Posted on 08/10/2013 7:15:45 PM PDT by marktwain
With a .45 caliber legally strapped to his side, Jordan McManus decided to photograph the federal courthouse in Phoenix last night, realizing he would probably draw attention from police, especially after reading about Raymond Michael’s experience last May.
But he was still a little surprised when a police helicopter hovered over him with a spotlight as two patrol cars pulled up next to him and another two cops approached him on foot.
They immediately tried to disarm him, but he refused to let them do it as it is legal to open carry in Arizona.
Then they tried to pat him down, which didn’t make sense considering he was already showing a firearm. But he wouldn’t let them do that either.
“You’re carrying a firearm and taking a picture of a federal building,” the cop exclaimed, trying to justify the pat down.
Then they demanded to know who he was, but didn’t get anywhere with that either.
Here is a portion of the exchange:
“Am I being detained right now?” McManus asks.
“Absolutely you are, yes,” the cop responds.
“You have reasonable suspicion that I committed a crime, right?
“Well, I’m concerned …”
“You’re concerned. Are you detaining me?”
“I am,” he says weakly.
“Under the suspicion that I committed what crime?”
“I don’t know yet. You’re not giving us any information.”
And there you have the reason why police are always demanding to see people’s identification even though the people are not breaking the law. It gives them a hope that if they run your name through their system, they will find a bench warrant and have an excuse to arrest you.
(Excerpt) Read more at photographyisnotacrime.com ...
I give the police pretty good marks for no violence, reasonably polite actions, and no arrest. The site has the video.
Force multiplier at least 25 to 1, or was it more? And the helicopters? Interesting.
Kudos for the calmness. They probably had him ready to pick off at the word, is why.
Taking a picture of public property or legally carrying a gun... which part of this is illegal?
/johnny
I disagree with the approach here...what was the guy trying to prove?
I’m not going to open carry even if its legal...why?
Us good guys will be going “gray” soon, no sense painting a bulls-eye on your/our forehead.
Granted it’s just bad form to be rude for rudeness sake. But no, none of it.
Helicopters are expensive to fly, something like thousands of dollars per hour.
Someone locally needs to try and demand the city/county justify this expensive use of a helicopter.
Tend to agree... I get tired of drama queening whether it’s the left or the “good guys.” Go make sport somewhere you won’t get some nellies nervous.
“Us good guys will be going “gray” soon, no sense painting a bulls-eye on your/our forehead.”
Too late. You have already done so by posting the above post.
/johnny
Was he being rude? The story before the link doesn’t sound like he was very rude.
If enough people exercise their rights, lurking becomes unnecessary.
Man, there has to be some happy medium between cowering and gratuitously shocking folks. I don’t think THIS was it.
I think this guy is an *sshole for deliberately baiting the police, putting them on guard for no good reason, calling them out unnecessarily, costing taxpayers money, and giving everyone normal who conceals and carries a bad name. This guy is a big, big jerk. And he tempted fate to boot. What an idiot. And to take pics of a courthouse. What kind of a response did he expect? And with so any terrorists lurking out there, the police are sent there on an adrenalin high thinking possible the worst, and all for this double *sshole trying to make some phony point. Makes me sick. What a pukehead.
/johnny
if you don’ exercise the right, it likely won’t exist long
Once addressed, no. It’s just that he did have reason to know that this was going to get nellies nervous. Is it possible to break it a little more gently to the nellies that they can stop being nervous, than to do something like this???
I thought he did great, considering that was his first time.
I’m sure he’ll do it again, and I approve 100%.
“Go tell it on the mountain...”
BE the change you want.
/johnny
I understand that in Arizona it is common to open carry on your hip. I don’t see how him having a camera makes it a bad thing.
Why?
I Carry a Firearm for Political Purposes
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/02/i-carry-firearm-for-political-purposes.html
I agree with the principle. I wouldn’t necessarily agree with the method. There’s always another side to the story and maybe that’s all he could think of, so maybe we can cut him some slack. But I wouldn’t do it a second time in that manner. That’s all.
any = many, and
possible = possibly
above. Was typing fast, because article really annoys me.
What point was he trying to make? That he can take a picture of public property?
Well, I don’t set my clock by your method of doing things. I set it by God’s.
/johnny
When you realize that everything you have a right to do isn’t always the right thing to do.
If you protect the nervous nellies enough, you get the fiasco that happened in NY when the cops were called out because a single .22LR round was found in the street.
/johnny
I don’t understand why anyone thinks this is a big deal. A man took a picture of a public building. People do it all the time.
Rights are like muscles, if you don't use them they become flabby and weak.
Exercising your rights is good for you and the Republic. It's an excellent reminder to law enforcement.
So you think he's a jerk for exercising his rights. How sad.
Suspicion of suspiciousness. It’s in the code, somewhere....
////////////////////
Absolutely! /sarc
And you are also still a very rough edged person. Go look up the virtue that in Greek is referred to as “praus” (variously rendered meekness or gentleness in English).
/johnny
“And to take pics of a courthouse.”
OMG photography! Courts have ruled it a Constitutional right.
From the article:
“It quickly became evident that police seemed more concerned with him photographing the Sandra Day O’Connor United States Courthouse, a Richard Meier designed building that has been featured in countless architectural magazines, than they were about his gun.”
I will give them a some credit. We caught and let go an (almost certain) Al Quida operative in NYC, photographing the twin towers, just a short while before 911. I think it worthwhile that they questioned him, and that they let him go.
“So you think he’s a jerk for exercising his rights. How sad.”
If you agree with what this guy did then you have an infantile mind just like his. Two peas in a pod.
Good for him and great job on standing firm. If more Americans insisted on their rights, this would be a freer country.
The way these rights get treated can depend on how you treat their guardians.
/johnny
Well, yeah, but we’re still not a police state, because no children’s dogs got shot.
>>Someone locally needs to try and demand the city/county justify this expensive use of a helicopter.<<
The Controllers who work inside the building demand protection and they were providing it.
Did he have a dog? Was it shot?
But it makes some people nervous, and even some freepers think that someone exersizing their rights in a lawful manner is somehow wrong.
/johnny
People take pictures of court houses and capitol buildings all the time, nothing wrong with it- they paid for them.
lol
“....This is not the bunker you are paying for...”
Yes, let’s all curl up on the ground, cover our heads and hope our “political masters” don’t beat us too hard for daring to believe we have such petty things as rights.
“If you protect the nervous nellies enough, you get the fiasco that happened in NY when the cops were called out because a single .22LR round was found in the street. “
I think that was York, England, but you were pretty close:
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/8805022.Fossgate_bullet_find_mystery/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.