Handling an AGW

Guest Post by Eric Peters

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.