User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 11:20:31 AM EDT
[#1]
Fuck those cops.
Fuck all the ones with the authoritarian syndrome |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 11:24:11 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He just couldn't keep his mouth shut. Just tell the cop, Sir my son and I are out hiking and it wasn't my intent to alarm anyone. I'm putting my hands out so you can inspect the rifle if you need to. Still bullshit he would have to do that, but being polite to the Officer, even if he is wrong goes a long way. If that had been me at the end we would be telling old war stories and might even be talking about guns etc. The 1SG needs to learn sometimes you gotta quit being a loud mouth 1SG and practice some negotiation skills. Cops were fucked up, but being polite sometimes can save you the ride or a ticket. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 11:34:06 AM EDT
[#3]
I did a 12 mile ruck in full kit in Spirit Lake, Idaho. Cops drove past 3 - 4 times then one pulled up next to me, rolled down his window and asked what I was doing. I said "A ruck march." he said ok and drove away. I saw him 4 or 5 more times, but he never stopped me or got out of his car. Cop in this video is an idiot and would not be alive if these two were actually looking to do harm. That kid could have ended him easily within the first 2 minutes of the encounter. Crazy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 11:38:48 AM EDT
[#4]
Happen in 2013
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 11:44:53 AM EDT
[#5]
Damn
 Elected County Attorney Jim Nichols refuses to return my guns |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 11:50:02 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's just an attitude some cops have. 30+ years ago I heard screwy shit all the time from the guys I worked with. Hey, "they" owe us. "They" are the common citizens walking the streets that need the protection of badge wearing gun carrying LEOs. Why to "they" owe us? Because we put our lives on the line every day for them. Heard it so much it started to piss me off. I told more than one of them if they felt that scared, that threatened, by doing the jobs they applied for then maybe they should resign and find a safer job. Damn, that didn't go over well. What the hell was wrong with me? Why was I being so shitty with them? Then there was the I've got a badge and a gun, you have to do what I say. I remember watching another cop arrest a guy for public intoxication one night. I pointed out the guy wasn't drunk. The cop said, "Yeah, I know, but I'm tired of listening to his mouth." I asked about the judge/trial that might follow (some people just pay the fine/court costs before the hearing with the justice of the peace/judge). The other cop said, "Look, it's my word against his and I know the judge always takes my word for it." Damn, that was some scary shit when I first heard another cop speak that idea out loud. I could go on and on about people being beat up, people getting parking tickets when legally parked, people getting their cars towed for no good reason, people being assaulted by city/county employees and having it covered up by LEOs. That 4 year period in my life forever changed my view of police and law enforcement and judges/courts. I know there are good cops out there. I worked with a couple. I knew (or still think I knew) some good ones in other departments. Unfortunately, back then (and maybe now) the good ones have no way of weeding out the bad ones and cleaning up the activities and reputation of the whole department. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 11:51:16 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If it's legal, it should be done MORE. The hand wringing ninnies need to understand the freedoms of an individual can't be taken away because of ignorant feels. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 11:54:35 AM EDT
[#8]
 Temple Police Department Kidnaps Minor |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 12:31:19 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Kid could have shot him dead. Cop has no concept of officer safety. Clown shoes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 12:36:19 PM EDT
[#10]
Officer told him to not touch his gun, he touched the gun.
We see so many videos where some officer doesn't control some guy well enough and the officer gets hurt or killed and people here can't stop criticizing the officer. Here we have an officer who controlled a guy who acted against his instructions, and all you do again is criticize. The guy is doing a ten mile hike with his son? Why does he have to lug an AR down the road for that task? Seriously, do people here not understand that while people on a gun forum think its OK, the people who post here are not the general public. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 12:38:33 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Officer told him to not touch his gun, he touched the gun. We see so many videos where some officer doesn't control some guy well enough and the officer gets hurt or killed and people here can't stop criticizing the officer. Here we have an officer who controlled a guy who acted against his instructions, and all you do again is criticize. The guy is doing a ten mile hike with his son? Why does he have to lug an AR down the road for that task? Seriously, do people here not understand that while people on a gun forum think its OK, the people who post here are not the general public. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 12:41:44 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why should an officer be able to control citizens minding their own business and following the law? That was explained in the video. We don't have crystal balls to know who is who and what is going on. There is no ominous background music or camera angles to tell officers what is going on and who was who. Life is not a TV show. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 12:42:45 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's just an attitude some cops have. 30+ years ago I heard screwy shit all the time from the guys I worked with. Hey, "they" owe us. "They" are the common citizens walking the streets that need the protection of badge wearing gun carrying LEOs. Why to "they" owe us? Because we put our lives on the line every day for them. Heard it so much it started to piss me off. I told more than one of them if they felt that scared, that threatened, by doing the jobs they applied for then maybe they should resign and find a safer job. Damn, that didn't go over well. What the hell was wrong with me? Why was I being so shitty with them? Then there was the I've got a badge and a gun, you have to do what I say. I remember watching another cop arrest a guy for public intoxication one night. I pointed out the guy wasn't drunk. The cop said, "Yeah, I know, but I'm tired of listening to his mouth." I asked about the judge/trial that might follow (some people just pay the fine/court costs before the hearing with the justice of the peace/judge). The other cop said, "Look, it's my word against his and I know the judge always takes my word for it." Damn, that was some scary shit when I first heard another cop speak that idea out loud. I could go on and on about people being beat up, people getting parking tickets when legally parked, people getting their cars towed for no good reason, people being assaulted by city/county employees and having it covered up by LEOs. That 4 year period in my life forever changed my view of police and law enforcement and judges/courts. I know there are good cops out there. I worked with a couple. I knew (or still think I knew) some good ones in other departments. Unfortunately, back then (and maybe now) the good ones have no way of weeding out the bad ones and cleaning up the activities and reputation of the whole department. Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's just an attitude some cops have. 30+ years ago I heard screwy shit all the time from the guys I worked with. Hey, "they" owe us. "They" are the common citizens walking the streets that need the protection of badge wearing gun carrying LEOs. Why to "they" owe us? Because we put our lives on the line every day for them. Heard it so much it started to piss me off. I told more than one of them if they felt that scared, that threatened, by doing the jobs they applied for then maybe they should resign and find a safer job. Damn, that didn't go over well. What the hell was wrong with me? Why was I being so shitty with them? Then there was the I've got a badge and a gun, you have to do what I say. I remember watching another cop arrest a guy for public intoxication one night. I pointed out the guy wasn't drunk. The cop said, "Yeah, I know, but I'm tired of listening to his mouth." I asked about the judge/trial that might follow (some people just pay the fine/court costs before the hearing with the justice of the peace/judge). The other cop said, "Look, it's my word against his and I know the judge always takes my word for it." Damn, that was some scary shit when I first heard another cop speak that idea out loud. I could go on and on about people being beat up, people getting parking tickets when legally parked, people getting their cars towed for no good reason, people being assaulted by city/county employees and having it covered up by LEOs. That 4 year period in my life forever changed my view of police and law enforcement and judges/courts. I know there are good cops out there. I worked with a couple. I knew (or still think I knew) some good ones in other departments. Unfortunately, back then (and maybe now) the good ones have no way of weeding out the bad ones and cleaning up the activities and reputation of the whole department. Quoted:
Fuck those cops. Fuck all the ones with the authoritarian syndrome Quoted:
Yep. The Public doesn't owe cops anything. They were hired to do a job, agreed to the pay and benefits, and were compensated by the public accordingly. LE is a job, not a calling. Been doing it for 26+ years. Tired of seeing all of the Spartan/warrior/sheepdog/thinblueline bullshit that gets slung around. It's getting to be embarrassing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 12:46:45 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The guy is doing a ten mile hike with his son? Why does he have to lug an AR down the road for that task? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 12:48:36 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because he can. Fuck some Billy Joel New York state of mind. That applies to many things in life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 12:55:56 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because we can control a scene that we've been called to so we can figure out what's going on. That was explained in the video. We don't have crystal balls to know who is who and what is going on. There is no ominous background music or camera angles to tell officers what is going on and who was who. Life is not a TV show. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 12:59:59 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ignorance of the situation is not a good excuse for preemptively infringing on the lives of law-abiding citizens. It has nothing to do with being ignorant of a situation. There is no way for an officer to know what is occurring until they investigate and determine what is occurring. Like I said, we don't have crystal balls. We can't read minds. It sounded to me that the officer was initially not going to disarm the guy, specifically told him to not touch the firearm and once the guys other hand was at the stock the officer decided that he needed to control the situation more than he had up to that point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 1:05:47 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just because you can doesn't mean that you should. That applies to many things in life. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Because he can. Fuck some Billy Joel New York state of mind. That applies to many things in life. @extorris he's doing it again! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 1:08:32 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's retarded as shit. He wasn't breaking the law, yet in your mind he shouldn't be doing it anyways because only you and your fellow LEO's should carry guns in public? @extorris he's doing it again! How about you stop putting words in my mouth? Officers got a complaint from someone. Obviously even in TX, this is an unusual enough event that it prompted a call to the police. Officers responded out and dealt with the situation. I don't care what you think of as "retarded". We deal with all sorts of retards on a daily basis who make situations worse than they need to be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 1:09:19 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuote Historyhttp://www.tdtnews.com/news/article_2f190c60-61ec-11e7-87f7-4b325c44b843.html “I’m relieved that after 1,567 days, I finally have the guns back that were stolen from me by Temple Police Department on a back country road where I was minding my own business,” Grisham said Wednesday.
... His demand letter filed on Dec. 5, 2013, for the return of his weapons sparked questions of Bell County agencies and officials by the Temple Daily Telegram as to the location of Grisham’s guns. It was almost like an Abbott and Costello routine as Bell County law enforcement and county officials professed, “We don’t have the guns.” It wasn’t until January 2016 that the location of Grisham’s guns was cleared up when Bell County Attorney Jim Nichols said that the guns were in the custody of the Bell County Sheriff’s Department. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 1:11:30 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because we can control a scene that we've been called to so we can figure out what's going on. That was explained in the video. We don't have crystal balls to know who is who and what is going on. There is no ominous background music or camera angles to tell officers what is going on and who was who. Life is not a TV show. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why should an officer be able to control citizens minding their own business and following the law? That was explained in the video. We don't have crystal balls to know who is who and what is going on. There is no ominous background music or camera angles to tell officers what is going on and who was who. Life is not a TV show. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 1:17:30 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I never said anything about LEOs should be the only ones armed in public. How about you stop putting words in my mouth? Officers got a complaint from someone. Obviously even in TX, this is an unusual enough event that it prompted a call to the police. Officers responded out and dealt with the situation. I don't care what you think of as "retarded". We deal with all sorts of retards on a daily basis who make situations worse than they need to be. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's retarded as shit. He wasn't breaking the law, yet in your mind he shouldn't be doing it anyways because only you and your fellow LEO's should carry guns in public? @extorris he's doing it again! How about you stop putting words in my mouth? Officers got a complaint from someone. Obviously even in TX, this is an unusual enough event that it prompted a call to the police. Officers responded out and dealt with the situation. I don't care what you think of as "retarded". We deal with all sorts of retards on a daily basis who make situations worse than they need to be. But if there's another reason I am listening. At the end of the day he was exercising his rights. There is no "shouldn't do it" if he isn't breaking any laws. Without exercising them we essentially lose them, which is why this went down the way it did. Most people are too intimidated by the police to even attempt what this 1SG did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 1:22:21 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Frankly if y'all can't articulate what crime is being broken or suspect has been broken, y'all shouldn't be trying to control shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Frankly if y'all can't articulate what crime is being broken or suspect has been broken, y'all shouldn't be trying to control shit. In the meantime, they have the authority to render the scene safe so that the investigation can occur. Your comment presupposes that bad guys are readily identifiable. Life doesn't work that way. Quoted:
I think you and I both know that's why you said he shouldn't be doing it. In my mind it either comes down to because 1- you're concerned with him scaring the public by having a gun in public. Or 2- because when you show up you know you're not the only one armed and without suspicion of him committing a crime you can't legally take that weapon off him. But if there's another reason I am listening. At the end of the day he was exercising his rights. There is no "shouldn't do it" if he isn't breaking any laws. Without exercising them we essentially lose them, which is why this went down the way it did. Most people are too intimidated by the police to even attempt what this 1SG did. The issue of scaring the public is a legitimate one. The public is used to seeing armed officers. They are used to seeing armed readily identifiable hunters with long guns afield at certain locations and in certain times of the year. While gun folks posting on gun forums don't understand why its such a big deal to non-gun people, the reality is that many, many people, and not just in NYS, will call in to have police check out these situations. That isn't going to change any time soon. And people who choose to open carry in these sorts of situations should not be surprised if LEOs arrive in response to their actions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 1:25:30 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryI wonder what the Founders would have done in this scenario?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 1:27:10 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who was preemptively infringing. Officers have the right to disarm someone they're interacting with in the interest of officer and public safety. It has nothing to do with being ignorant of a situation. There is no way for an officer to know what is occurring until they investigate and determine what is occurring. Like I said, we don't have crystal balls. We can't read minds. It sounded to me that the officer was initially not going to disarm the guy, specifically told him to not touch the firearm and once the guys other hand was at the stock the officer decided that he needed to control the situation more than he had up to that point. Not really. The officer commits an infringement. And it gets worse, because blue and red are a contradiction. The officer hasn't observed anyone breaking the law, so he has no legitimate reason to interfere in the daily life of law abiding people, let alone violate their rights. If he wants education on the situation (the visual observation of country rucking may be understandably difficult to interpret for some) he could respectfully approach the Americans to request information. Yet instead he escalates. He grabs the man's weapon, then draws down, then assaults and slams the man on a car. A citizen exercising his right is not a justification for assault, especially when in such a natural and transparently unaggressive way (seeking positive control of a slung rifle on a 2point, grabbed by the aggressor). Law enforcement officials often consider killing people who disarm them (even of less-lethal weapons, like tasers) acceptable use of force. Rationally, the same applies to private citizens. Unlike the LEO, whose security is assisted by institutional backing, professional powers and often a presumption of legitimacy, the citizen is in a weaker position, conferring a proportionately greater justification for self-defence against assault. You might prefer a regime where LEOs can read every mind at will to maximize their safety. But freedom tends to decrease the degree of control state officials have over citizens. It's scary, and that's its point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 1:35:11 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Officer told him to not touch his gun, he touched the gun. We see so many videos where some officer doesn't control some guy well enough and the officer gets hurt or killed and people here can't stop criticizing the officer. Here we have an officer who controlled a guy who acted against his instructions, and all you do again is criticize. The guy is doing a ten mile hike with his son? Why does he have to lug an AR down the road for that task? Seriously, do people here not understand that while people on a gun forum think its OK, the people who post here are not the general public. He escalated the situation when no escalation was necessary, then took it further than needed with an unlawful arrest. The other deputy continued the local tradition by interrogating the son and lying to him repeatedly to assert further undue dominance against law-abiding people minding their own business. There is clearly a leadership problem in the area where the LEOs know they can get away with this behavior and will be supported by the other good 'ol boys, same as it has been for decades. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 1:37:21 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because we can control a scene that we've been called to so we can figure out what's going on. That was explained in the video. We don't have crystal balls to know who is who and what is going on. There is no ominous background music or camera angles to tell officers what is going on and who was who. Life is not a TV show. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why should an officer be able to control citizens minding their own business and following the law? That was explained in the video. We don't have crystal balls to know who is who and what is going on. There is no ominous background music or camera angles to tell officers what is going on and who was who. Life is not a TV show. Nobody anywhere said a thing about ominous background music or camera angles. Nobody said anything about life being a TV show. Meanwhile in UT at the local JC Penny's..... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 1:40:06 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Until the officer has an opportunity to determine what's going on, they don't know if a crime is occurring.. In the meantime, they have the authority to render the scene safe so that the investigation can occur. Your comment presupposes that bad guys are readily identifiable. Life doesn't work that way. Once again, I never said anything about officers should be the only ones armed. You want to believe that I said or meant that. The issue of scaring the public is a legitimate one. The public is used to seeing armed officers. They are used to seeing armed readily identifiable hunters with long guns afield at certain locations and in certain times of the year. While gun folks posting on gun forums don't understand why its such a big deal to non-gun people, the reality is that many, many people, and not just in NYS, will call in to have police check out these situations. That isn't going to change any time soon. And people who choose to open carry in these sorts of situations should not be surprised if LEOs arrive in response to their actions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Frankly if y'all can't articulate what crime is being broken or suspect has been broken, y'all shouldn't be trying to control shit. In the meantime, they have the authority to render the scene safe so that the investigation can occur. Your comment presupposes that bad guys are readily identifiable. Life doesn't work that way. Quoted:
I think you and I both know that's why you said he shouldn't be doing it. In my mind it either comes down to because 1- you're concerned with him scaring the public by having a gun in public. Or 2- because when you show up you know you're not the only one armed and without suspicion of him committing a crime you can't legally take that weapon off him. But if there's another reason I am listening. At the end of the day he was exercising his rights. There is no "shouldn't do it" if he isn't breaking any laws. Without exercising them we essentially lose them, which is why this went down the way it did. Most people are too intimidated by the police to even attempt what this 1SG did. The issue of scaring the public is a legitimate one. The public is used to seeing armed officers. They are used to seeing armed readily identifiable hunters with long guns afield at certain locations and in certain times of the year. While gun folks posting on gun forums don't understand why its such a big deal to non-gun people, the reality is that many, many people, and not just in NYS, will call in to have police check out these situations. That isn't going to change any time soon. And people who choose to open carry in these sorts of situations should not be surprised if LEOs arrive in response to their actions. Maybe a good fix for this would be something like a open carry card that an open carrier could apply for that you're required to show law enforcement upon contact, at which point you show it then you both go on your merry way. A card that you would get denied if you were a felon. Although I hate the thought of applying for anything to exercise a right, maybe this would put all of the above at ease, I don't know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 1:41:15 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just because you can doesn't mean that you should. That applies to many things in life. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Because he can. Fuck some Billy Joel New York state of mind. That applies to many things in life. Carrying firearms is and has been a part of American life since before the founding of the Nation, as part of people's daily routines. That a fat, doughnut-scarfing, lard-headed half-wit disgusting himself as a public servant would find an issue with that just goes to show the state of his mentality, especially in a State like TX. For an LEO to identify with the perpetrator of abuse of authority and not the rights of the people is telling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 1:41:24 PM EDT
[#30]
Fire the fat fuck and his dipshit "I don't care what the law says" Sgt as well.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 1:45:20 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 1SG was well within his rights, however If he would have quit being a 1SG for a few mins the interaction would have went better. Just tell the cop, Sir my son and I are out hiking and it wasn't my intent to alarm anyone. I'm putting my hands out so you can inspect the rifle if you need to. Still bullshit he would have to do that, but being polite to the Officer, even if he is wrong goes a long way. If that had been me at the end we would be telling old war stories and might even be talking about guns etc. The 1SG needs to learn sometimes you gotta quit being a loud mouth 1SG and practice some negotiation skills. Cops were fucked up, but being polite sometimes can save you the ride or a ticket. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 1:46:09 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will go with scaring the public to give you benefit of the doubt. I would argue that the public should get more used to people carrying legally, and not just assume you're a terrorist/murderer/criminal because you're doing so. I don't have an issue with law enforcement showing up to this, only with them acting like he's a criminal for doing so or telling him he shouldn't be exercising his rights. Maybe a good fix for this would be something like a open carry card that an open carrier could apply for that you're required to show law enforcement upon contact, at which point you show it then you both go on your merry way. A card that you would get denied if you were a felon. Although I hate the thought of applying for anything to exercise a right, maybe this would put all of the above at ease, I don't know. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Frankly if y'all can't articulate what crime is being broken or suspect has been broken, y'all shouldn't be trying to control shit. In the meantime, they have the authority to render the scene safe so that the investigation can occur. Your comment presupposes that bad guys are readily identifiable. Life doesn't work that way. Quoted:
I think you and I both know that's why you said he shouldn't be doing it. In my mind it either comes down to because 1- you're concerned with him scaring the public by having a gun in public. Or 2- because when you show up you know you're not the only one armed and without suspicion of him committing a crime you can't legally take that weapon off him. But if there's another reason I am listening. At the end of the day he was exercising his rights. There is no "shouldn't do it" if he isn't breaking any laws. Without exercising them we essentially lose them, which is why this went down the way it did. Most people are too intimidated by the police to even attempt what this 1SG did. The issue of scaring the public is a legitimate one. The public is used to seeing armed officers. They are used to seeing armed readily identifiable hunters with long guns afield at certain locations and in certain times of the year. While gun folks posting on gun forums don't understand why its such a big deal to non-gun people, the reality is that many, many people, and not just in NYS, will call in to have police check out these situations. That isn't going to change any time soon. And people who choose to open carry in these sorts of situations should not be surprised if LEOs arrive in response to their actions. Maybe a good fix for this would be something like a open carry card that an open carrier could apply for that you're required to show law enforcement upon contact, at which point you show it then you both go on your merry way. A card that you would get denied if you were a felon. Although I hate the thought of applying for anything to exercise a right, maybe this would put all of the above at ease, I don't know. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 1:46:14 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's a power, not a right. Citizens have the right to keep and bear arms; but can a right be said to exist if it doesn't confer strict protections against unilateral suppression by government agents initiating interactions against law-abiding citizens? Not really. The officer commits an infringement. And it gets worse, because blue and red are a contradiction. The officer hasn't observed anyone breaking the law, so he has no legitimate reason to interfere in the daily life of law abiding people, let alone violate their rights. If he wants education on the situation (the visual observation of country rucking may be understandably difficult to interpret for some) he could respectfully approach the Americans to request information. Yet instead he escalates. He grabs the man's weapon, then draws down, then assaults and slams the man on a car. A citizen exercising his right is not a justification for assault, especially when in such a natural and transparently unaggressive way (seeking positive control of a slung rifle on a 2point, grabbed by the aggressor). Law enforcement officials often consider killing people who disarm them (even of less-lethal weapons, like tasers) acceptable use of force. Rationally, the same applies to private citizens. Unlike the LEO, whose security is assisted by institutional backing, professional powers and often a presumption of legitimacy, the citizen is in a weaker position, conferring a proportionately greater justification for self-defence against assault. You might prefer a regime where LEOs can read every mind at will to maximize their safety. But freedom tends to decrease the degree of control state officials have over citizens. It's scary, and that's its point. He has the authority to disarm the person the officer is dealing with. He has a legitimate reason to interview the person; the officers said quite clearly that a complaint was received. That is a legitimate reason. He approached the pedestrian and initiated the interview. He asked the man to not touch his weapon. The man touched his weapon, and the officer reacted to that failure to follow the instructions he'd given. The man does not have legal authority to assault the officer who was conducting a lawful investigation. No, I wouldn't care to be able to read peoples minds. I simply said that because we can't read minds and we don't have crystal balls, or the camera angles and music of TV and film, we have no way of knowing someone's intentions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 1:47:54 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's clearly a case of a local boy, above the law type sh*tbag who knows he can get away with asserting his authoritay against people not committing any crimes, then then lies about the case in his report and testimony to escape any checks and balances that the State of Texas might have written somewhere. He escalated the situation when no escalation was necessary, then took it further than needed with an unlawful arrest. The other deputy continued the local tradition by interrogating the son and lying to him repeatedly to assert further undue dominance against law-abiding people minding their own business. There is clearly a leadership problem in the area where the LEOs know they can get away with this behavior and will be supported by the other good 'ol boys, same as it has been for decades. Unless we are local to that area and have knowledge of the people involved, we know nothing about the local situation on the ground. The officer "escalated" because he told the man to not touch his weapon, and the man did so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 1:50:06 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We already have an open carry card: https://static.larue.com/media/cache/76/a6/76a63d4a4d3f8be1ce4da9b626b4337f.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Frankly if y'all can't articulate what crime is being broken or suspect has been broken, y'all shouldn't be trying to control shit. In the meantime, they have the authority to render the scene safe so that the investigation can occur. Your comment presupposes that bad guys are readily identifiable. Life doesn't work that way. Quoted:
I think you and I both know that's why you said he shouldn't be doing it. In my mind it either comes down to because 1- you're concerned with him scaring the public by having a gun in public. Or 2- because when you show up you know you're not the only one armed and without suspicion of him committing a crime you can't legally take that weapon off him. But if there's another reason I am listening. At the end of the day he was exercising his rights. There is no "shouldn't do it" if he isn't breaking any laws. Without exercising them we essentially lose them, which is why this went down the way it did. Most people are too intimidated by the police to even attempt what this 1SG did. The issue of scaring the public is a legitimate one. The public is used to seeing armed officers. They are used to seeing armed readily identifiable hunters with long guns afield at certain locations and in certain times of the year. While gun folks posting on gun forums don't understand why its such a big deal to non-gun people, the reality is that many, many people, and not just in NYS, will call in to have police check out these situations. That isn't going to change any time soon. And people who choose to open carry in these sorts of situations should not be surprised if LEOs arrive in response to their actions. Maybe a good fix for this would be something like a open carry card that an open carrier could apply for that you're required to show law enforcement upon contact, at which point you show it then you both go on your merry way. A card that you would get denied if you were a felon. Although I hate the thought of applying for anything to exercise a right, maybe this would put all of the above at ease, I don't know. https://static.larue.com/media/cache/76/a6/76a63d4a4d3f8be1ce4da9b626b4337f.jpg 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 1:51:22 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is a straw man argument common to people who choose to use logical fallacies when trying to present an indefensible or weak case. Nobody anywhere said a thing about ominous background music or camera angles. Nobody said anything about life being a TV show. Meanwhile in UT at the local JC Penny's..... https://s-i.huffpost.com/gen/948441/images/o-JOSEPH-KELLEY-JC-PENNY-facebook.jpg I'm simply pointing out that in TV and movies, the audience "knows" what is going on because they are spoon-fed the situation through the narrative, through camera angles, and background music, one of which is available to an officer arriving on-scene, unless the officer pulls up and recognizes a person to be someone they deal with regularly. In those cases the officer sort of knows what they're walking into, but not entirely. There have been officers killed because they are dealing with Billy Bob who they've dealt with dozens of times without incident, so the officer lets their guard down and gets killed because they did so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 1:54:30 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will go with scaring the public to give you benefit of the doubt. I would argue that the public should get more used to people carrying legally, and not just assume you're a terrorist/murderer/criminal because you're doing so. I don't have an issue with law enforcement showing up to this, only with them acting like he's a criminal for doing so or telling him he shouldn't be exercising his rights. Maybe a good fix for this would be something like a open carry card that an open carrier could apply for that you're required to show law enforcement upon contact, at which point you show it then you both go on your merry way. A card that you would get denied if you were a felon. Although I hate the thought of applying for anything to exercise a right, maybe this would put all of the above at ease, I don't know. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will go with scaring the public to give you benefit of the doubt. I would argue that the public should get more used to people carrying legally, and not just assume you're a terrorist/murderer/criminal because you're doing so. I don't have an issue with law enforcement showing up to this, only with them acting like he's a criminal for doing so or telling him he shouldn't be exercising his rights. Maybe a good fix for this would be something like a open carry card that an open carrier could apply for that you're required to show law enforcement upon contact, at which point you show it then you both go on your merry way. A card that you would get denied if you were a felon. Although I hate the thought of applying for anything to exercise a right, maybe this would put all of the above at ease, I don't know. Even some concealed carry permit holders commit crimes. The numbers may be small, but it still happens. The general public isn't going to get more used to seeing guns being walked around in public. If anything, I think its going the other way, as rural areas get developed, hunting land is lost to population growth, and rural areas disappear. Quoted:
However, under US and TX law, it does not apply in this case to people minding their own business. Carrying firearms is and has been a part of American life since before the founding of the Nation, as part of people's daily routines. That a fat, doughnut-scarfing, lard-headed half-wit disgusting himself as a public servant would find an issue with that just goes to show the state of his mentality, especially in a State like TX. For an LEO to identify with the perpetrator of abuse of authority and not the rights of the people is telling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 1:56:35 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Semantics. He has the authority to disarm the person the officer is dealing with. He has a legitimate reason to interview the person; the officers said quite clearly that a complaint was received. That is a legitimate reason. He approached the pedestrian and initiated the interview. He asked the man to not touch his weapon. The man touched his weapon, and the officer reacted to that failure to follow the instructions he'd given. The man does not have legal authority to assault the officer who was conducting a lawful investigation. No, I wouldn't care to be able to read peoples minds. I simply said that because we can't read minds and we don't have crystal balls, or the camera angles and music of TV and film, we have no way of knowing someone's intentions. Quoted for the record. This rationalisation of flight from ethical consciousness is sadly common among cops. It's for understandable reasons, but I've never quite nailed down how it persists in a post-swatting environment, beyond inertia ofc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 1:59:26 PM EDT
[#39]
When I see situations like this or cops talking about sudden movements or people with guns, I always wonder why game warden are never involved in these shootings of unarmed people or arrests like this. Everyone a game warden is involved with is armed, our game warden laughs Everytime someone tells him they have a ccw and are armed. I guess they have bigger balls or are maybe better trained and more qualified. Or it could be they actually understand they signed up for the dangerous job not your average citizen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 1:59:38 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We have a complaint, therefore we can disarm you at will, order you about, and if you do not disarm, we can attack you, and you do not have a legal right to defend yourself. Quoted for the record. This rationalisation of flight from ethical consciousness is sadly common among cops. It's for understandable reasons, but I've never quite nailed down how it persists in a post-swatting environment, beyond inertia ofc. There is nothing unethical in that progression. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:00:22 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only problem with that theory would be the situations where a crime is occurring and you want us to think that someone waving a card is a magic form of a hall pass in school. Even some concealed carry permit holders commit crimes. The numbers may be small, but it still happens. The general public isn't going to get more used to seeing guns being walked around in public. If anything, I think its going the other way, as rural areas get developed, hunting land is lost to population growth, and rural areas disappear. Se above. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I will go with scaring the public to give you benefit of the doubt. I would argue that the public should get more used to people carrying legally, and not just assume you're a terrorist/murderer/criminal because you're doing so. I don't have an issue with law enforcement showing up to this, only with them acting like he's a criminal for doing so or telling him he shouldn't be exercising his rights. Maybe a good fix for this would be something like a open carry card that an open carrier could apply for that you're required to show law enforcement upon contact, at which point you show it then you both go on your merry way. A card that you would get denied if you were a felon. Although I hate the thought of applying for anything to exercise a right, maybe this would put all of the above at ease, I don't know. Even some concealed carry permit holders commit crimes. The numbers may be small, but it still happens. The general public isn't going to get more used to seeing guns being walked around in public. If anything, I think its going the other way, as rural areas get developed, hunting land is lost to population growth, and rural areas disappear. Quoted:
However, under US and TX law, it does not apply in this case to people minding their own business. Carrying firearms is and has been a part of American life since before the founding of the Nation, as part of people's daily routines. That a fat, doughnut-scarfing, lard-headed half-wit disgusting himself as a public servant would find an issue with that just goes to show the state of his mentality, especially in a State like TX. For an LEO to identify with the perpetrator of abuse of authority and not the rights of the people is telling. Which shall not be infringed. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:02:04 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think the version you're presenting is as clear as you think it is. Unless we are local to that area and have knowledge of the people involved, we know nothing about the local situation on the ground. The officer "escalated" because he told the man to not touch his weapon, and the man did so. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's clearly a case of a local boy, above the law type sh*tbag who knows he can get away with asserting his authoritay against people not committing any crimes, then then lies about the case in his report and testimony to escape any checks and balances that the State of Texas might have written somewhere. He escalated the situation when no escalation was necessary, then took it further than needed with an unlawful arrest. The other deputy continued the local tradition by interrogating the son and lying to him repeatedly to assert further undue dominance against law-abiding people minding their own business. There is clearly a leadership problem in the area where the LEOs know they can get away with this behavior and will be supported by the other good 'ol boys, same as it has been for decades. Unless we are local to that area and have knowledge of the people involved, we know nothing about the local situation on the ground. The officer "escalated" because he told the man to not touch his weapon, and the man did so. The officer escalated before asking the victim to not touch his firearm. The officer first aggressively grabbed the rifle without permission, then tried to read something on the AR15 as if he knew what he was doing. I'm not sure what information he thought he was gaining by visually inspection the firearm and placing his head down in a low SA stance, but he's clearly a dummy acting on the fly. If his department trained him to behave that way in this type of encounter, they need a complete overhaul on their training. He did not give any instructions to the victim until after the attempted to prevent him from disarming him. If you actually go back and watch it, without saying anything, the officer reached up with his left hand to disconnect the AR15 from the sling. Officer: "Is there a reason why you have this?" Victim: "Because I can." Officer: "Well, umkay." reaches up to DC the AR15 from the sling. The citizen then reached up with both hands to secure his stock and fore end while clearly stating, "Woah. Hey, don't disarm me." This is when the officer draws his sidearm and puts it in the victim's face. Maybe study the incident a little more before doubling down on what is coming across as an officer-defense default argument, when the officer has no real legal ground to stand on here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:02:21 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because he can. Fuck some Billy Joel New York state of mind. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The guy is doing a ten mile hike with his son? Why does he have to lug an AR down the road for that task?  Little Elm Sergeant Told Me Open Carry Is Disorderly Conduct |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:04:09 PM EDT
[#44]
He needs to move to a free state. That entire mess was bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:04:36 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see you haven't taken the time to watch the video before commenting, or didn't notice what the sequence of events were. The officer escalated before asking the victim to not touch his firearm. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see you haven't taken the time to watch the video before commenting, or didn't notice what the sequence of events were. The officer escalated before asking the victim to not touch his firearm. I watched both videos before posting. The officer told the man to not touch his weapon. You can see the mans other hand at the weapon stock. THAT was when the officer escalated. The officer first aggressively grabbed the rifle without permission, then tried to read something on the AR15 as if he knew what he was doing. I'm not sure what information he thought he was gaining by visually inspection the firearm and placing his head down in a low SA stance, but he's clearly a dummy acting on the fly. The citizen then reached up with both hands to secure his stock and fore end while clearly stating, "Woah. Hey, don't disarm me." How do YOU KNOW that the mans intentions were to "secure his stock and fore end"? How is the officer supposed to know that? Once again, we see someone post something from conjecture or what they must assume is some mind-reading capability of an officer. He ( I assume) sees the mans hand move to the gun when he told the man NOT to do that, and the officer drew his sidearm and secured the man in cuffs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:10:22 PM EDT
[#46]
if THAT cop got shot, i would not care.
those badge heavy fuckers need to take a step back from ledge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:11:26 PM EDT
[#47]
What a clusterfuck of bad decisions. That cop acted incredibly unprofessional and could have easily cleared up any confusion but instead decided to go full muh authoritah.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:11:49 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fair enough. I got out of the army because of Fort hood and hate Texas. I guess we are even. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:14:06 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only problem with that theory would be the situations where a crime is occurring and you want us to think that someone waving a card is a magic form of a hall pass in school. Even some concealed carry permit holders commit crimes. The numbers may be small, but it still happens. The general public isn't going to get more used to seeing guns being walked around in public. If anything, I think its going the other way, as rural areas get developed, hunting land is lost to population growth, and rural areas disappear. Se above. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I will go with scaring the public to give you benefit of the doubt. I would argue that the public should get more used to people carrying legally, and not just assume you're a terrorist/murderer/criminal because you're doing so. I don't have an issue with law enforcement showing up to this, only with them acting like he's a criminal for doing so or telling him he shouldn't be exercising his rights. Maybe a good fix for this would be something like a open carry card that an open carrier could apply for that you're required to show law enforcement upon contact, at which point you show it then you both go on your merry way. A card that you would get denied if you were a felon. Although I hate the thought of applying for anything to exercise a right, maybe this would put all of the above at ease, I don't know. Even some concealed carry permit holders commit crimes. The numbers may be small, but it still happens. The general public isn't going to get more used to seeing guns being walked around in public. If anything, I think its going the other way, as rural areas get developed, hunting land is lost to population growth, and rural areas disappear. Quoted:
However, under US and TX law, it does not apply in this case to people minding their own business. Carrying firearms is and has been a part of American life since before the founding of the Nation, as part of people's daily routines. That a fat, doughnut-scarfing, lard-headed half-wit disgusting himself as a public servant would find an issue with that just goes to show the state of his mentality, especially in a State like TX. For an LEO to identify with the perpetrator of abuse of authority and not the rights of the people is telling. Under your stated interpretation of the law or how an LEO should view the public, everyone is a criminal because someone might be a criminal. For individual force protection, I understand that and the fine line an LEO must walk when balancing their personal safety with that of the public, but it is not a legal standard in the US to assume that everyone is a criminal. In other countries, that seems to work for them, but not here. Would a reasonable person consider a man and his minor son out taking a hike in a rural area in Texas to be indicative of criminal activity? Upon initial contact, the LEO gained all the information he needed to know after he asked the man what he was doing. The answer he received was, "Hiking." The man and his son were in hiking attire, hiking alongside the road, engaging in conduct consistent with hiking. As soon as he reached over and aggressively grabbed the AR15 while it was slung to the man, he stepped over a line. He then asked, "Is there a reason you have this?" The man said, "Because I can." There is no legal justification to disarm the man at that point, whether the officer wants to control a scene or not. No crime has been committed, other than by the officer, who escalates into near-deadly force without any consideration for maintaining the peace-his job. He didn't have any information that indicated a crime was committed. It doesn't matter if he got a call that someone was walking along the road with a firearm. It would be different if someone witnessed the commission of a crime. Nobody filed a criminal complaint stating any witness of criminal activity. He chose to escalate because he is either dumb, poorly trained, or both. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:17:41 PM EDT
[#50]
That incident sparked Open Carry Texas and other groups. It also pushed for better LTC laws. Grisham is a spokesman and travels around speaking on the topic.
City mouse cop in the countryside of Texas with little knowledge of the Texas Constitution and common sense. Yankees moving to Texas to join PDs and SOs have to be retrained and reprogrammed. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
