Handling an AGW

27
2641
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Here’s a top-shelf video of a man countering the make-up-a-law-and-enforce-it routine of an armed government worker in Florida.

The man is accosted by the AGW who (like a lot of AGWs) obviously does not like legal open carry. The AGW says he “just wants to make sure everything’s all right.” The man replies by pointing out that it is. No crime – or even “violation” of statute – has been committed and the AGW cannot explain why he has accosted the man… other than to repeat the mantra about “making sure everything’s all right.”

The AGW pesters the man with obnoxious (because none of his business) questions about where he’s headed and where he came from. The man replies – “that way” and then cuts off the AGW by stating, “I don’t answer questions” – which of course he isn’t legally obligated to answer. These questions are by their nature unfriendly. The AGW is armed and the man being questioned is therefore under duress. The AGW is attempting to suss out something which he can and will use against the man. Hence it is smart policy for the man to assert his right to not answer the AGW’s questions.

The AGW continues his mewling – but always implicitly threatening – spiel about “making sure everything’s ok.”

The man reiterates that everything is ok.

Then the AGW demands ID – which the man declines to provide, pointing out to the AGW that unless the AGW can articulate a specific crime he thinks the man has committed, he has no lawful right to accost him or demand ID – and he ought to be free to go.

The man attempts to apply reason – as well as law – to the AGW to understand.

“That guys is driving a truck,” indicating passing traffic. “Do you need to pull him over to make sure he can legally drive that truck?

In other words, the AGW would need legal cause to pull a driver over and demand ID/question him; the same principle applies generally. AGWs can’t – yet – just “detain” people for the Hell of it…

He asks the AGW whether he is free to go and if he is being detained, on what legal basis. See point above about articulating suspicion a crime has been committed.

Which the AGW – a law enforcer – cannot do.

But he continues enforcing his very own made-up laws, detaining the man contrary to the actual law (established by the court case, Terry v. Ohio – which requires AGWs to articulate suspicion of a specific crime they assert a person has committed as the necessary legal basis for detaining a person, compelling them to produce ID or subjecting them to any nonconsensual interaction whatsoever).

The back and forth continues, with the AGW repeating his mantra about “checking to make sure everything’s ok.”

The man finally turns tables around on the AGW – asking him: “How do I know you didn’t just rape someone?”

The AGW says, “you don’t.”

The man then queries the AGW about whether he should have to prove he didn’t commit a sex crime by dropping his pants and bending and submitting to a check (just to make sure everything’s ok) for evidence of semen.

Indeed.

Our man eventually just gets back on his bike, informs the AGW that unless he is being detained on the basis of articulable suspicion, then he is going to continue on his way.

And does so. Luckily, the AGW didn’t howl “stop resisting” and fill him full of 9 mm holes.

Couple of take-home points.

First, this video provides yet another example of the open contempt many – probably most – AGWs have for armed citizens, regardless of the law they swore to uphold.

These AGWs zealously enforce laws they support – “speeding,” of course but also (where it is already illegal for a mere ordinary) possession of a gun – but do all they can to not abide by the law when it runs contrary to their personal likes/dislikes. This AGW for instance almost certainly cannot wait for the day when he has legal power to not merely take away a citizen’s weapon, but cry “officer safety” and shoot him dead in the street, too.

AGWs despise armed citizens because it levels the playing field and because it waters down their prerogative – as they see it – to be the only people allowed to carry guns.

Two, there will be no legal consequences for this AGW’s abuse of the law – and of a law-abiding citizen, the incident captured on video and so beyond contestation. The AGW had no legal right to waylay the man and subjected him to an illegal detainment under duress, repeatedly refusing the man’s request to either be told what crime he was suspected of committing or be released to go about his business.

If an ordinary citizen carrying a gun accosted someone in the street in exactly this manner it would be felony assault. Why is it not at least something with a meaningful sanction attached to it when an AGW performs the same act?

This is no small thing.

AGWs – “law enforcement” – should at the very least be required to know and enforce the actual law. This includes laws which protect the rights of citizens, whether they like those laws or not. And be punished when they abuse anyone under color of the law.

But the ugly fact is there is a different standard for AGWs. A lesser standard. AGWs are free to break the law, make up law and enforce non-laws – and get away with it.

We, on the other hand, are held to a much higher standard.

Finally, this man shows how to joust with an AGW. He remains calm, deflects the AGW’s none-of-his-business questions and insists on his legal rights, while declining to obey the AGW’s made-up laws.

. . .

Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button ishere.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: EPautos “Don’t be a Clover!” magnets are free to those who send in $20 or more. My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. If you find it useful, consider contributing a couple of bucks!  

 

 

 

Share Button

27 COMMENTS

  1. It seems to me that the police were different when I was growing up in the 1970’s. When they caught me with underage beer, they just took it away and on a different day,when my friend was caught with weed, they just made him dump the bag into the ditch. Also my neighbor grew pot plants in his yard garden in plain view with out a bit of concern. (No seizure laws back then, I guess)

    • It was very different. The police were not militarized and did not act like a foreign occupying force. Every tiny hamlet didn’t have its own Hut! Hut! Hut! SWAT team replete with surplus military equipment. That’s not to say there weren’t corrupt and vicious cops to deal with but not anything like we routinely see today. I certainly don’t recall anyone being summarily executed because the cop thought the transistor radio they were holding (no cell phones back then) “looked like a gun” and caused the cop to “fear for his safety.”

      While the reality may have never been quite what we saw in programs like “Adam-12”, things were a lot closer to it back then than they are now. (TV shows like “Adam-12” and “Dragnet” may have been corny and pretty much a love letter to the LAPD, but they were based on actual police regulations and procedures of the day. An idealized look at what was expected from police. One thing that really stands out was the reluctance to draw down unless absolutely necessary and the inquisition that cops who did fire their guns would be subject to.)

  2. A lot of police departments are conducting their insipid “Coffee with a cop” propaganda events this week. (It’s “National Coffee With a Cop Day” on Wednesday 10/3, hooray!) Would be interesting to drop by and give them a calm, pleasant earful of something a little different than the mindless praise they get from the average serf.

    Hut! Hut! Hut! And pass the java! Are your papers in order, sir?

  3. I recently had a similar encounter with an AGW while riding my bike. I wasn’t carrying a gun or a gopro. I probably had my cell phone with me. I often listen to podcasts while riding the bike. The AGW stopped me, on a rural back road with little traffic, because he saw me more than three feet from the side of the road. He informed that I needed to be no more than three feet from the side, and I said OK. Then he asked if I was out riding for exercise, my name, where I lived, if I had ID.

    I answered all of his questions politely without volunteering more information. I didn’t have ID, but he returned to his car, presumably to check my name against the address I gave him. I waited. He returned and said I could go and to be safe. He also said something about drug dealers in the neighborhood, but I ignored the small talk. I’m a man with very long hair. Don’t know if my appearance had anything to do with the stop, and I don’t much care.

    Did he need to detain me? Was the check necessary? No. Did I have anything to gain by pulling out my phone to video the encounter and citing my rights only to win a pissing contest with an AGW? No. I had something to lose, because he did have a gun, and he was in a position to impose penalties on me, justifiably or not.

    Obviously, no one should let AGWs trample their rights if they can avoid it, but this guy on the bike with a rifle over his shoulder doesn’t seem heroic to me. Seems more like he was looking for a confrontation. He should be happy, rather than indignant, that he got his wish, and I suppose he is.

    • “because he saw me more than three feet from the side of the road.”

      Sounds made up. Unless you’re well under the PSL and actually delaying someone while the road design and condition would allow you to ride further to right then you’re perfectly legal under typical state law boilerplate.

      The three foot rule as passed by several states is that the motorists have to leave a three foot gap when passing.

      But cops often have the laws wrong or twist them to harass people that are different or look weak enough where they can get away with it. I’ve had cops do this to me and then back off when they realize I know the vehicle code wrt bicycling far better than they do.

      • I didn’t consult a lawyer, but the statutory language in Georgia is “as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable”. Point is: bickering with a uniformed agent of the state, or a mugger in a dark alley, is not worth the trouble unless I have something to substantial to gain by it.

        • That’s boilerplate. The cop stopped you because he wanted to harass you. I had a cop stop me because he insisted that I ride in the two inch space between the white line and the edge of the paved surface. I told him the law but he insisted on causing me trouble so I did it for a bout a 100 feet where I could have easily fallen into the gravel and crashed until he was out of visual range. Then I went back to riding the same way I was. Which I have done every time I’ve been on that road in the 16 years since.

    • Now, why do y’all always go to that tired “looking for confrontation” bit, as if it’s an inherently negative thing if the person was? He was legally open carrying for the purpose of an audit of his rights, which the piggy promptly failed.

      So aside from missing the point and projecting your own painfully apparent indignance onto his case.. what is it you’re contributing here? There’s nothing substantial to be gained from cowering in the face of your rights being shat all over by armed goons. What the guy did took balls and THAT’S the point, that exercising ones rights now requires courage BECAUSE of the very people who’ve sat back and done nothing about it under the position that there’s nothing to be gained. It’s not about gaining, it’s about maintaining what little there’s left to hang on to.

      • I’m an individual, not a y’all, and I don’t always go anywhere. I haven’t said anything about anyone’s confrontation being “negative”. This guy got what he wanted. That’s a positive for him.

        I’m contributing an opinion here, just like you. I haven’t cowered in the face of anything.

        • Hi Martin,

          I agree with you, in terms of tactics. We are at a huge disadvantage when dealing with an AGW. While I do not advocate unnecessary steppin’ and fetchin’ I do counsel avoiding needless escalation, to the extent this is possible without surrendering important legal rights (e.g., don’t consent to searches, even if it annoys the AGW).

          But maintaining a level/civil (but not deferential) tone is advisable. I would answer questions noncommittally but not belligerently. After all, the AGW is armed… and he has the force of The Law behind him.

          Keep your powder dry.

  4. the attitude of the cop is offensive on so many levels. their dismissive style, the “i’m yer pal, just checkin’ in on ya”. to their credit they did exercise far more restraint than we’ve come to expect. i’ve decided we need to prohibit ex military from the various PD’s and sheriff’s dept’s nationwide. their training is contrary to a proper respect for citizenry and they just cannot seem to understand the oath they take to uphold and support the constitution. or am i wrong in assuming they swear an oath? maybe they don’t and we all think they do…anyone have some input as to the oath’s they may or may not take?

  5. What’s wrong with freedom?

    Nazis scream that burning the flag must be illegal, but Libertarians ask why can’t free speech be legal.

    Nazis say there must be trade wars and tariffs, but Libertarians ask why not just rid of regulations, work harder, and lower prices so that the US can compete on the world market.

    Nazis and Commies scream that only the government can tell you the truth, but Libertarians ask why not use the free market to boycott media companies that you distrust.

    Nazis and Commies scream that you must go to government schools, but Libertarians ask why can’t you go to a private school.

    Nazis scream that Americans must be forced to go church and Commies scream that churches must be closed, but Libertarians ask why can’t you do what you want.

  6. The contempt AGWs have for the citizen’s gun rights is an astonishing thing: Always wearing a 6 inch x 6 inch US flag plastered on the sleeve…probably a NRA membership card in their wallet…bellowing “or the laaaaannnndddd of the freeeee…” at every opportunity…these characters really live a life of total lies.

    • Hi Aljer,

      Yep. And part of the reason for their attitude is that they have been taught to regard themselves not as peacekeepers or even citizens but as a kind of Praetorian Guard owed submission and obedience regardless of the law. They are the law – in their minds. Which – for the most part, there are exceptions – are small and mean minds.

      They don’t speak German or Russian, but these Americans are the same species of low-IQ thugs recruited for the SA and the Cheka. They are violent by nature (bullies) who love to give orders, enjoy hassling people just because they can.

      One reform that would deal with this at a stroke – and so will never be implemented until we pick up the pieces and start things from scratch – is the legal right to defend oneself physically against an illegal assault by an AGW, just the same as we have the right to defend ourselves against an assault committed by anyone else.

      If an AGW illegally interrupts your travel, illegally detains you – then you ought to have the lawful right to attempt to get away from the AGW and if the AGW attempts to physically prevent you from getting away from him then, just as you’d have the right to punch a mugger in the face or even draw a gun on the bastard and use it to get him to leave you alone so also should the same right to self-defense apply when assaulted by an AGW.

      And: Any AGW who commits assault under color of law should be immediately fired, criminally prosecuted and debarred from ever “serving” in law enforcement in any capacity, ever again – anywhere.

      • I agree with how wrong all of this is.

        Now what?

        If the police are acting illegally, the answer is to file civil suit I would think.

        Does anyone?

        • You know that’s what they want you to do, right? Waste as much of your money and time as possible while lining countless pockets of lawyers and courts – when anybody who’s been paying any attention at all knows those courts are fixed, there is no justice but Just Us (and Not You), and you will not win in 99.99% of cases. Even if ALL the evidence is in your favor and you have video, they’ll still weasel out of it and you pay the tab TWICE with your taxes being used to defend the cop. Wake up, Mr. Frog.

          • eclip, you done hit the nail on its head. The entire system has, over time, been redesigned to benefit itself. The “court” of “public opinion” has been perverted to always see the non-official as wrong, no matter had they been asleep and woke up to getting a beating. “They”(the victim) must have done something wrong. There’s a lot of truth in that assumption. What “they” did wrong was to be in the crosshairs of some psychotic a-hole with a badge. Hell, even the wanna be’s have taken to doing the hut hut hut and they’re just making $10/hr. “protecting” the mall.

            I know a guy who has a hot, quick temper(too much so)whose son and his friend who’d been taken to the mall with the family raised the ire of Barney Fife cause he’d told the boy to not wear his hood up. He said We don’t allow hoodies. He probably wouldn’t approve of my ceramic knife either but he can’t see it.

            One thing led to another and soon he’s manhandling the pair of boys because one had violated “mall protocol”, only he didn’t say it that way since I’d bet he doesn’t even know what “protocol” means.

            Well, the sister looks up and sees this shit going down and wades into it right before her dad and eventually their mother. Mall cop down and out(dad hit home so hard he forgot to get back up), reinforcements(the Po Leez)beat man, wife and daughter so all 5 of them end up in the clink. Ah, a nice pre-Christmas trip to the mall. At least they knew WHY they had no money that year.

          • It was rhetorical, not seriously expecting anyone does so.
            Nothing you said was news to me.
            And that is kind of the point. Rights, freedoms, all mean nothing unless defended. That stopped before I was an adult.

            Good times make soft people. (1950s-1970s)
            Soft people make for bad times. (now)
            The cycle of history.

            Well awake, thanks.

            • I don’t recall the 50’s being good times except people were civil. It wasn’t a walk in the park in west Tx. for sure. It was hard times and we all pulled together. The 60’s were a bit better and the 70’s were hitting a peak…..THE Peak if you want to be specific. It’s all been downhill since 74 when the economy peaked.

              Talk about good times, yeah, it was good times when we stood out in the yard as kids in the 50’s and watched the neat fighter jets flying over, coming all teh way from Big Spring, Tx. Of course they were spraying us with various influenza strains which would become a known fact as early as the 70’s.

              There is a document that says the US govt. can do such as it wants to the populace and dropping diseases is part of it.

              I recall all those drills that were supposed to scare us but very few took it seriously. IN the 4th grade I might have bent over and put my head between my knees per govt. instruction but we laughed at each other doing so.

              It was the local barbershop that illuminated me with their posters(no pro-USA)and Soldier of Fortune mags. I esp. liked the poster of the nuclear drill. In case of nuclear attack, bend over and put your head between your knees……and kiss you sweet ass goodbye!! This country was loaded with missile silos and the import of it wasn’t lost on the public. Hell, what’s losing a few hicks when it comes to trading nukes?

        • These are unionized mercenaries that are armored, armed, and threaten the law abiding as part of normal daily operations.

          It is in the interest of each of these union members to make as many citations, arrests, and asset forfeitures as possible.
          The system is setup to measure their ability to monetize the public by generating revenue for the state regardless of the circumstance.

          The bottom-line; every time you see or have an uninvited unwanted interaction with one of these mercenaries you must know you, your loved ones, and your property are under lethal threat.

          Most of these unionized thugs carry overt contempt for the constitution and in particular the tax payer that their union holds hostage to pay for their crimes in the unlikely event they are held accountable.

      • This thing of being “detained”….declared by some character that might be “post certified”…or a “sworn officer”….at any rate, some person with powers of arrest and an “officer of the court”….how in the Hell did we ever allow this to get where it is today?

        Being “detained” is a situation that can become deadly in a nano-second. And while you’re being “detained”, your constitutional rights are all of a sudden suspended and put on hold. You’re told if you think you’re rights have been violated, take it up with a judge in a court room six months from now. Until then, you literally obey anything this AGW “commands” you to do.

        This is utter insanity. Your constitutional rights are in place precisely at the time of this “detainment”. They are there to protect you in these situations RIGHT NOW and not six months and several thousand dollars down the road!

        How do we fix this mess? I don’t have that answer.

        • It was the Bush neocon thing with the Patriot act and everyone following along as if they had no rights, the mantra said over and over via SMS ever since. Propaganda, and plenty of it.

          It’s like the religious. They’ve had it pounded in since day one for the most part. Don’t stop and think about it, just accept what everyone says. And the more who say it the more credible it becomes. Hey, you aren’t a Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. etc.? WTF is the matter with you. Oh, no, I am I am I am I am…ad nauseum…..We must conform…..

      • Eric, we all have that right. A peace officer is there to protect the accused’s right to due process- to stand up to a lynch mob. At the moment it is usually tactically inadvisable to exercise it, though every day it becomes more advisable and necessary.

LEAVE A REPLY