Lets Hear it for Officer Matthew J. Lyons, Oceanside, CA Police Dep’t

You know that whole “serve and protect” thing? That “uphold and defend the Constitution” thing? It seems that most police officers forget all about it.

Not Matthew Lyons of the Oceanside PD. Professional. Courteous. Respectful. And right on all counts.

H/T: Techdirt

33 Responses to Lets Hear it for Officer Matthew J. Lyons, Oceanside, CA Police Dep’t

  1. deuxcent says:

    Now that is refreshing.

  2. pxd says:

    sweet! “jeremy is lucky he got the sane calm one… and not a bullet.

  3. Luke says:

    True – the officer is professional, courteous and respectful, but if I lived in Oceanside I would rather that he took Jeremy and his gun off the street for a little while.

  4. Jeff says:

    And hopefully Jeremy knows that the rights he was trying to demonstrate are state rights and change with each border. In NC, for example, you can carry, but you’d better well also be carrying identification. Otherwise you’ll find yourself weaponless and perhaps visiting county lockup for the night for “carrying to the terror of the public”.

    I’m all for fairly liberal gun rights. I just wish we could limit gun possession to smart people.

  5. Luke says:

    Because seeing people carrying guns in my hometown for no other reason than “it’s my right” would make me feel less safe.
    If that’s all it takes to be allowed to carry a gun then you can probably expect a lot of gun-related crime and accidents.
    What’s that?
    That’s what you have?
    Hmmm…

    • Sean F. says:

      And people being arrested or detained for exercising a constitutional right would make you feel more safe?

      Also, “gun-related crime” is a vague term. Carrying concealed without a permit is a gun crime. Owning an illegal firearm is a gun crime. If you meant “shootings” then we don’t really have that many per capita.

      • Luke says:

        Yeah, if that constitutional right is to brandish a weapon on a public road… I would feel better if he was taken off the road to ascertain why he felt like he needed to do that. Sorry if that offends you, but guns are pretty dangerous things, and they are really effective when used to shoot people.
        Not many per capita? Compared to countries where you don’t have the right to carry a gun?

        • Sam says:

          If guns were illegal, then only the criminals would have guns.

        • Mister DNA says:

          Guns are very dangerous things indeed, that’s why they’re so effective as a self-defense tool. Guns don’t scare me; criminals with guns do frighten me, however (regardless of whether or not those criminals carry badges or not).

          Anyway, the badge-licking website PoliceOne.com covered this story and they framed it as “Watch this cop put an activist in his place”. Oddly enough, a lot of LEOs commenting on the facebook link to the article took issue with the way the article was framed. The cop was just doing right – as was the civilian. Asserting your rights is not “activism” it’s patriotism.

        • Sean F. says:

          It is not our right to “brandish” unless there is a percieved threat to our lives. You’re making it sound like he was pointing it at stuff while, in fact, he was just walking around with it on his hip. He wasn’t threatening anyone. If you’re afraid of someone JUST because they have a gun, then you’re a judgemental douche.

          Generally speaking, if someone is open-carrying, that means that they bought the gun legally in a store. That also means that they probably passed a criminal background check which means that they have no relevant criminal record (i.e. violent crimes). Your fear is COMPLETELY misplaced.

          • Luke says:

            You are right.
            I wish people carried guns around here – but not criminals – that would be bad.
            Thanks for making me see that I should be more scared that my local police would try to find out who this guy was and why he is carrying a weapon.
            So how many per-capita?

            • Sean F. says:

              About 28 per million people (homicides by firearm).

              Also, it is important to point out that reducing “gun-related crime” has never had a significant effect on reducing “violent crime”. People just use knives instead. Gun control doesn’t solve the underlying problems.

              Furthermore, your general attitude is insulting to me. As a gun owner myself, I’m sick of being treated like a suspect even though I haven’t done anything wrong and no one has any legit reason to think that I did. The same goes for the guy who shot the video.

            • Luke says:

              Oh boo-hoo.
              So people judge you just because you walk around like a gunslinger? i bet that makes you mad!
              I sometimes get judged as a douche because I would rather that cops find out who is walking around like a gunslinger. Makes me wanna jab someone with my keys.

            • Luke says:

              Murders with firearms (per capita) (most recent) by country
              http://www.nationmaster.com
              Showing latest available data.
              Rank Countries Amount
              # 1 South Africa: 0.719782 per 1,000 people
              # 2 Colombia: 0.509801 per 1,000 people
              # 3 Thailand: 0.312093 per 1,000 people
              # 4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
              # 5 Mexico: 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
              # 6 Belarus: 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
              # 7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
              # 8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people

              You are in some fine company there…

            • Sean F. says:

              Okay, a little higher than I initially thought, but our murders per capita (regardless of weapon) are lower than our supposedly more peaceful European counter parts. Virtually every major western European country is in the top 35 while the US is not.

              Again, reducing gun crime has no effect on reducing total crime and you ARE a judgemental douche. The difference between you and me is that YOU are prejudiced against gun owners out of your own irrational fears (which I attempted to assuage) while I reserved judgement on you until I heard what you had to say (which wasn’t a whole lot).

  6. Scott Jacobs says:

    My only wish is that Jeremy had been carrying ID…

  7. Scott Jacobs says:

    Also, the officer’s behavior at the end was just outstanding, ID’ing himself completely, complete with badge number.

    I have this urge to buy this guy food from Omaha Steak and have it arrive at his station.

  8. Simon says:

    As a non US citizen living in New South Wales, Australia where we have some of the mosty restrictive gun ownership laws I am perpelxed by the seeming frenzy & gnashing of teeth when anybody in the US even mentions any possibility of gun control.
    Why do you need to carry a firearm in public? And, why is everybody so bent out of shape by a police officer asking why?
    Open carry, as a private citizen is forbidden, “personal protection” is not accepted as a genuine reason for owning a gun & most types of pistol or revolver are restricted weapons under legislation. Yet, desp;ite all these restrictions of legal gun ownership ther are continual reports of shooting crimes both ion NSW & acrossd Australia.

  9. Simon says:

    As a non US citizen living in New South Wales, Australia where we have some of the mosty restrictive gun ownership laws I am perpelxed by the seeming frenzy & gnashing of teeth when anybody in the US even mentions any possibility of gun control.
    Why do you need to carry a firearm in public? And, why is everybody so bent out of shape by a police officer asking why?
    Open carry, as a private citizen is forbidden, “personal protection” is not accepted as a genuine reason for owning a gun & most types of pistol or revolver are restricted weapons under legislation. Yet, despite all these restrictions of legal gun ownership ther are continual reports of shooting crimes both ion NSW & across Australia.

    • We don’t trust the state to do anything right, including protect our daughters. We also believe in personal responsibility, including for personal protection. Is it really moral to rely on someone else to risk his or her life to save your own?

      I didn’t always think this way. Fifteen years ago I was on the side of HCI. But over time, reason won out.

  10. Scott Jacobs says:

    “And, why is everybody so bent out of shape by a police officer asking why?”

    Honestly? Because it’s none of his fucking business. If I have the right to own a firearm, and the law says that I can carry it (be it concealed or openly), then he has no God Damn Need to know my “why”. It isn’t his place to ask.

    The law doesn’t say “You can Open Carry, but only if you have a really good reason”.

  11. Scott Jacobs says:

    “Yet, despite all these restrictions of legal gun ownership ther are continual reports of shooting crimes both ion NSW & across Australia.”

    Huh… You don’t say…

    Boy, it’s almost like criminals don’t care what the law is. A shame that people who DO obey the law are prevented from owning a firearm, so that they can defend themselves…

    This is the problem with ALL gun laws – the only people who follow them are the people who probably aren’t going to commit a crime, while the people you are wanting to NOT have a gun will ignore the law because ignoring the law is what they do.

  12. James Peters says:

    Well Scott

    It’s the officer’s right to ask any question he wants. He could ask him his favorite color if he wanted to. There is no obligation to answer. By the way, profanity is the sign of someone with low IQ who has a less than firm grasp of language.

    • Sean F. says:

      Officers of the law don’t have rights. They have duties that they’re supposed to uphold. Annoying some guy who isn’t doing anything simply because he has a firearm doesn’t seem like it should be in an officer’s list of duties. Whether the officer was courteous (as in this case) or not.

      Also, someone’s use of profanity is hardly a reason for ad hominem attacks on their IQ or grasp of language

  13. Legal Baby says:

    Out of interest why is he doing a stop and search? Did he have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity was afoot or did he not require to do so?

    • Scott Jacobs says:

      I suspect (but have no way of knowing because I have not seen the relevant law, nor do I even live in California) that the law allows for the police to make sure the person carrying is allowed to do so. A simple check in the system would be all that is required to make sure the person isn’t a felon, isn’t wanted on charges, etc.

      Though most people for whom it would be illegal would probably just conceal the thing as best they could. I mean, what’s another charge on top of the list of felonies they’d already be committing?

  14. Scott Jacobs says:

    He saw someone walking along with a firearm. I hardly think it is unreasonable for him to want to check the guy out… Even if it’s just a minute’s worth of conversation, it would help him determine if the guy was sane or a danger.

    Clearly he saw there was no danger, and let the guy go on his way. The cop did everything right, from the stop, to telling the other officer who arrives that he has everything under control, to fully ID’ing himself, to telling the guy “God bless America”.

    • Harry Mauron says:

      So you’d say it’s reasonable to stop someone walking along with a CONCEALED firearm too?

      Oh, he can’t see a concealed firearm, you say? I guess it’s reasonable to stop everyone, just in case, then. That’s not freedom, you say? Well, if open carry is so bad, it’s the least we can do. That, and maybe roll over and give the nice officer a paw if he asks.

%d bloggers like this: