Originally Posted by EthanEdwards
Originally Posted by MacLorry
Originally Posted by Bluedreaux
ML, the cop said the guy wasn't free to leave. The guy was detained. That's actually the very definition of "detained".


You would get that overall impression from the video, but the details show it's a false impression.

In the course of this discussion I've been through the video several times and the first time the guy asks if he's being detained (5:02) the cop says "No, but when we get calls..." and then we hear a long discussion the guy seems egger to have, which is contact. The next time the guy asks if he's being detained the conversation between the guy and cop Horn goes like this as best I can make out given others in the video are also talking at the same time. If you disagree, check it out for yourself.

14:54
Guy: Am I being detained or am I free to go?
Horn: Get with your father and go.
Guy: No, am I free to proceed on foot?
Horn: No you're not, because...
Guy talking over the cop: Okay, what are you charging me with?
Horn continuing his answer: ...because you are causing a disturbance to the public you're disturbing the peace...
Guy: Okay, I'm willing to continue with him (father)

The guy accepted Horn's explanation of why he couldn't continue on foot. That's not detention. The guy was free to go with his father, but not free to violate the local ordinance of disturbing the peace. That's like being in the median and asking a cop "Am I fee to go" and the cop saying "go to the traffic light and cross there" and then you say "no, am I free to cross here" and the cop saying "no you're not because that's J walking" and then you saying "okay, I'll go up to the traffic light and cross there". That's not detention.

If you assume the guy was knowledgeable about the law then his quick agreement to go with his father shows that he believed the cop was right about the local ordinance. Disturbing the peace ordinances are highly subjective and some may want to argue that the guy wouldn't be disturbing the peace had he continued on foot. I'm not going to argue that point because it would be a "what if", as the guy did not challenge the use of that ordinance on the video, so it's irrelevant.

Bottom line, there was no detention at any point in the video, only contact.
So does he have the right to open carry or not? Because the implication in your post here is that the "right" of the public to not be disturbed is greater than his right to carry openly.

It seems to me that a much better approach would have been to acknowledge that he has the right to carry openly but that there is a lot of traffic right there and people unused to seeing this right are creating a disturbance themselves, so would he please exercise the right in a different place, where there isn't so much of a chance of people being killed watching him do so, or would he please conceal his gun? Rights and activism are great but not at the expense of human life even if that human is stupid.

Personally I just think the cop wanted to push somebody around. He hadn't filled his quota of pushing folks around that day yet.


Bake on page 16 I was trying to explore that same idea with the following:

Originally Posted by MacLory
One question I still have is how a constitional right is impacted by public safety. The classic example is the 1st amendment not protecting someone from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, unless of course, there is a fire.

What if a good looking woman not known to be a prostitute is wearing the least clothing permitted by law and is properly walking on the left side of a busy street such as seen in the OP's video. Certainly it's reasonable to assume some drivers would be distracted, and thus, increase the likelihood of an accident. Assuming her activity was generating 911 calls, does public safety trump her right to walk along that street in that manner? Does it matter why she's walking there? What if she is putting on a show as she walks (exaggerated hip movement, bouncing, etc)? If there is an accident on that street at that time, does the woman have any liability?

Apart from male cops wanting to get a closer look, and perhaps her phone number, what would be the proper response from law enforcement?


I didn't get any responses, but maybe others will chime in now that you also brought up the public safety issue.