User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:18:44 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your understanding of the law is coming from an illegal application of a criminal standard vs a reasonable standard. 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. Not even close to being a complete investigation. I said nothing about everyone being a criminal, but until an officer conducts a thorough investigation, we can't say that he is able to determine if criminal activity is afoot or not. Just because someone says they're hiking doesn't mean the officer is going to go "oh, ok" and drive away. Normal people don't go hiking with a long gun strapped to their chest. That answer alone is going to raise more questions than it answers. You're welcome to your opinion, but it's wrong. Sorry to say. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:21:01 PM EDT
[#2]
The problem in the first place is that someone called on him. Think about it, we used to do this without a care in the world. Shit, as a kid I used to go kill squirrels on the side of the road. The lawyers are lobotomizing America, that and the media has pretty much turned all guns evil. If you are not LEO or Mil you should not have it, so if a someone is walking down the road with a gun they will get harassed, even in states where hunting is a way of life. Seriously this big brother shit is only going to get worse.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:27:22 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The video below is a good one showing the mindset of law enforcement prior to Open Carry Texas and the like educating them and the public on the laws.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD9RZnLsTu8Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD9RZnLsTu8"Just because you can (exercise your 2A rights), doesn't mean you should. Just because you can call people the "N" word (freedom of speech), doesn't mean you should." Again, like every other discussion we have here about these messes, the vast majority of the public is operating on lack of thinking because they were programmed in school not to think. The officers are guilty of that with all their logical fallacies, ex: exercising 2A = calling people the "N" word. And you wonder why the home-schooling movement is growing as rapidly as it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:28:22 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just because you can doesn't mean that you should. That applies to many things in life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:29:27 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLfGikbQkcM
Edit: here is the outcome since people asked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iGk9xV2g-YAnother CJ Grisham thread. 
@Miami_JBT they're talking about your pal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:31:01 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wrong. 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. Only he would know, but I'm assuming that he was looking for indication it might be FA, or a ghost gun, or any number of other things. Did this not ever come out at the trails that resulted? The man has no standing to make that demand. 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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. You failed to correctly see what order everything happened, and then drew conclusions based on incorrect observations. I would recommend watching it again, recognize where you missed important details, then come back and acknowledge where you missed it and why you now understand how you came to the conclusions you did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:32:26 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your observational capabilities are now under question, because everyone can watch the video and observe the sequence of events. You failed to correctly see what order everything happened, and then drew conclusions based on incorrect observations. I would recommend watching it again, recognize where you missed important details, then come back and acknowledge where you missed it and why you now understand how you came to the conclusions you did. The officer told him while walking up to him to not touch the weapon. The man touched his weapon after being told to not do so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:32:55 PM EDT
[#8]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:35:21 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The officer had done at best a very minimal investigation at the point of the conversation you're quoting. Not even close to being a complete investigation. I said nothing about everyone being a criminal, but until an officer conducts a thorough investigation, we can't say that he is able to determine if criminal activity is afoot or not. Just because someone says they're hiking doesn't mean the officer is going to go "oh, ok" and drive away. Normal people don't go hiking with a long gun strapped to their chest. That answer alone is going to raise more questions than it answers. You're welcome to your opinion, but it's wrong. Sorry to say. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Your understanding of the law is coming from an illegal application of a criminal standard vs a reasonable standard. 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. Not even close to being a complete investigation. I said nothing about everyone being a criminal, but until an officer conducts a thorough investigation, we can't say that he is able to determine if criminal activity is afoot or not. Just because someone says they're hiking doesn't mean the officer is going to go "oh, ok" and drive away. Normal people don't go hiking with a long gun strapped to their chest. That answer alone is going to raise more questions than it answers. You're welcome to your opinion, but it's wrong. Sorry to say. Freedom be scary yo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:35:38 PM EDT
[#10]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:37:27 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He needs to move to a free state. That entire mess was bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:38:48 PM EDT
[#12]
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. Although the cop had every obligation to contact the subject, in the end they were both assholes |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:39:44 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem in the first place is that someone called on him. Think about it, we used to do this without a care in the world. Shit, as a kid I used to go kill squirrels on the side of the road. The lawyers are lobotomizing America, that and the media has pretty much turned all guns evil. If you are not LEO or Mil you should not have it, so if a someone is walking down the road with a gun they will get harassed, even in states where hunting is a way of life. Seriously this big brother shit is only going to get worse. Even in the blue area of VA when a "man with a gun" complaint comes in the operator will ask whether it's slung or holstered, and if it's in there whether the complainant knows that this is legal unless displayed in a threatening manner. Not all operators do this, but many, if not most do. If an officer is dispatched they generally drive by and don't talk unless they really think something is obviously wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:41:15 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The officer had done at best a very minimal investigation at the point of the conversation you're quoting. Not even close to being a complete investigation. I said nothing about everyone being a criminal, but until an officer conducts a thorough investigation, we can't say that he is able to determine if criminal activity is afoot or not. Just because someone says they're hiking doesn't mean the officer is going to go "oh, ok" and drive away. Normal people don't go hiking with a long gun strapped to their chest. That answer alone is going to raise more questions than it answers. You're welcome to your opinion, but it's wrong. Sorry to say. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Your understanding of the law is coming from an illegal application of a criminal standard vs a reasonable standard. 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. Not even close to being a complete investigation. I said nothing about everyone being a criminal, but until an officer conducts a thorough investigation, we can't say that he is able to determine if criminal activity is afoot or not. Just because someone says they're hiking doesn't mean the officer is going to go "oh, ok" and drive away. Normal people don't go hiking with a long gun strapped to their chest. That answer alone is going to raise more questions than it answers. You're welcome to your opinion, but it's wrong. Sorry to say. There are standards for interaction with the public. What you don't do with a compliant citizen is escalate. "Normal" people have exercised their right to bear firearms throughout the Nation's history, as well as before it, especially in the State of Texas. If the officer doesn't like the manner in which the citizen was carrying his AR15, all he needed to do was to state how and where he would like the firearm to be held or maintained during the course of his investigation. For him to just reach up and grab it was where things started to depart from an acceptable interaction with the public. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:42:36 PM EDT
[#15]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:43:13 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nowhere did anyone state that the officer's next legal and departmentally-trained action should be to just say "oh, ok" and drive way. There are standards for interaction with the public. What you don't do with a compliant citizen is escalate. "Normal" people have exercised their right to bear firearms throughout the Nation's history, as well as before it, especially in the State of Texas. If the officer doesn't like the manner in which the citizen was carrying his AR15, all he needed to do was to state how and where he would like the firearm to be held or maintained during the course of his investigation. For him to just reach up and grab it was where things started to depart from an acceptable interaction with the public. The man touched his rifle despite being told to not do so. That automatically escalates the man to the "non-compliant" category, especially at a contact distance There are many people in threads like this one that relate that in their opinion officers should just drive by, or not respond at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:43:47 PM EDT
[#17]
Texas should be an open carry state. It’s stupid it’s not but that’s not how you go and change things. He wanted attention and got it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:44:40 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wrong. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:45:00 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If cops get a call about a suspicious person or act they have to answer it. An actual crime doesn't have to be articulated for initial contact. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:45:07 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Texas should be an open carry state. It’s stupid it’s not but that’s not how you go and change things. He wanted attention and got it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:45:17 PM EDT
[#21]
Cop is lucky the First Sargeant's battle buddy didn't decide to provide cover.
Cop is stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:46:51 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Of course if the police get a call about a "suspicious person" it is wise to go investigate but if you aren't able to articulate what crime they are committing or you suspect them of committing then you should not be detaining them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:47:48 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What do you think happened in a different sequence than what I posted. The officer told him while walking up to him to not touch the weapon. The man touched his weapon after being told to not do so. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Your observational capabilities are now under question, because everyone can watch the video and observe the sequence of events. You failed to correctly see what order everything happened, and then drew conclusions based on incorrect observations. I would recommend watching it again, recognize where you missed important details, then come back and acknowledge where you missed it and why you now understand how you came to the conclusions you did. The officer told him while walking up to him to not touch the weapon. The man touched his weapon after being told to not do so. Whatever he was mumbling in the beginning, sounds like, "Don be touchin' it." The victim's body is in contact with the AR15 throughout the encounter. Not only does the officer need re-training on how to do LEO interactions with the public, he needs to be trained on how to speak basic English instructions. I do see where you drew your conclusions from in that regard though. The officer screwed up by escalating this when there was no need to do that at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:48:03 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cop is lucky the First Sargeant's battle buddy didn't decide to provide cover. Cop is stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:51:03 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He told the man to not touch the rifle as he approached him. The man touched his rifle despite being told to not do so. That automatically escalates the man to the "non-compliant" category, especially at a contact distance There are many people in threads like this one that relate that in their opinion officers should just drive by, or not respond at all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nowhere did anyone state that the officer's next legal and departmentally-trained action should be to just say "oh, ok" and drive way. There are standards for interaction with the public. What you don't do with a compliant citizen is escalate. "Normal" people have exercised their right to bear firearms throughout the Nation's history, as well as before it, especially in the State of Texas. If the officer doesn't like the manner in which the citizen was carrying his AR15, all he needed to do was to state how and where he would like the firearm to be held or maintained during the course of his investigation. For him to just reach up and grab it was where things started to depart from an acceptable interaction with the public. The man touched his rifle despite being told to not do so. That automatically escalates the man to the "non-compliant" category, especially at a contact distance There are many people in threads like this one that relate that in their opinion officers should just drive by, or not respond at all.  Especially if they aren't acting in an overtly hostile manner or visibly breaking any laws and it's a firearm you aren't familiar with. I'd be agitated too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:51:53 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder what the Founders would have done in this scenario? Quote HistoryQuoted:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:52:07 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ever heard of a Terry v Ohio? Cop get a call of suspicious activity contacts described subject, cop can pay down outside of subjects clothing for weapons. Without a specific offense articulated. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Of course if the police get a call about a "suspicious person" it is wise to go investigate but if you aren't able to articulate what crime they are committing or you suspect them of committing then you should not be detaining them. https://www.policeone.com/investigations/articles/185192006-14-things-cops-need-to-know-to-successfully-use-stop-and-frisk/ What reasonable suspicion was present in this case? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:53:25 PM EDT
[#28]
Arfcom cops and boot lickers be like:
"Well, at least the officer made it home safely." "Fuck the Constitution." |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:54:39 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Civil servants serving their own perogative with civility. Can we get the followup? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:55:55 PM EDT
[#30]
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. Not surprising the New Yorker, whom I gather is a cop, wants people to get in line and bend over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:56:12 PM EDT
[#31]
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 Looks like more training might be in order. Especially since the safety selector is rubbing against his body. Unsafe carry is unsafe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 2:56:46 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just because you can doesn't mean that you should. That applies to many things in life. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 3:00:20 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You’re fired! That’s what they should be hearing. Every cop there should be |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 3:00:44 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How many people are being muzzle swept by that weapon hanging like that? Looks like more training might be in order. Especially since the safety selector is rubbing against his body. Unsafe carry is unsafe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 Looks like more training might be in order. Especially since the safety selector is rubbing against his body. Unsafe carry is unsafe. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 3:00:49 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure what the law is in that state. If it's legal ok but man walking down the ride with a rifle now days seems like a bad move. People are going to call and you are going to get attention from the police. Probably not the smartest thing to do. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 3:01:32 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fuck that. Being nice to cops is not required by law. Despite that I was once told my attitude could get me cited. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. The 1SG could have just been polite with Officer diabitus and maybe left without being in handcuffs. 1SG didn't respect cupcakes authority and things went south. Like the old saying goes, you might beat the wrap but not the ride. I would have been polite and calm especially with my son there. Tell cupcake you understand how hard his job is and make him feel good, maybe even talk about a recent cake recipe your wife has. Even if I was right, what if cupcake decided to shoot and my son was killed. Sorry not the hill I would want me or my son to die on after seeing the video. Just my opinion |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 3:02:02 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Arfcom cops and boot lickers be like: "Well, at least the officer made it home safely." "Fuck the Constitution." |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 3:03:08 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If cops get a call about a suspicious person or act they have to answer it. An actual crime doesn't have to be articulated for initial contact. 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. I know of a real case where the local police were called when several neighbors saw a young man walking down the street with an AR-15. Upon arrival, the officer told him to place it on the grass and he complied. After a lot of questioning, the young man said he was just "out walking" but couldn't explain why he had the AR. He was arrested for failure to identify, as he had no ID and gave suspicious information about his name and address. He was allowed to call his Mom sent a lawyer to make bond. The police just waited. Sure enough, about 4:30 that afternoon, they got a call from a guy that had just got home from work and found his home had been burglarized. His AR-15 was missing. The police told him that they had his rifle and knew who had stolen it and wanted him to file charges, which he was glad to do. Notice the similarities: 1. Calls of complaint from citizens about a man walking with a gun. 2. Guy is confronted and says he was just "taking a walk" Now it seems that some of you think the police should have just waved and smiled and let him go, as they had no "proof that a crime had been committed". And they had a guy that swore he "was just taking a walk". Some of you need to be more realistic about how real situations must be handled by law enforcement officers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 3:04:31 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
BS, you might need to watch the video again. He did not say anything about not touching the weapon before he escalated the encounter. Kinda like I've seen videos of cops beating the hell out of an unconscious person and hollering stop resisting. Quote HistoryQuoted:
BS, you might need to watch the video again. He did not say anything about not touching the weapon before he escalated the encounter. Kinda like I've seen videos of cops beating the hell out of an unconscious person and hollering stop resisting. Quoted:
At no time in the video did the officer say that. Whatever he was mumbling in the beginning, sounds like, "Don be touchin' it." You want to discount that as the officer mumbling, but it was clear enough on the video. Quoted: Gee, I can’t think of a single reason one would feel the necessity to carry a long gun while hiking into the wilderness. Not surprising the New Yorker, whom I gather is a cop, wants people to get in line and bend over. That area looked to be more developed than some areas I hike in in Upstate NY. An yes, I carry while hiking...a handgun, out of sight. Lugging a rifle around the woods and back country? Had enough of that in the military. Now, maybe if you were TRULY out in the wilderness, away from humanity, I could buy your argument. The guy was doing a road walk for his sons merit badge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 3:04:48 PM EDT
[#40]
I grew up in the town where this happened. Temple has looked down on soldiers for a long time. The common term in Temple for a GI was "doggy."
I graduated from THS in '73 and left in '74. I was an army brat. Temple can go fuck itself for all I care. I have nothing and no one there since my parents died. I'm not going to my 45th high school reunion in October even though it is only two hours away. No one I would cross the street to talk to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 3:06:53 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The officer had done at best a very minimal investigation at the point of the conversation you're quoting. Not even close to being a complete investigation. I said nothing about everyone being a criminal, but until an officer conducts a thorough investigation, we can't say that he is able to determine if criminal activity is afoot or not. Just because someone says they're hiking doesn't mean the officer is going to go "oh, ok" and drive away. Normal people don't go hiking with a long gun strapped to their chest. That answer alone is going to raise more questions than it answers. You're welcome to your opinion, but it's wrong. Sorry to say. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 3:08:23 PM EDT
[#42]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 3:08:45 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is correct. I know of a real case where the local police were called when several neighbors saw a young man walking down the street with an AR-15. Upon arrival, the officer told him to place it on the grass and he complied. After a lot of questioning, the young man said he was just "out walking" but couldn't explain why he had the AR. He was arrested for failure to identify, as he had no ID and gave suspicious information about his name and address. He was allowed to call his Mom sent a lawyer to make bond. The police just waited. Sure enough, about 4:30 that afternoon, they got a call from a guy that had just got home from work and found his home had been burglarized. His AR-15 was missing. The police told him that they had his rifle and knew who had stolen it and wanted him to file charges, which he was glad to do. Notice the similarities: 1. Calls of complaint from citizens about a man walking with a gun. 2. Guy is confronted and says he was just "taking a walk" Now it seems that some of you think the police should have just waved and smiled and let him go, as they had no "proof that a crime had been committed". And they had a guy that swore he "was just taking a walk". Some of you need to be more realistic about how real situations must be handled by law enforcement officers. 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. I know of a real case where the local police were called when several neighbors saw a young man walking down the street with an AR-15. Upon arrival, the officer told him to place it on the grass and he complied. After a lot of questioning, the young man said he was just "out walking" but couldn't explain why he had the AR. He was arrested for failure to identify, as he had no ID and gave suspicious information about his name and address. He was allowed to call his Mom sent a lawyer to make bond. The police just waited. Sure enough, about 4:30 that afternoon, they got a call from a guy that had just got home from work and found his home had been burglarized. His AR-15 was missing. The police told him that they had his rifle and knew who had stolen it and wanted him to file charges, which he was glad to do. Notice the similarities: 1. Calls of complaint from citizens about a man walking with a gun. 2. Guy is confronted and says he was just "taking a walk" Now it seems that some of you think the police should have just waved and smiled and let him go, as they had no "proof that a crime had been committed". And they had a guy that swore he "was just taking a walk". Some of you need to be more realistic about how real situations must be handled by law enforcement officers. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 3:09:59 PM EDT
[#44]
2013?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 3:12:38 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nice avatar. It has absolutely nothing to do with police making a legal investigation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 3:13:51 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If cops get a call about a suspicious person or act they have to answer it. An actual crime doesn't have to be articulated for initial contact. Or do you just drive past and note that there is no evidence that any crime had been committed? Do you stop every car that has a trunk because it could have a dead hooker in it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 3:14:30 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do you hate freedom Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do you hate freedom I do believe that some people here mistake "freedom" for doing anything you want. In a society of 300 million people, you don't get to do anything you want. I'm sorry that many of you were born 150 years too late to have the open frontier available to you as a pressure relief valve from the burden of living in a civilized society where people have to live with each other and consider what impact their actions have on other people in society. Quoted: You get a call about a suspicious man with a book. No other details. Do you even respond to something like that? Assuming you are required to respond, do you take his book to see if you can find something illegal about it? Hey, maybe he has child porn in it. Or maybe it has a cut out hiding place for drugs. Or do you just drive past and note that there is no evidence that any crime had been committed? Do you stop every car that has a trunk because it could have a dead hooker in it? Seriously, they are not the same thing, and you're being silly for even suggesting that they are equal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 3:15:43 PM EDT
[#48]
 Police Need to STOP Doing This to Concealed Carriers |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 3:19:28 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If cops get a call about a suspicious person or act they have to answer it. An actual crime doesn't have to be articulated for initial contact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2018 3:19:43 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You get a call about a suspicious man with a book. No other details. Do you even respond to something like that? Assuming you are required to respond, do you take his book to see if you can find something illegal about it? Hey, maybe he has child porn in it. Or maybe it has a cut out hiding place for drugs. Or do you just drive past and note that there is no evidence that any crime had been committed? Do you stop every car that has a trunk because it could have a dead hooker in it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If cops get a call about a suspicious person or act they have to answer it. An actual crime doesn't have to be articulated for initial contact. Or do you just drive past and note that there is no evidence that any crime had been committed? Do you stop every car that has a trunk because it could have a dead hooker in it? We did not "stop every car that has a trunk because it could have a dead hooker in it?". But if we got a complaint that someone saw some guys putting something that looked like a body in the trunk of a green 1970 Chevy, then we would stop any car matching that description in the vicinity and investigate. Surely you must be able to understand simple ideas like this? |
|
|
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.
