'Just a bunch of dudes walking across the bridge wearing camo'
»Play Video
PORTLAND, Ore. – It's a scene that practically defines the phrase "keep Portland weird."
Portland police shut down the Burnside Bridge on Wednesday evening and detained 13 bearded men who said they were headed to a photo shoot to raise money for breast cancer research Wednesday evening.
The problem was the men were wearing camo and witnesses said one had a rifle.
According to spokesman Robert King, police received a report that a man on the bridge had an assault rifle. Officers shut down the bridge just after 7:30 p.m. while they investigated.
Police released a 9-1-1 call from a concerned person who first reported the men with the gun and camo gear.
"I saw two guys, white guys, with beards come out of a car with an assault rifle," the caller told the 9-1-1 dispatcher. | Click the "play" button next to "listen" to hear the 9-1-1 call
Police soon found the bearded men, many of whom wore military style uniforms. One of the men had an assault rifle, King said. They were taken to the Central Precinct.
It's unclear if the assault rifle was loaded.
Several of the men told KATU News they were on their way to take a photo under the "Portland, Oregon" sign near the Burnside Bridge to raise money for breast cancer research. The men said the photo was going to be part of a Beards for Breasts calendar.
"It's from Seattle," said Jedediah Aacker. "This girl, Sugar June, does it. She puts together a calendar for all the beard clubs around the nation. Beards for breasts."
Someone called police when they saw one of the men holding a rifle on the bridge.
"We were wearing camo gear and stuff walking up to do the shoot and sure enough police show up, boom, arrested us," said Aacker. "We were just a bunch of dudes walking across the bridge wearing camo getting rad."
King said two of the men were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct for handling the rifle.
On Thursday, police sent out pictures of the gear they seized from the men. It included a military vest, bandolier, rifle, helmet and other camo gear.
The men told KATU there were 10 of them. Police said 13 were detained.
The bridge was opened at around 8:15.
"We didn't mean to shake up the community or shut down the Burnside Bridge," said Matthew Jenkins. "Just trying to save boobs, you know?"
If Jedediah Aaker looks familiar, it's because he's in a video for a certain TV show that parodies eccentric Portlanders.
everyone can calm down, there is not going to be a trial. two people got disorderly conduct, everyone else went home
@Mr.Q So something changed since te initial indictment that included illegal possession of a weapon charges??
It's not illegal to carry a rifle in public...how does someone buy one in the first place? You have to take the weapon out of the shop, carry it to your car and bring it home. The concealed weapons law doesn't even mention a rifle.Â
There is also no law against having long beards, wearing camouflaged pants and army boots or looking different at all whatsoever. If that were the case then half of Portland would be locked up! Â
 @Philb The concealed weapons law doesn't even enter into it, since he was openly carrying. "Disorderly conduct?" I hope the judge throws this out! What BS!
@ The Gramster Really? When does "carrying a rifle" turn into "carrying an assault weapon"? Clearly you don't know the difference. Might as well start calling the police everytime you see a hunter or some friends going out shooting for fun (targets, varmints, whatever). Or *maybe* a little self-education on your part is really what's in order here. People carrying weapons in the open are rarely, rarely getting ready for some criminal act. Why call the cops on the good guys? Just to sow panic and add to the news fodder?
I won't fault the citizen for calling it in to be sure that something nefarious were going on...
I think that the police did what they are supposed to do, but I have to question if the charges are appropriate. I wasn't there so... I think that part of the issue witht he average citizen is the lack of people carrying openly around them making it more of a surprise with someone does carry.
Â
 @Pissed0ffPirate Very well said. The facts aren't all clear, so it will be interesting to see what comes to light in the trial.
Â
And very true, because people carrying assault-looking rifles downtown is almost unheard of, and because of stories in the media of mass shootings, people are much more on guard and defensive when they are confronted by the exception.
I am sure it has been said before...but due to the random mass shootings the US has seen and the daily gang related shootings in our own community, I support notifying police when someone sees a group of men in camoflage with long beards and long hair carrying an assault weapon heading downtown...while I respect the law...common sense tells me this group could have been a little more aware of the consequences of their actions... Â
Unless new laws went into effect recently, it is not against the law to carry a rifle, unloaded in Portland.
 @Owt_Raged You are absolutely right. The only thing at that point that could get them in trouble is if they:
Â
1. Pointed the gun at a person, structure, or elsewhere that created an unnecessary risk, a hazard, or alarm.
2. Had discharged the weapon.
3. Had concealed the weapon without a permit to do so.
4. Were a felon
5. Made statements that caused panic
Â
The only one that really fits with the 'Unlawful Possession of a Weapon' would be if they concealed it at some point and did not have a permit.
Â
It will be interesting to see what facts come to light during the trial that were not in this article.
All they had to do was call the Police and let them know what they were doing. Pretty dumb to assume you are not going to be contacted by police wearing camo and carrying a weapon.
 @Persius That's what they ought to have done, if they had a lick of foresight and just wanted things to go smoothly. The nation is currently a bit jumpy about maniacs running around shooting people, even men with beards might have noticed that. Dave503: to paraphrase from Firesign Theater, sometimes standing up for a principle can end with sitting down on your own stool. Bigger-picture common sense is sometimes called for.
 @Persius I agree that police involvement was almost guaranteed.
Â
Even though it was within their right to openly carry, it is so rare of a thing, that in doing so, it will guarantee panic.
Â
Prudence would have been on their side if they had put the firearm into a case.
@Persius Notifying the police that you are going to walk down the street is stupid.
 @Persius So we are supposed to call the police every time we might be in a situation where somebody (the police) might be suspicious? The incident could have easily been resolved with the police simply asking a question or two, The filing of charges against the men is simply the police trying to justify their actions so they didn't look stupid. They failed.
 @Dave503 The trial will reveal the facts of the case. I don't believe that we've gotten the entire story (witness statements, and the statements of those involved). What we have is a broad generalization of the event.
Â
The original disorderly conduct charge was dropped, but for some reason, the police kept the Unlawful Possession of a Weapon. With that charge, they would have to have sufficient evidence to show that the weapon was concealed, that one of the people was a felon, or something similar.Â
Â
I guess we'll see.
Â
Â
Â
 @Timoteo Hiroshima Here is a good link for you:
Â
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
Â
You are required to give your name to police. That alone can reveal your background by running it through the computer.
 @Timoteo Hiroshima It will be interesting to see what the evidence is, considering we aren't privy to all of the specifics of what happened that night (witness accounts, personal testimonies of the people involved).
@Improprietous @Dave503 To even talk to the men, they will have to show reasonable suspicion for the stop. The whole thing will be thrown out.
 @ChrisJ82  @Pissed0ffPirate Ah, you're absolutely right. It looks like 166.250 highlights juveniles with a past felony conviction, not adults.
 @Improprietous  @Pissed0ffPirate No it doesn't. You are looking for ORS 166.270 which is a felony charge as opposed to 166.250 which is a misdemeanor.
Very nice, thank you for that.
 @Pissed0ffPirate ORS 166.250 Unlawful Possession of a Firearm includes felons who have possession.
Isn't the charge for a felon with a firearm called "Felon in Possession of a Firearm"? (no, I have not checked the ORS yet...)
I am betting that it was an assault weapon, not an assault rifle.
There is not way that someone not holding it would now unless it were being fired.
After all, they were not changed with "Unlawful possession of machine guns"
I thought they were good old boys just having some fun.
Okay... I'm a card-carrying long-haired Vanagon-driving liberal and I also think these guys were dumb-asses to walk around in camo/military gear with an assault rifle without clearing it with the city/police/community somehow first.  If I saw a bunch of dudes in camo walking around with an assault rifle.  I'd call the coppers too!!It's too bad that it came to this but... sheesh.  Get a clue!Â
@ArchiBish "911, What's your emergency?" "I'm going for a walk down the street now, OK?" "911-OK, we'll send an officer right over to arrest you for calling 911 and being stupid."
This comment has been deleted
@mtbleker - Why? Because he says he's a liberal or because he would take the conservative's route and call the cops? Damned if you do and damned if you don't eh? Common sense tells most of us that whether you're a 90 year old Granny, an old man in a wheelchair, two boyscouts, whatever, and you walk around downtown with a rifle the cops will be called. That is just how things are in this society in this day and age. As ArchBish says - Get a clue.
The public is lucky no one got shot after the cops showed up. Especially after the trigger happy NYPD shot and wounded 9 people in NYC recently.
Â
You're more likely to be shot by a cop than a law abiding citizen or a terrorist.
So it looks like the pair also got charged with unlawful possession of a firearm.  Any clues on why this would be?  From reading the law and matching it with the information available in the story, I am unable to to ascertain why they've been charged with this.  Did they conceal the weapon at some point?
Â
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.250
 @UtterReality I am waiting to find out if the weapon was loaded or not. If it is not, then the case is missing legs.
 @Pissed0ffPirate  @UtterReality If it was loaded they'd be charged with violating the Portland code, which they haven't. It's probably quite safe to assume it was unloaded.
 @UtterReality It's not just concealed, but they had to have it concealed it upon their person. Which from all accounts is not what happened.
 @ChrisJ82  @UtterReality That is not how the ordinance reads to me. It looks like one must simply posses the permit to carry concealed. It does not say that the firearm must be concealed.
 @Pissed0ffPirate That same thought has occurred to me as well, but if there was it wasn't present in the photo shoots of all these guy's gear posted by other news sources.
@ChrisJ82 Agreed, (1)(a) seems most likely to be the situation.
I wonder if that charge had anything to do with the rifle, but another weapon that was not discussed in the article. We may have to wait to see the details from the indictment.
 @Pissed0ffPirate  @UtterReality You misunderstand, two of these men are charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, so we are discussing concealment in terms of violation of that law. (1)(a) would not apply because they carried it openly, nor would (1)(b) apply to the back of the jeep because it's not a handgun. It's all so silly, that I can't rule out the PPB trying to use (1)(c), the section on minors despite the fact these guys were 29 and 35.
 @UtterReality The report isn't that detailed. I assume we'd have to wait until the trial or further investigative news reports to find that out.
Â
It would make sense though, that it was concealed.
 @Improprietous I wonder if they threw the Guinness beer flag that's in the pictures over the rifle at some point.  This entire thing is comical...from the actions of the bearded guys to the reaction by Portland's legal system.Â
 @UtterReality  @Improprietous PC loadletter, WTF does that mean??? (reference to your picture, great movie!)
I find it interesting that many people on here are screaming "Rights invaded"..."Everything was legal" "The cops are bad"...... the typical rhetoric of the occutard group.... But in the interviews with the bearded clan, and even those involved that have posted here suggest that they are not "Bitter" They believed the were doing something "Legal" having even discussed it before hand, but most chose not to bring a gun because of the potential issues it may cause..... and when it did, they did not get all "Militant" about there rights (Can you imagine the occutard with a unloaded gun....deciding to yell in a cops face about their "Rights"....now that would have been ugly).....But these men realize that there was a misunderstaning, and they now realize the impact their actions (unintended by them) had on the general public.....and then ultimately the police. I don't hear any of them screaming lawsuits, or claiming police brutality or any BS like you would get from the occutards.... My guess is that they learned a lesson and with the Sept 1 deadline for the "Photo Op" looming....someone will offer some assitance in getting a good pic of this group for the BforB. Good luck guys.....Next time.....leave the gun(s) at home, or at least make arrangements beforehand and let people know your plans..... Common sense, eh?
 @Haslips "occutard " and your comment calling them this is really mature? I can't spend any more time looking at these rants. You should be ashamed of yourself for using such language that is typically  used to derogatory  describe people with disabilities.Â
This comment has been deleted
 @mtbieker Is there anything that you actually add to this commentary?Â
Â
Or do you just name-call the whole time. Just curious.
As stated:
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Â
As a Veteran, I firmly believe in exercising my civil rights, as I have given many years of my life defending those rights for everyone else. While society today has evolved, and terror actions are becoming more and more common, this does not excuse the blatant violation of these peopleâs 2nd amendment rights, as they were doing nothing illegal. I can see that seeing someone with a rifle in the open in downtown Portland isnât something usually seen, itâs not illegal. I can even see someone calling the police, and having an officer investigate the incident, but not arresting them for exercising their civil rights. 1) Weapon in plain sight? check 2) Weapon unloaded? check 3) Not displaying the weapon in a threatening or harmful manner? check.  So what was the crime?Â
Â
As for all you giving examples of home grown terror shootings, if there were more people like me exercising their civil rights and following local law concerning concealed carry, those shootings could have been much less disastrous.
 @Ornery Vet Thank You.  Too many idiots around here with no clue about the 2nd amendment and why it's important.
Â
Probably thousands of normal people drove past the guys on the bridge, but because ONE person peed their pants after seeing a rifle, the cowards in the Portland Police closed off the bridge.
Â
God forbid they could go into a sporting goods store.
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
 @mtbieker We're very aware of the second amendment. The issue is that the public, and the police are very cautious when things like this happen.
Â
I tend to hear more news on crazy people shooting others in public, than I do of John Q. Public walking downtown with an assault-looking rifle.
Â
Honestly, how many sane people do that, even if it IS their right? Almost zero.
Â
And after news articles of mass shootings, it's understandable why people are on edge when they see it happen on that rare occasion.
Â
They would rather err on the side of caution, than be wrong and have another mass-shooting. Personally, I'm thankful that they prefer to err on the side of caution.
 @Timoteo Hiroshima I wonder though if the public may have had differing opinions if the people were 'exercising their rights' and as the police inquired, they found out that they were headed downtown to start shooting people. Hmm...
Â
We are the first to call police stupid, until we realize that they may have just saved our lives. In this case, that doesn't apply, but what if they had prevented something big? Would we still be calling them stupid?
@Improprietous @mtbieker You only hear about it when cops are being stupid around people simply exercising their rights. Outside of cities, I see people with weapons all of the time in plain sight. No fuss.