The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 26, 2013, 06:28 PM   #176
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,510
I get the part about the Sgt being legal to carry,etc.

I get the legal issues being discussed.

Observing the vid,the Sgt was a jerk.He escalated the situation as much as he could.He was a drama queen.He was playing up a political "I am a victim" routine.

He was using his son as a tool.

He may be waving a gun rights flag while doing it,and some applaud him,

but really,how does it play to the public? Do you really think he served the 2nd Ammendment?
I think he is an embarrassment.An immature hothead.A whole lot of folks who are non gun owners,who might buy into an AWB,an use our Sgt as a posterchild.He is not good PR.

It was his son's Boy Scout 10 mile hike.Once in a lifetime father/son trip.TheSgt scrapped his son's experience for what?

Did he teach his son how to relate with LEO's?

If our Sgt put his son first,the M-4 could have stayed at home,the CCW handgun was fine,they could have hiked the hike,made a fire,burned some weenies,purified water,used a map and compass,and made some lifetime gold.

All things have their time and place,and the son's hike with his dad was not the time or place.

The one person who had the power to create a better outcome was the Sgt.
HiBC is offline  
Old April 29, 2013, 08:58 AM   #177
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,333
Quote:
The one person who had the power to create a better outcome was the Sgt.
There was more than one person.

Now realize my tone here is something to make a point, not actual (angry) indignation-

Where do you get off? If you don't think Business X should be telling you to leave it at home instead of concealed carry, or if you don't think the GOVERNMENT should be telling you if you can or can't carry- why should that be any different in the boonies with a rifle?

See the point I'm getting at? If we're going to get unhappy that someone else is going to question OUR judgement on what we need to carry to be safe, do we have any right to question HIS choice on what he needed to be safe with his kid? Sure we can draw the same line everyone as a society does- That which is protected by the amendment is legal, in a manner of carry that is legal. But the thing is, this guy was doing that. He wasn't carrying dangerous, or unusually weapons. He had a concealed permit, and open carry of a rifle is legal.
JimDandy is online now  
Old April 29, 2013, 04:39 PM   #178
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,510
As I said in my post,I already understand he was legal.

You can be legal and stupid.You can be legal and unwise.You certainly can be legal and make other gun owners look bad and discredit the 2nd Ammendment.

You can be legal and make choices that negatively impact your son.

Suppose(I do not know) he would be legal walking into Wal-Mart.He IS going to get LEO attention,legal or not.Legal or not,it is stupid to walk into WalMart displaying an AR.

Years ago,in Colorado,the advice was"Well,open carry is legal,but if you show up at 7-11 and anyone calls in,you will be arrested for disturbing the peace"

When an LEO checks you out for carrying an AR,and he asks you to set it down,set it down.The LEO said,had he done that ,after some questions,he would have been on his way.

Get confrontational and defiant with a cop,you will lose every time.

I do not understand celebrating the guy.As a gun owner,I do not want him representing me.

As a father,that was a fail.

Freedom can only exist in a civil society.We used to have more freedom and fewer laws.

Now,thanks to your Sgt buddy and his Jerry Springer show grade behavior,plenty of citizens,lawmakers,and perhaps a Governor will discuss whether they need another anti-gun law.

And,BTW,I like AR's,50 cals,etc.
HiBC is offline  
Old April 29, 2013, 05:35 PM   #179
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,333
Quote:
Suppose(I do not know) he would be legal walking into Wal-Mart.He IS going to get LEO attention,legal or not.Legal or not,it is stupid to walk into WalMart displaying an AR.
He wasn't in Walmart. He was on, assumedly, a country road of some kind.

Let's go the other way- Had he been in the middle his hunting lease during hunting season, and an anti-hunting neighbor called in- then what?

We don't have enough information about what happened to make any judgement calls either way. Though I haven't seen anything where the LEO asked the guy to set it down and he didn't- Just that they walked up with guns drawn and took it from him.

The LEO can say anything he wants until video evidence proves otherwise. And he's likely to with that problem of holding the child for questioning without parental approval.

Your argument appears to be "It Takes Two To Tango". And the flip side of that is that the LEO could have handled it a whole lot better as well.
JimDandy is online now  
Old April 29, 2013, 05:39 PM   #180
4thPoint
Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2012
Posts: 62
As you said in your post, he was legal. Therefore there existed no suspicion of illegality, and therefore there was no reasonable suspicion to detain.

You can be legal and smart, and you can be unconstitutional and stupid. You can without a doubt be outside the bounds set by the courts and the law. And you can make other law enforcement officers look bad as you work hard to discredit all the work they have done to be seen as guardians of the law.

You can make improper choices that negatively affect your career and bank account.


Years ago,in Colorado,the advice was"Well,open carry is legal,but if you show up at 7-11 and anyone calls in,you will be arrested for disturbing the peace"
Years ago, in Chicago, the advice was "Be black and walk around town at night and be found hanging from a tree in the morning."
The free advice given was worth every penny paid, as the law reads ...
18-9-106. Disorderly conduct.
(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
(a) Makes a coarse and obviously offensive utterance, gesture, or display in a public place and the utterance, gesture, or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace; or
(b) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2000, p. 708, 39, effective July 1, 2000.)
(c) Makes unreasonable noise in a public place or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy; or
(d) Fights with another in a public place except in an amateur or professional contest of athletic skill; or
(e) Not being a peace officer, discharges a firearm in a public place except when engaged in lawful target practice or hunting; or
(f) Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.

There's much more than "somebody done called it in" required to substantiate a Disturbing the Peace charge.

"When an LEO checks you out for carrying an AR,and he asks you to set it down,set it down.The LEO said,had he done that ,after some questions,he would have been on his way. " The cop just put out his version of the story, "If only he'd ......" is his excuse. You know you're not obligated to answer Officer Friendly's questions, right? You know that NOTHING you say can be used to help you in a court of law?

"Get confrontational and defiant with a cop,you will lose every time."
You may lose the battle on the side of the road, that doesn't mean you won't win the war in the courtroom. Cop does something stupid because he can't control his hormones or someone didn't 'respect his authoritay' doesn't come off well when he's the one being the respondent to a civil suit.

"Freedom can only exist in a civil society.We used to have more freedom and fewer laws."
And who do you think is responsible? Dan'l Boone used to carry a 5 foot long Kentucky rifle everywhere he went, the cowboy had his trusty six-shooter, it was the riverboat gambler and backstreet cutthroat that carried a concealed weapon, which is why concealed carry has always been regulated and open carry has traditionally been seen as the mark of an honest man.

Now, thanks to Officer Friendly and his abhorrent behavior, plenty of honest citizens are up in arms over such abuses of authority.
4thPoint is offline  
Old April 29, 2013, 06:00 PM   #181
Plumbnut
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2013
Posts: 219
If a couple cops rolled up on me while I was armed with my Ar-15 or the like and I was on public or private land I would be concerned. Concerned enough to reach for the sky and do as told with a good attitude about it.

I would never cause harm to a police officer and I know that but I cant say a police officer would never do me any harm.

After all I would realize their not approaching to chat about how they like my gun and would like to check it out. I would assume they were called and then it becomes part of their duty to "check me out"

I know I would be nervous if a cop got out of his car with his shotgun in his hand because he pulled me over for speeding........like wise I can see where the cops would be nervous rolling up on a guy walking around with a AR......but it is part of their job. If they dont like it maybe they should find another line of work.
Plumbnut is offline  
Old April 29, 2013, 06:29 PM   #182
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,336
Quote:
As you said in your post, he was legal. Therefore there existed no suspicion of illegality, and therefore there was no reasonable suspicion to detain.
If the police account is true, he wasn't detained until he refused to be disarmed during the course of investigating a complaint by another citizen. If correct, then his refusal resulted in him being detained. The videos provided by Grisham do not contradict the police claims nor does to video support his claims that the police tried to disarm him by force with no verbal request. The video shows none of this because it happened BEFORE the camera was used.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old April 29, 2013, 07:42 PM   #183
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,333
Quote:
If the police account is true, he wasn't detained until he refused to be disarmed during the course of investigating a complaint by another citizen. If correct, then his refusal resulted in him being detained.
I would point you to Florida v. Royer - 460 U.S. 491 (1983) As referenced in ILLINOIS V. WARDLOW 528 U.S. 119 (2000)

Specifically this section:
Quote:
Such a holding is consistent with the decision in Florida v. Royer, supra, at 498, that an individual, when approached, has a right to ignore the police and go about his business.
As well as
Quote:
...Terry recognized that officers can detain individuals to resolve ambiguities in their conduct, 392 U.S., at 30, and thus accepts the risk that officers may stop innocent people. If they do not learn facts rising to the level of probable cause, an individual must be allowed to go on his way.
JimDandy is online now  
Old April 29, 2013, 09:26 PM   #184
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Jim let us put the rest of that back in there:

Quote:
Held: The officers’ actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment. This case, involving a brief encounter between a citizen and a police officer on a public street, is governed by Terry, under which an officer who has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot may conduct a brief, investigatory stop. While “reasonable suspicion” is a less demanding standard than probable cause, there must be at least a minimal level of objective justification for the stop. An individual’s presence in a “high crime area,” standing alone, is not enough to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion of criminal activity, but a location’s characteristics are relevant in determining whether the circumstances are sufficiently suspicious to warrant further investigation, Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 144, 147—148. In this case, moreover, it was also Wardlow’s unprovoked flight that aroused the officers’ suspicion. Nervous, evasive behavior is another pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion, e.g., United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 885, and headlong flight is the consummate act of evasion. In reviewing the propriety of an officer’s conduct, courts do not have available empirical studies dealing with inferences from suspicious behavior, and this Court cannot reasonably demand scientific certainty when none exists. Thus, the reasonable suspicion determination must be based on commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior. See United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418. Officer Nolan was justified in suspecting that Wardlow was involved in criminal activity, and, therefore, in investigating further. Such a holding is consistent with the decision in Florida v. Royer, supra, at 498, that an individual, when approached, has a right to ignore the police and go about his business. Unprovoked flight is the exact opposite of “going about one’s business.” While flight is not necessarily indicative of ongoing criminal activity, Terry recognized that officers can detain individuals to resolve ambiguities in their conduct, 392 U.S., at 30, and thus accepts the risk that officers may stop innocent people. If they do not learn facts rising to the level of probable cause, an individual must be allowed to go on his way. But in this case the officers found that Wardlow possessed a handgun and arrested him for violating a state law. The propriety of that arrest is not before the Court. Pp. 3—6.
It sure sounds a lot different when you read all of it does it not?
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old April 29, 2013, 09:28 PM   #185
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,336
Well JimDandy, as you noted...

Quote:
We don't have enough information about what happened to make any judgement calls either way.
So by your own clearly made statement, you don't know if your citations apply or not because you don't have enough information to make a call either way.

Quote:
Though I haven't seen anything where the LEO asked the guy to set it down and he didn't- Just that they walked up with guns drawn and took it from him.
Then you didn't listen to Grisham's claims in the links provided. He never claimed that they walked up to him with guns drawn. That information was provided several pages ago, LOL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy3Sw8APRQo

He specifically stated that the guns were NOT drawn when he was approached. He claims he would have surrendered his guns if they would have asked. The police's side of the story is that they responded to a complaint and that Grisham failed to comply with their demands and that they legally have the right to disarm him for their safety.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old April 29, 2013, 09:30 PM   #186
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Alabama Shooter:

Quote:
Held: The officers’ actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment. This case, involving a brief encounter between a citizen and a police officer on a public street, is governed by Terry, under which an officer who has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot may conduct a brief, investigatory stop. While “reasonable suspicion” is a less demanding standard than probable cause, there must be at least a minimal level of objective justification for the stop. An individual’s presence in a “high crime area,” standing alone, is not enough to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion of criminal activity, but a location’s characteristics are relevant in determining whether the circumstances are sufficiently suspicious to warrant further investigation, Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 144, 147—148. In this case, moreover, it was also Wardlow’s unprovoked flight that aroused the officers’ suspicion. Nervous, evasive behavior is another pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion, e.g., United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 885, and headlong flight is the consummate act of evasion. In reviewing the propriety of an officer’s conduct, courts do not have available empirical studies dealing with inferences from suspicious behavior, and this Court cannot reasonably demand scientific certainty when none exists. Thus, the reasonable suspicion determination must be based on commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior. See United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418. Officer Nolan was justified in suspecting that Wardlow was involved in criminal activity, and, therefore, in investigating further. Such a holding is consistent with the decision in Florida v. Royer, supra, at 498, that an individual, when approached, has a right to ignore the police and go about his business. Unprovoked flight is the exact opposite of “going about one’s business.” While flight is not necessarily indicative of ongoing criminal activity, Terry recognized that officers can detain individuals to resolve ambiguities in their conduct, 392 U.S., at 30, and thus accepts the risk that officers may stop innocent people. If they do not learn facts rising to the level of probable cause, an individual must be allowed to go on his way. But in this case the officers found that Wardlow possessed a handgun and arrested him for violating a state law. The propriety of that arrest is not before the Court. Pp. 3—6.
You might also have said, it sounds very different depending on which phrases you boldface...
MLeake is offline  
Old April 30, 2013, 07:49 AM   #187
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
MLeake- Agreed

My bold is for context.

Your bold is for cherry picking out of context.

There is quite a difference between the two.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old April 30, 2013, 08:52 AM   #188
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,333
Unless you disagree on what IS the context.

Your bold basically stipulated
Quote:
a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot
MLeake's bold contested that point for example.
JimDandy is online now  
Old April 30, 2013, 09:45 AM   #189
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
No.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old April 30, 2013, 10:38 AM   #190
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Alabama Shooter, you accusing me of cherry-picking verges on hilarious. Re-read the entire bit you quoted.

The convicted guy was loitering in an area known for criminal activity, and he fled when the police made contact. The court took the totality of that event, with some emphasis on the fleeing part, as a situation that created reasonable articulable suspicion for the officers.

If anybody cherry-picked, it was you.
MLeake is offline  
Old April 30, 2013, 04:16 PM   #191
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
I don't think you understand what "cherry picking" and "in context" mean.

Dancing around the page and taking bits and pieces of a sentence that appeal to you or you think support your argument (exactly like you did) is cherry picking.

All I did was show the surrounding paragraph for context of the partial quote. This called "putting it into context". If you don't understand that I have nothing for you.

I assume you are trying to troll me in some way again. This is becoming a really sad habit of yours. It won't work.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old April 30, 2013, 04:35 PM   #192
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,333
Edited to remove the bickering tone that was unintended-

The facts of any given case- once it's decided at the SCOTUS level (or so I'm given to understand from the resident lawyers, and Gura briefs) is more about the principle than the specific facts of the specific case being reviewed. As you can see I linked the first case- which cited the second- and explained the meaning of that case- by an assumedly knowledgeable source in a Justice of the Supreme Court- that without reasonable suspicion one cannot be stopped, and may continue about your business. As a practical matter, one does have to stop, and prove there is no reason for suspicion because it's hard to enjoy the money your estate would win if you were right.

On the comparable facts-

The Sgt did not attempt to flee. There was no mention of this being a high crime neighborhood. Or a neighborhood at all. Drugs were never mentioned, so certainly no correlation/causality could be introduced that drugs = guns or the inverse. Exercise of a right is not grounds for reasonable suspicion- ergo that officer has the herculean task of proving even reasonable suspicion before making that Sergeant a moderately rich man. It has long been established that the mere presence of a firearm does not mean criminal activity is likely.

Can you explain how one would come up with a reasonable suspicion the Sgt was about to commit a crime in the middle of nowhere with his rifle that was on a sling, and not being actively handled?

Last edited by JimDandy; April 30, 2013 at 05:38 PM.
JimDandy is online now  
Old April 30, 2013, 05:14 PM   #193
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,942
Please stop the bickering.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old October 16, 2013, 02:30 PM   #194
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,333
As an update, according to some local news I ran into by accident, it appears his jury was seated on Tuesday. CBS Trial blurb.

Any of you have access to motions/rulings on some of the issues raised already? Like the questioning of the minor child, etc?
JimDandy is online now  
Old October 27, 2013, 09:02 AM   #195
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,161
Update

According to this story: http://www.therepublic.com/view/stor...n-Rights-Trial

The jury was deadlocked, and a mistrial was ruled.

I wonder if he will be re-tried ? The charges were reduced from "resisting" to a lesser charge of "interference" which is a misdemeanor and, he was never charged with any firearms-related crime.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16553 seconds with 9 queries