wrong sometimes has tragic consequences for everyone involved.
He was suspected of having a penis, making him a potential rapist.
Bailey Guns
08-04-2014, 20:18
...and said the other half of the staff just stood there wide eyed in shock and dang near pee'd themselves.
Don't be alarmed. That's a tried and true defensive maneuver that's highly effective against violent people.
Great-Kazoo
08-04-2014, 21:08
Don't be alarmed. That's a tried and true defensive maneuver that's highly effective against violent people.
No whistles ?
theGinsue
08-04-2014, 23:40
I was ready to close this thread because of the hatefulness that was getting posted. Since things appear to have chilled, I'll leave it open for discussion - but DO NOT resume the personal comments towards other members.
Sometimes it's not so much herding cats as it is running a daycare.
ChunkyMonkey
08-05-2014, 00:02
I was ready to close this thread because of the hatefulness that was getting posted. Since things appear to have chilled, I'll leave it open for discussion - but DO NOT resume the personal comments towards other members.
Sometimes it's not so much herding cats as it is running a daycare.
You arent supposed to be herding cats w/ that GAVEL. How are you doing man?
3beansalad
08-05-2014, 06:16
The police had every right to make a decision on whether they believed the young man was a minor or not. If they had reasonable suspicion that he was a minor then they had a right to ask him for his name and date of birth.
That is the current law in Colorado.
Don't like it, change it.
Yes, but this should have been their opening not something they get to after 4 and a half minutes of "contact."
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
KestrelBike
08-05-2014, 07:36
He was suspected of having a penis, making him a potential rapist.
I had an English teacher in high school that defined the penis as "A Weapon" (I wish I had thought of a *Rapier* joke). She resigned a couple years later to go teach in Manhattan.
Funny how no one in America cares if a bunch of fresh faced kids carry any and all kinds of weapons in some rinky-dink,tin can, piss hole, 3rd world country, but God forbid they (fresh faced kids) sling a shotgun on them in the land of the free and the home of the brave. If were going to demonize him because all he wanted was attention then I supose we should get our panties in a wad over all the other attention grabbing stuff that folks do to get attention. Women should wear more clothes, and we should all drive bumper sticker free beige Prius's.
Sorry. Wrong. I don't care if it's legal. You choose to "open carry" a loaded shotgun or rifle in the city you are a retard. Cops have a legitimate reason to contact him because of multiple 911 calls. Plus he is walking through Aurora with a shotgun. Apparently he does not have a father figure in his household. Someone needs to take his shotgun away and explain to him why he is wrong. This might entail judicious use of a belt or Hot Wheels track.
Since we have a volunteer, please explain why what he is doing is wrong. One could argue that the legal excercise of a natural, constitutional right should not be infringed, or questioned. Also who exactly should take away his shotgun? If he hasnt broken a law then the taking of his firearm against his permission would be theft. Im pretty sure your not implying your ok with theft. Also if you are ok with someone taking his guns from him I'm sure you would be ok with someone taking yours as well. No?
Since we have a volunteer, please explain why what he is doing is wrong. One could argue that the legal excercise of a natural, constitutional right should not be infringed, or questioned. Also who exactly should take away his shotgun? If he hasnt broken a law then the taking of his firearm against his permission would be theft. Im pretty sure your not implying your ok with theft. Also if you are ok with someone taking his guns from him I'm sure you would be ok with someone taking yours as well. No?
One of the criticisms going around about this kid is not so much what he is doing, but how he is doing it. It's been established that he is 10% carrying his shotgun for protection, and 90% trolling for a "bad cop, open carry confrontation" video to post up to YouTube. I even would like to call this kid an asshat to his face when he tells the officer that he's filming for his protection and that he won't post it to YouTube. *cough*bullshit*cough*. I never said he broke the law, but he did go into that situation already on the defensive when he didn't need to. So many stand their ground and state "I'll never show the police my ID if I don't have to." Why? Kind of reminds me of those aboriginal folks that believed if you took their picture you'd steal their soul. Does showing a cop your ID somehow steal your freedom? I'd really like to know why people are so opposed to providing ID... I'm betting more than half the time it's just so the cop knows who they're talking to/provide a name for their report. The few times I've provided my ID the cop never ran my name and DOB for wants/warrants.
One of the criticisms going around about this kid is not so much what he is doing, but how he is doing it. It's been established that he is 10% carrying his shotgun for protection, and 90% trolling for a "bad cop, open carry confrontation" video to post up to YouTube. I even would like to call this kid an asshat to his face when he tells the officer that he's filming for his protection and that he won't post it to YouTube. *cough*bullshit*cough*. I never said he broke the law, but he did go into that situation already on the defensive when he didn't need to. So many stand their ground and state "I'll never show the police my ID if I don't have to." Why? Kind of reminds me of those aboriginal folks that believed if you took their picture you'd steal their soul. Does showing a cop your ID somehow steal your freedom? I'd really like to know why people are so opposed to providing ID... I'm betting more than half the time it's just so the cop knows who they're talking to/provide a name for their report. The few times I've provided my ID the cop never ran my name and DOB for wants/warrants.
I apologize for any confusion, that post was directed towards Clint 45. My problem with the whole kid is a douche, ass clown, immature punk, ass-hat, shit bag, dick head, idiot, fool, clown etcetera, is simple; legal is legal. And if someone, especially members of a pro gun rights forum can insinuate that regardless of legality what he did wrong then I think the other side has gotten to us a bit more than we would care to admit.
My name? FNU LNU, maybe you've heard of me?
If I wasn't going to run your name, I wouldn't ask for your ID. I've seen enough DMV photos, your's isn't special.
Whistler
08-07-2014, 12:43
Ronin let me put it another way;
I don't care why the kid was carrying - his reasons are his own
I don't care what happened after he was contacted - it's really not the issue here, I'd have handled it differently by just cooperating at that point
I don't care if the kid was an asshat - the asshattery is not in question
I don't believe the reasons cited for the stop - reasons are not always reasons, sometimes they are rationalizations or excuses and are defined after the fact
I do care he was stopped wholly due to crybaby complaints (IMO)
I do care about the precedent of tacit acceptance of this tactic
I do care he is discouraged from exercising a protected right
I do care LE resources are being misused in this fashion
I do not want it to become [more] commonplace/accepted for LE to stop anyone anytime, question and request ID based on reactionary accusations (yes I know the current "law" in this regard). I doubt LE wants to be a pawn in that game either.
I don't care if the "contact" is 2 minutes or 25 minutes it is an unwarranted disruption of my business for no discernible "compelling/substantial public interest" if I'm not behaving in a threatening or unlawful manner. The duration or level of inconvenience is irrelevant.
I do care that this precedent has historically resulted in substantially more Draconian restrictions, discouragement tactics. (e.g. stop & frisk)
I do not consider it an effective use of LE resources and though I don't blame LEO individually, they are complicit by their actions of assessing priority to someone's desire to "feel safe" as opposed to observing a Constitutionally protected right.
I'm well aware of the current climate regarding gun control, I'm painfully aware that many of my peers approve of this investigative activity however I'm also aware that the climate is what we allow it to be and we do ourselves no favors by quietly accepting it or demeaning someone for "making waves". I find a distinct parallel between this incident and the situation we find ourselves in of otherwise rational people shouting for submission and refraining from exercising a right won and held by blood to placate a noisy group of fear mongers.
I don't think this is a good case to leverage for our cause but that doesn't change the way I feel toward protecting our rights and freedoms from baseless accusation and infringement. The dismissive "that's just the way it is now-a-days" is simply not good enough IMO.
I'm also aware my position is somewhat idealistic and I've beat this poor horse enough, thanks for listening.
Chad4000
08-07-2014, 15:45
Ronin let me put it another way;
I don't care why the kid was carrying - his reasons are his own
I don't care what happened after he was contacted - it's really not the issue here, I'd have handled it differently by just cooperating at that point
I don't care if the kid was an asshat - the asshattery is not in question
I don't believe the reasons cited for the stop - reasons are not always reasons, sometimes they are rationalizations or excuses and are defined after the fact
I do care he was stopped wholly due to crybaby complaints (IMO)
I do care about the precedent of tacit acceptance of this tactic
I do care he is discouraged from exercising a protected right
I do care LE resources are being misused in this fashion
I do not want it to become [more] commonplace/accepted for LE to stop anyone anytime, question and request ID based on reactionary accusations (yes I know the current "law" in this regard). I doubt LE wants to be a pawn in that game either.
I don't care if the "contact" is 2 minutes or 25 minutes it is an unwarranted disruption of my business for no discernible "compelling/substantial public interest" if I'm not behaving in a threatening or unlawful manner. The duration or level of inconvenience is irrelevant.
I do care that this precedent has historically resulted in substantially more Draconian restrictions, discouragement tactics. (e.g. stop & frisk)
I do not consider it an effective use of LE resources and though I don't blame LEO individually, they are complicit by their actions of assessing priority to someone's desire to "feel safe" as opposed to observing a Constitutionally protected right.
I'm well aware of the current climate regarding gun control, I'm painfully aware that many of my peers approve of this investigative activity however I'm also aware that the climate is what we allow it to be and we do ourselves no favors by quietly accepting it or demeaning someone for "making waves". I find a distinct parallel between this incident and the situation we find ourselves in of otherwise rational people shouting for submission and refraining from exercising a right won and held by blood to placate a noisy group of fear mongers.
I don't think this is a good case to leverage for our cause but that doesn't change the way I feel toward protecting our rights and freedoms from baseless accusation and infringement. The dismissive "that's just the way it is now-a-days" is simply not good enough IMO.
I'm also aware my position is somewhat idealistic and I've beat this poor horse enough, thanks for listening.
now that's the best post in this thread....
Aloha_Shooter
08-07-2014, 16:21
I apologize for any confusion, that post was directed towards Clint 45. My problem with the whole kid is a douche, ass clown, immature punk, ass-hat, shit bag, dick head, idiot, fool, clown etcetera, is simple; legal is legal. And if someone, especially members of a pro gun rights forum can insinuate that regardless of legality what he did wrong then I think the other side has gotten to us a bit more than we would care to admit.
I think many of us have said before that just because it's legal doesn't mean it's smart; stupid is stupid. It's not a matter "the other side has gotten to us a bit more than we would care to admit." Someone carrying an uncased apparently loaded shotgun down a city street got people's attention even in the most open carry times and places of our nation's history. It should be perfectly legitimate to point out when someone has damaged our collective cause with foolish attention-seeking ass-hattery; especially when accompanied with other examples of legal-but-stupid as have been cited repeatedly here.
The ass-hattery is in question because it invariably results in restrictions on non-asshat actions -- or are some of you saying you have never restricted a whole group of people from something when one of them has been foolish? I'm going to throw a BS flag down if you're parents with more than one kid and claim this. It's the ass-hattery, not the "precedent", that has resulted in Draconian restrictions.
Bailey Guns
08-07-2014, 16:22
Ronin let me put it another way;
I don't care why the kid was carrying - his reasons are his own
Well, you should. People do all sorts of stupid things with guns that affect the rest of us in the long run.
I don't care what happened after he was contacted - it's really not the issue here, I'd have handled it differently by just cooperating at that point
Same reason as above.
I don't care if the kid was an asshat - the asshattery is not in question
Yep...that's his right. And many people will look upon him as a typical gun owner and I'd rather not be guilty by association with this kid.
I don't believe the reasons cited for the stop - reasons are not always reasons, sometimes they are rationalizations or excuses and are defined after the fact
Exactly. Which is what you're doing. We all do it on occasion. But it's possible the reasons were valid, too.
I do care he was stopped wholly due to crybaby complaints (IMO)
You don't have any way of knowing that. You don't know what the kid did that might've caused a call to the PD. He may have been doing something as simple as moving the gun from one shoulder to the other and it looked odd or threatening or he may have inadvertently pointed it at someone. We're only getting part of the story on which to base our opinions.
I do care about the precedent of tacit acceptance of this tactic
I think you're making more of this than you should. I doubt this incident is going to embolden the Aurora PD to become more anti-freedom or anti-gun.
I do care he is discouraged from exercising a protected right
It didn't sound like he was discouraged to me. He said he's done it many times before and will continue to do it. How is that discouraging?
I do care LE resources are being misused in this fashion
You don't know the half of it until you've worked patrol in a metro city district. Trust me. And his attitude is part of the big picture, overall problem.
I do not want it to become [more] commonplace/accepted for LE to stop anyone anytime, question and request ID based on reactionary accusations (yes I know the current "law" in this regard). I doubt LE wants to be a pawn in that game either.
Again...you don't know what they were told or what led to the individual(s) calling the police. I don't see this as a catalyst for the police arbitrarily stopping/questioning people. I see it as an isolated incident precipitated by a very immature individual.
I don't care if the "contact" is 2 minutes or 25 minutes it is an unwarranted disruption of my business for no discernible "compelling/substantial public interest" if I'm not behaving in a threatening or unlawful manner. The duration or level of inconvenience is irrelevant.
I do care that this precedent has historically resulted in substantially more Draconian restrictions, discouragement tactics. (e.g. stop & frisk)
That's what happens when people do stupid shit whether you think it's stupid or not. Again...he's not helping the cause in the slightest.
I do not consider it an effective use of LE resources and though I don't blame LEO individually, they are complicit by their actions of assessing priority to someone's desire to "feel safe" as opposed to observing a Constitutionally protected right.
Yes, they're compelled to do "something" because this is what the public demands of police these days. And God help them if they blew this kid off and he shot someone.
I'm well aware of the current climate regarding gun control, I'm painfully aware that many of my peers approve of this investigative activity however I'm also aware that the climate is what we allow it to be and we do ourselves no favors by quietly accepting it or demeaning someone for "making waves". I find a distinct parallel between this incident and the situation we find ourselves in of otherwise rational people shouting for submission and refraining from exercising a right won and held by blood to placate a noisy group of fear mongers.
It's not so much that I (and maybe others) approve of the investigative activity. It's that we disapprove of people being stupid with guns. You think he wasn't...many think he was. And regardless, good luck changing the minds of the fearful sheep. They've always been out there and they always will. We don't have to give up freedoms and rights because of them, we just need to act responsibly and police our own. That would go a long way to solving this problem.
I don't think this is a good case to leverage for our cause but that doesn't change the way I feel toward protecting our rights and freedoms from baseless accusation and infringement. The dismissive "that's just the way it is now-a-days" is simply not good enough IMO.
I'm also aware my position is somewhat idealistic and I've beat this poor horse enough, thanks for listening.
Somewhat??? :)
Whistler
08-07-2014, 17:31
Uhhh... okay [facepalm]
Bailey Guns
08-07-2014, 17:39
Profound...
Whistler
08-07-2014, 18:29
Nah I've beat it to death, not profound, facetious.
United States of America circa 1770's.*
48045 48047 48049
United States of America circa 2010's. **
48051 4805348055
Afghanistan circa 2010's. ***
480574805948061
* These guys fought and died for the birth of a nation that recognized the natural God-given right to keep and bear arms.
** These three American citizens all faced legal battles, Law Enforcement contact, detainment, and or questioning. For exercising a right. That was/is legal. That the above fought and died for.
*** These guys are fighting in Afghanistan to hopefully improve a third world shit-hole and keep their friends and themselves alive for the next several months. As well as protect the American people.
United States of America circa 1770's.*
48045 48047 48049
United States of America circa 2010's. **
48051 4805348055
Afghanistan circa 2010's. ***
480574805948061
* These guys fought and died for the birth of a nation that recognized the natural God-given right to keep and bear arms.
** These three American citizens all faced legal battles, Law Enforcement contact, detainment, and or questioning. For exercising a right. That was/is legal. That the above fought and died for.
*** These guys are fighting in Afghanistan to hopefully improve a third world shit-hole and keep their friends and themselves alive for the next several months. As well as protect the American people.
I agree with all these, but IMO this guy in Aurora does not fit in any of these categories.
SuperiorDG
08-07-2014, 20:11
It's amazing a 18 year old kid could provoke such dialog.
Uhhh... okay [facepalm]
Nah I've beat it to death, not profound, facetious.
I just read all that as, "Bailey hit me with some straight up logical shit and I have no response to give because he totally just raped my mind."
In other words.... Bailey +1, Whistler -20.
Sorry 'bout your bad luck, but Bailey is 100% right.
Post #166.....
Bailey - thanks for the best post in this thread.
I agree with all these, but IMO this guy in Aurora does not fit in any of these categories.
The picture of the guy in the light blue shirt IS THE guy in question.
Whistler
08-07-2014, 20:58
I just read all that as, "Bailey hit me with some straight up logical shit and I have no response to give because he totally just raped my mind."
In other words.... Bailey +1, Whistler -20.
Sorry 'bout your bad luck, but Bailey is 100% right.
Well thanks for your ridiculous analysis but Bailey's points and mine were made and disputed throughout the thread, we grown-ups call that a "discussion".
Why does no one have a problem with 18-20 year old Men and Women carrying all types of weaponry in Afghanistan, but then have an issue with a 18 year old lawfully carrying a shotgun in the US of A?
Why does no one have a problem with 18-20 year old Men and Women carrying all types of weaponry in Afghanistan, but then have an issue with a 18 year old lawfully carrying a shotgun in the US of A?
Probably because of the reasons behind their carrying of the weapon... [facepalm]
I was ready to close this thread because of the hatefulness that was getting posted. Since things appear to have chilled, I'll leave it open for discussion - but DO NOT resume the personal comments towards other members.
Sometimes it's not so much herding cats as it is running a daycare.
Every point has been said. It's getting repetitious. I think we are done here now
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.