I’m wearing shorts and a t-shirt, walking down the street with a camera (and a gun).

David Ryan

David Ryan is a boat builder and USCG licensed master captain. He is the owner of Sailing Montauk and skipper of Montauk''s charter sailing catamaran MON TIKI You can follow him on Twitter @CaptDavidRyan

Related Post Roulette

16 Responses

  1. M.A. says:

    I’m not sure what the law is in Oregon, but here the law is that you do have to identify yourself to a cop if asked. You’re not required to show ID, but you are supposed to (truthfully, with criminal penalties involved for giving false identification) give your name and address if they ask you to identify yourself.

    Questions of jurisdiction, I suppose.Report

  2. Mike Dwyer says:

    Kind words David. Thanks.Report

  3. Kathy Gritton says:

    What’s the point of not cooperating with the officers when they asked your name? You do realize that while you are having fun making your video to prove your point you were making people uncomfortable. By not giving your name you build suspicion. I don’t want to see an armed man strolling past my kids at the bus stop. I don’t want to be near an armed man who won’t give his name to the police. I think you were being a jerk.

    If you are really for law an order go ahead and wear you gun – and cooperate with law enforcement.Report

    • Glyph in reply to Kathy Gritton says:

      Kathy, the poster is not the person who made the video, and presented the video without comment.

      I get where you are coming from, but I also see the perspective of “if you are not legally obligated to do something, you aren’t obligated”. Also, there are a ton of examples of cops going “fishing” and engaging in “consensual” civilian encounters that aren’t, not really (a policeman can very easily intimidate people into giving up their rights – in this very video, the police allude to the fact that this guy is “one of those guys that knows their rights”, clearly implying they often deal with people who don’t and use that fact to their advantage).Report

      • James Hanley in reply to Glyph says:


        While I’m in agreement with you, I’m not sure the police actually say “this guy is one of those who know their rights.” That part of the video was undecipherable (at least to me), and I’m not sure the dialogue balloon wasn’t just a bit of a joke by the video maker.

        But as to your larger point, I think exercising our rights is its own justification. While I also understand Kathy’s discomfort, I think the point of non-cooperation is, “I have rights and I’m sticking to them.”Report

        • Glyph in reply to James Hanley says:

          Yeah, I listened again and you are right, I can’t really hear that. Sorry.

          But I think the cops’ interaction still clearly implies “Can we do anything else about this?” answered by “No.” So I think it still effectively shows they are at least looking for something they can use against him, even just to prolong the encounter.Report

          • James Hanley in reply to Glyph says:

            I agree. In my heart of hearts, I suspect the conversation actually was along the lines of what the dialogue balloon showed.

            And I really hate the condescending tone of the cop. Not that I much care for someone who makes such a point of open carry that they don’t care whether they’re spooking other people. But it’s Eugene, where pretty much everyone is a narcissistic asshole. The only place I’ve seen where people will stop in the entryway of the supermarket to have conversations, and think you’re being rude when you ask them to step aside so you can go in/out. The only place I’ve ever had a neighbor who hesitated and looked uncertain about agreeing to my request to jump my car when the battery died. A place where people think cutting down a three-foot sapling is deforestation. A great place to live in some ways, but the people are among the most irritating I’ve met anywhere. Kind of like living in an episode of Seinfeld.Report

      • Morat20 in reply to Glyph says:

        There was, IIRC, a large court case which just flatly ignored the fact that a cop stopping you for conversation isn’t the same as a regular person stopping you.

        The court ruled that the individual could have merely “moved on” rather than engaged the cop in discussion. The cop claimed to be having a friendly chat and noticed something to give him reasonable cause, whereas the defendent basically said “What was I supposed to do? Blow the cop off and walk away?”

        Apparently, he was. Except most cops would find that reasonable cause.

        I try to be very polite with police, but they take absolutely full advantage of societal expectations and their badge — asking to search your car, or enter your house, they can and do imply they have reason or power to do so OVER your wishes, even when they don’t. And if it’s a bad search, well, you let them in! Consenual!Report

  4. Kathy Gritton says:

    The cops most likely wanted to search the man, but they followed the law. I agree with James Hanley about narcissism. The man in the video needs to get over himself. His rights were not being stepped on. His behavior can be compared to that of a bully, int hat he doesn’t care about the public. He is actually spreading fear and hostility by showing his gun. He needs to just stop it and get a conceal and carry permit, cover the gun and go about his day. He’s not a crusader, he’s a prima donna.Report

  5. Kathy Gritton says:

    It’s the cop’s job to check things out. The cop didn’t step on anyone’s rights. It really isn’t that big of a deal. Complain about cops when they deserve it!Report

    • James Hanley in reply to Kathy Gritton says:

      I’m dubious it’s the cop’s job to check anything out when there’s no indication anything illegal has happened. The gun bearer may be an a-hole, and people may in fact be unnerved by him, but if nothing illegal happened or is alleged to have happened, there’s nothing for the cops to check out.

      And thank you for the advice, but I think American cops generally deserve to be complained about, day in and day out, as a matter of course.Report

  6. Kathy Gritton says:

    I’m all for protecting my privacy – at all times. But this is seriously a non-issue. It seems you are biased about cops so what’s the use of discussing this. If you owned a shop and an armed man walked in, or if you had to ride the bus with an armed man you might find yourself looking around hoping to see a cop nearby. Hate them all you want but face the fact that they did nothing wrong in that video.Report

    • James Hanley in reply to Kathy Gritton says:

      It seems you are biased about cops so what’s the use of discussing this.

      I’ve paid too much attention to police abuse cases over the past 5 years or so to not have a bias against American police. But really, I just have a bias about people being able to engage in legal actions without being questioned by the police. Living in a free–non-police-state–country means we have to tolerate other people’s legal actions, even if they make us uncomfortable, without always calling the police.Report

  7. Kathy Gritton says:

    I agree with you. Nobody said we should take the man’s gun away. Nobody said he should be forced to give his name. I ‘m just saying that of all the behavior seen in the video it’s the guy with the gun that is the giant tool. Wow he must really feel like he won a huge battle that day. Yeah a real crusader for American liberties. He’s playing make believe while the public is put on edge. I am happy for the people of Eugene to know that he doesn’t go downtown very often.Report

  8. Citizen says:

    To his credit he didn’t laugh at the 3 clip sheeple herders.Report