|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 17, 2013, 01:40 PM | #76 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,171
|
I'll reiterate. Let's try to keep the personal jabs to a minimum. We don't have enough information to go off of here to determine what truly went on.
It's getting a little too passionate in here, I don't want anyone getting in trouble with the mods. |
April 17, 2013, 01:47 PM | #77 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,498
|
Quote:
How is the officer supposed to determine an armed person is NOT a threat? We aren't talking about an officer driving by and seeing someone armed. We are talking about an officer responding to a 911 call about an armed person. Your 'simple conversation' cannot be used in all situations of uncertainty.
__________________
"Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard |
|
April 17, 2013, 02:03 PM | #78 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
Exactly why is it that police officers are presumed to have the authority to disarm anyone they feel like disarming? Have we come to this point where even ostensible gun rights enthusiasts believe in the unfettered power of the police to take guns away from people who have broken no laws? Sheesh. I feel like a broken record here. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
April 17, 2013, 02:14 PM | #79 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
|
I don't understand the skepticism and at times downright hostility, even amongst some gun rights folks to open carriers. When something like that Toledo incident happened we were all pretty much up in arms. Yet just about every single time a OCer, be it a rifle or a handgun is harassed, accosted or otherwise wronged by the police the immediate approach is one of skepticism. Did he have an agenda? Was he trying to force a confrontation? Why is he OCIng anyways? Cant he just CC the gun problem solved!
I don't see all those questions being asked when we are talking about a CCer who is harassed or unlawfully detained/arrested simply for CCing a firearm legally. Call me overly simplistic but I view this as black and white. If you are violating the law, then you can be arrested. If you are not violating the law then you cannot be arrested. If there was no violation of the law in this case they had no right to arrest him, no right to charge him, no right to take his guns of his CC permit. All of those actions are blatant civil rights violations if the man is guilty of no crimes. Regardless of his motives the second we "let it slide" when a gun owner has his rights violated when no law has been broken is the moment we mine as well let the antis burn the 2A and confiscate all of our guns because thats where the path will eventually lead.
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits". |
April 17, 2013, 02:20 PM | #80 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
April 17, 2013, 02:27 PM | #81 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,352
|
Quote:
Now don't get me wrong, I am making no judgments about ANYONE involved in this case, but I am being skeptical of the information presented thus far. Fair enough? ETA: Nor do I mean to insinuate that open carriers are loony!
__________________
Go Pokes! Go Rams! |
|
April 17, 2013, 02:32 PM | #82 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
April 17, 2013, 02:34 PM | #83 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
|
@WY: That is fair enough. If the guy violated the law, I would agree that he doesn't deserve our support.
and let me re-phrase what I said before it seems that people are MORE skeptical of OCers than CCers. Kind of like how we hold LEO's to a "higher" standard than "civilians" on certain issues.
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits". |
April 17, 2013, 02:41 PM | #84 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,352
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Go Pokes! Go Rams! Last edited by Wyoredman; April 17, 2013 at 02:51 PM. |
|||
April 17, 2013, 02:41 PM | #85 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,498
|
Quote:
I do not fault Grisham for being armed. Based on the information I have at hand, I fault Grisham for his actions once the officers made contact with him, by making a spectacle of himself when it was not necessary to do so.
__________________
"Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard |
|
April 17, 2013, 02:43 PM | #86 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
I can't say for sure what Grisham said or did prior to the video. I can say that the officer's detention of the 15yo son, with his release contingent upon submitting to and answering questions, makes me immediately suspect the motivations, actions, and legal knowledge of the officer.
|
April 17, 2013, 02:47 PM | #87 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
April 17, 2013, 02:49 PM | #88 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,171
|
Exactly, I agree with Mleake here. There are other factors here at play that we must address, the fact is, even if Grisham was in the wrong, it does not excuse some if not all the acts that followed. The dentaining and forced interrogation of his son for that matter appears to fall on the far side of the law in this case.
The fact that the Temple LEO's set a condition upon the realease of the child, whom was not authorized by his parent to answer any of their questions, and forced their authority upon the child is what casts the shadow of doubt upon the entire encounter, among many other things. It could very well be that both parties are at fault, but the fact of the matter is, we can only speculate what he said/did and what exactly they said/did. at this time. We need more information, it doesn't get any clearer than that IMO. |
April 17, 2013, 02:50 PM | #89 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2011
Posts: 751
|
Quote:
As I understand it, officers can only do so if there is a reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is about to be, has been, committed or is being committed. They can walk up and start talking to anyone on the street. No response is required if there is no crime being committed (or recently committed). In this case, the officer needed to only observe the sergeant to determine if a crime was being committed. If the sergeant was carrying the gun safely, then the officer should have determined that he had no authority to take further action. If the sergeant was not carrying safely, then the officer would have had probable cause for an arrest. Here in Virginia, an officer cannot walk up to someone lawfully openly carrying a weapon and detain them. They cannot demand identification and they cannot take the handgun away from the person carrying. It is assumed in law that the person carrying may lawfully possess the weapon. The officer is free to engage the person carrying a gun in conversation, but the person has no duty to respond. Doing so is beyond the authority of the office and opens up the officer, department, and jurisdiction to civil liability at the minimum. This is well settled law in Virginia and we take it very seriously. We go after any officer that violates these rules. It's easy to prevent too; we just do some officer education on the side. Unfortunately, this usually happens after an incident, but organizations like VCDL have done outreach in the past. Last edited by tomrkba; April 17, 2013 at 03:34 PM. |
|
April 17, 2013, 02:53 PM | #90 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 19, 2002
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 963
|
Around here,
I think PD's are trained this way, civilian with a gun is a threat.. The gun just siting there is a threat! It must be secured at all cost.. I do understand that it is about Safety Of The Officer but, People feed off of aggression and tend to respond in kind. To contrast, If it had been the Sheriffs department, we may not have ever know about this.. Just my thoughts.. |
April 17, 2013, 02:55 PM | #91 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
I would also not be surprised if deputy sheriffs had handled the situation differently. My experience has been the deputies and state troopers generally seem more comfortable around firearm owners than do many (though not all) city cops.
|
April 17, 2013, 03:01 PM | #92 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 14, 2008
Location: Stuart, VA
Posts: 2,473
|
Quote:
__________________
Liberty and freedom often offends those who understand neither. |
|
April 17, 2013, 03:34 PM | #93 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,676
|
Quote:
More and more info is coming out all the time. Not only about this case but also history and background. Haven't seen anything yet that doesn't confirm my original opinion that this guy is an idiot and not worthy of out support. Good thing I'm not a cop, the more I read and watch about this guy and the case I would of tasered his butt and did it a second time for the hell of it. |
|
April 17, 2013, 03:47 PM | #94 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,498
|
Quote:
Whats the phrase we often utter? An armed society is a polite society? Had Grisham been polite and respectful and simply put the rifle down, in all likelihood there would have been no arrest at all. ("Why couldnt you just put the bunny down?") What evidence do you have to support your opinion that the responding officers were trying to usurp the suspects rights from the start?
__________________
"Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard |
|
April 17, 2013, 03:48 PM | #95 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
|
Quote:
I still can't believe that people are saying that we should just agree to give up our rights just so we don't go to jail. That's absolutely amazing to me. |
|
April 17, 2013, 03:50 PM | #96 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
April 17, 2013, 03:59 PM | #97 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,676
|
Quote:
Legal or not, just plain dumb not to. It's not a big deal and if it moves things along quicker and keeps me from getting tossed I'm all for it. I'm not giving up rights or causing any civil harm to myself. Are you saying that if a cop asked you to set your gun on the hood while you chatted you'd refuse? If so, why? Heck, I've done it before being asked to do so and I wasn't the one being checked out. Actually it wasn't a hood, I leaned it against a tree. Just figured the Deputy would feel better about it. I was right and he thanked me. Zero, none, nada reason not to. Ya afraid the LEO is gonna mug ya? |
|
April 17, 2013, 04:07 PM | #98 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,498
|
Here is an excerpt from the link of the OP:
Quote:
Doesn't it seem like something is missing in Grishams account? Is it conceivable that the officer continued being calm and casual and asked Grisham politely to put his rifle down? Do you think that perhaps the officer did feel uneasy talking to someone whose rifle is slung and hooked on the front of their body? Do you think the officer might have been okay with talking to a person whose rifle was slung across their back rather than in a ready to fire position on their front? Do you find it contradictary for Grisham to later say how he taught his son to respect the police yet he himself couldnt respect an officers request to put the weapon down? Do you really think Grishams rights were violated by being asked to put the weapon down? Don't answer from blind emotions.
__________________
"Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard |
|
April 17, 2013, 04:12 PM | #99 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
|
Quote:
Quote:
Granted, we don't know what happened prior to the filming, but based on what information we do have, and based on the video, what they did was not legal. Heck, even in the video, when Grisham asks why he's being arrested, the cops reply that carrying a gun like that scares people. I wasn't aware that was against the law either. They can't even articulate what Grisham is doing wrong...yet they still arrest him and detain his son? You're telling me that is within their rights? That sounds like a police state to me. I think we may be talking about different countries here... I'm beginning to wonder if you even watched the video. I mean, in the Internet days, 13 minutes is like an eternity. |
||
April 17, 2013, 04:13 PM | #100 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
|
Quote:
EDIT: Now, do I believe he's telling the 100% truth? Probably not, but no one in his position was. With what we know, he didn't do anything wrong. The police were in the wrong. If the police would like to release the dash video and audio, I would happily watch it and make my own conclusions. If that means we can clearly see Grisham did something wrong/illegal, then I will have no problem changing my beliefs on this. Without that, we have absolutely no evidence, besides conjecture (meaning...not evidence) that Grisham did anything wrong. His intend has nothing to do with whether he should have been arrested or not. If he has a right to do something, then he has a right. Whether it's for a political purpose, or a Boy Scout Hike. I want to make it clear, I'm against using OC as a means to prove a political point, however, I would never say those guys are in the wrong and should be treated like Grisham was treated. Why? Because it's their right, and it's legal in their jurisdiction. Last edited by Gaerek; April 17, 2013 at 04:23 PM. |
|
|
|