Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Man says he had right to carry gun to rally

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by DAL View Post
    What charges? I was talking about detention for investigation, not arrest. I think my post made that quite clear.
    Detention for the purpose of investigating a completely lawful act? Case law has already proven that the above action is illegal.

    http://www.grandhaventribune.com/pai...8794122261.bsp
    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08244/908415-57.stm

    Originally posted by DAL View Post
    For example, I have stopped people for weaving repeatedly within a traffic lane at night, suspecting that they might be under the influence of alcohol. Some of them were. I arrested those, and they were prosecuted successfully. However, weaving within a traffic lane is not a crime, and I let the ones who were not under the influence drive away.
    So you stop someone for NOT commiting a crime, only to find out they were, and you would have never known unless you stopped them for doing something that was legal? How did you determine, after the stop, that they were not under the influence? Seems to me your treading dangerously close to unlawful detention.
    Last edited by Tucker6900; 09-10-2008, 01:44 PM.
    The Red, Bold, Italic is my official sarcasm tag.



    "I think many years ago an advanced civilization intervened with us genetically and gave us just enough intelligence to develop dangerous technology but not enough to use it wisely. Then they sat back to watch the fun. Kind of like a human zoo. And you know what? They're getting their money's worth"
    George Carlin

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by DAL View Post
      It depends on the entire circumstances. Attending a political rally while armed is an unusual circumstance.
      Unusual yes. In this instance...Illegal? No.
      The Red, Bold, Italic is my official sarcasm tag.



      "I think many years ago an advanced civilization intervened with us genetically and gave us just enough intelligence to develop dangerous technology but not enough to use it wisely. Then they sat back to watch the fun. Kind of like a human zoo. And you know what? They're getting their money's worth"
      George Carlin

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Tucker6900 View Post
        Detention for the purpose of investigating a completely lawful act? Case law has already proven that the above action is illegal.

        http://www.grandhaventribune.com/pai...8794122261.bsp
        http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08244/908415-57.stm



        So you stop someone for NOT commiting a crime, only to find out they were, and you would have never known unless you stopped them for doing something that was legal? How did you determine, after the stop, that they were not under the influence? Seems to me your treading dangerously close to unlawful detention.
        It seems to me that you do not know criminal law and procedure. The law is quite clear that police officers can stop people for investigation based on reasonable suspicion, for the purpose of determining whether a crime has been or is about to be committed.

        The US Supreme Court has addressed the issue several times. Its decision in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), is quite well known. In that case, the people stopped did nothing more than walk back and forth several times while staring into a store window. In a pat-down, the officer discovered a loaded, concealed weapon, which the defendant was successfully prosecuted for carrying.

        Reported cases cover a wide variety of circumstances, including the DUI example I provided.
        Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
        Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by DAL View Post
          It seems to me that you do not know criminal law and procedure. The law is quite clear that police officers can stop people for investigation based on reasonable suspicion, for the purpose of determining whether a crime has been or is about to be committed.
          Criminal Law? Im know enough. Procedure, probably not. I didnt mean to accuse you of unlawful detention. It was more of a question, and I apoligize for not clarifying that earlier.

          The US Supreme Court has addressed the issue several times. Its decision in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), is quite well known. In that case, the people stopped did nothing more than walk back and forth several times while staring into a store window. In a pat-down, the officer discovered a loaded, concealed weapon, which the defendant was successfully prosecuted for carrying.

          Reported cases cover a wide variety of circumstances, including the DUI example I provided.
          I am familiar with "Terry Stops".
          But maybe you can articulate why you would have reasonable suspision to suspect a crime is about to take place, or has taken place, when the subject of your suspision is merely Open Carrying a handgun in a holster? If you see me legally Open Carrying (regardless of my race, age, religion), and you know that it is legal, would you automatically suspect that I am about to/or already have committed a crime?

          Im trying to keep this conversation light. So please dont think Im being an ***.
          The Red, Bold, Italic is my official sarcasm tag.



          "I think many years ago an advanced civilization intervened with us genetically and gave us just enough intelligence to develop dangerous technology but not enough to use it wisely. Then they sat back to watch the fun. Kind of like a human zoo. And you know what? They're getting their money's worth"
          George Carlin

          Comment


          • #50
            "Ignorance is no excuse." The United States are made up of several little bitty kingdoms, who each have their own sets of laws. When you leave your State, it is your responsibility to know the laws in the State you are visiting.

            I want to let you know about a former co-worker of mine. He was in his younger 20's when Katrina hit. He took time off from work and used it to help packup and deliver food to the victims. He did the labor side of the help, big boxes, etc. He's a good kid and his heart is in the right place but he gets into the dumbest situations.

            One time he was at a concert with some friends, and a couple of girls. A guy got pushed into the girls and he went to help the guy get up, the other guy thought he was the one that pushed him and hit him, other guys came up, pulled my friends shirt over his head and started wailing on him. He tried defending himself, and the cops came over and got hit because he could not see - he was beat up pretty bad. I am sure things would have worked out but he had an idiot there with him flashing his camera around saying he got it all on video that pushed them both into spending the night in jail. I think he got that put onto his record.

            Well about a year or two later on he had a speeding ticket, he paid it and AL put a warrant out for his arrest (accident on AL's part). When he was in Massachusetts he was pulled over, and because of the outstanding warrant the officer was going to search his car. He volunteered that he has a gun in the glove compartment (thinking he was ok, because he legally purchased it in AL, it was legally registered in his name, and had a legal permit from AL to carry it, not realizing MA did not respect AL's gun laws). Well long story short, he's spending two years of his life in prison with no possibility of parole - this is the lightest sentence they could give him. MA is tough when it comes to guns (what constitutional freedom to bear arms?).

            Moral of the story, know your state laws and do not put yourself into stupid situations. Do not ever let anything lapse, and if you "ever" receive a ticket, try to verify everything has been taken care of. The guy in the first post knew his state laws. Granted it appears he was being stupid by flaunting his rights, but so were the people in the campaign by not knowing the laws in the state they were "visiting." As the old joke goes: "Dr. I broke my arm in two places." Dr. says, "stay out of those places." The "visiting" campaign and officers had no right to take away the freedoms of any citizen of that State, and had no right to detain him.

            Comment


            • #51
              But maybe you can articulate why you would have reasonable suspision to suspect a crime is about to take place, or has taken place, when the subject of your suspision is merely Open Carrying a handgun in a holster? If you see me legally Open Carrying (regardless of my race, age, religion), and you know that it is legal, would you automatically suspect that I am about to/or already have committed a crime?
              Once again, the basis for suspicion is not "merely Open Carrying a handgun in a holster." It is carrying a handgun to a political rally involving a candidate for President of the United States, who is an obvious assassination risk. I would suspect that someone who did that might intend to shoot the candidate or to create a diversion that would facilitate another person's doing so. I also would suspect that the person was not mentally stable, for carrying a weapon under those circumstances is not something a sensible person would do. Moreover, I do not know that carrying the handgun is legal. It is legal for some people, but not for all. People who have been convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors may not legally possess a handgun. Neither may people with prior commitments for mental instability or under injunction or indictment for a felony. Under the circumstances of this event, prudence calls for investigation.
              Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
              Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #52
                DAL.......You hit the nail on the head......open carrying in the presence of any elected official or candidate for office is a call to the cops.

                TUCKER don't you think that all the officers assigned to these details are drilled to look for weapons? open carrying in such circumstances is almost as dumb as you can get.

                Comment


                • #53
                  OK, agreed that OC in this kind of setting isn't exactly a sign a genius. Now, what's the charge? If no charges apply, what action is taken?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Brought in for investigation and quite possibly a psych evaluation.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
                      TUCKER don't you think that all the officers assigned to these details are drilled to look for weapons? open carrying in such circumstances is almost as dumb as you can get.
                      Oh Im sure that is one of the number one items on the list! I never said it was a smart thing to do. I for one think the guy should have thought a little more about what he was doing.
                      The Red, Bold, Italic is my official sarcasm tag.



                      "I think many years ago an advanced civilization intervened with us genetically and gave us just enough intelligence to develop dangerous technology but not enough to use it wisely. Then they sat back to watch the fun. Kind of like a human zoo. And you know what? They're getting their money's worth"
                      George Carlin

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
                        Brought in for investigation and quite possibly a psych evaluation.
                        I can understand the logic behind disarming someone who had attempted to, or already had, entered the secured area. But this arrest was made over 4 miles away from where Obama was going to be:

                        There may have been a rally, but Obamas appearance was at the "Dome" at Beaver County Community College (bottom of picture). The arrest was made at Irvine Park (top of picture). A straight line from one to the other is over 2 miles. If you take the quickest possible route per roads, its almost 5 miles.
                        Red line: 4.96 miles
                        Yellow line: 2.67 miles

                        Now explain to me how he was any threat to Obama.

                        Note: Ill pay $1000.00 to anyone here who can hit a life size "body" target from 2.67 miles away, by yourself (no spotters, scopes, or bino's) with the same pistol that Mr. Noble was wearing on his hip. You only get one shot, and you must show proof.
                        Last edited by Tucker6900; 09-11-2008, 11:34 AM.
                        The Red, Bold, Italic is my official sarcasm tag.



                        "I think many years ago an advanced civilization intervened with us genetically and gave us just enough intelligence to develop dangerous technology but not enough to use it wisely. Then they sat back to watch the fun. Kind of like a human zoo. And you know what? They're getting their money's worth"
                        George Carlin

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Thank you for that graphic, Tucker. I knew he was outside the security area, but I hadn't realized just how far.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by velobard View Post
                            Thank you for that graphic, Tucker. I knew he was outside the security area, but I hadn't realized just how far.
                            Rumor has it (thats right, just a rumor) that the secured area was a 1 mile radius surrounding the "dome". Now obviously there are housing districts within that radius, so its probably false. But somehow I dont see them being able to secure a 5 mile radius if they tried.
                            Last edited by Tucker6900; 09-11-2008, 11:36 AM.
                            The Red, Bold, Italic is my official sarcasm tag.



                            "I think many years ago an advanced civilization intervened with us genetically and gave us just enough intelligence to develop dangerous technology but not enough to use it wisely. Then they sat back to watch the fun. Kind of like a human zoo. And you know what? They're getting their money's worth"
                            George Carlin

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              While I am not pro open carry....I, too, did not realize he was that far away from the site.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Nightshift va View Post
                                If plain view carry is legal in that state I'd have told him "look" I recognize your right to carry but the tree huggers are getting spooked and it's causing a negative public reaction which makes my job harder, so either lock it in your car or get your concealed permit, wear it and keep your mouth shut.
                                Congrats, you just violated someone's rights, and your department, and yourself will be sued...

                                You have no authority to "order" someone to not exercise a right in a public place, just as you have no right to force people to be Catholic, or Muslim, or vote, or not vote.

                                With the badge comes the responsibility of insuring people's rights are not trampled. YOU are the first line of defense in this. Ordering someone to go unarmed, when they ARE VIOLATING NO LAWS, is abuse of office, plain and simple. It's like walking up to a news crew covering the event and threatening to take their cameras away because YOU don't like CNN. Freedom of the press, freedom of speech, right to keep and bear arms. Just because (in your words) a couple of "tree huggers" are scared, does not give you the authority to force someone, or order someone to remove their sidearms.

                                What if he complied with your "order" and was later robbed, or shot by A REAL CRIMINAL??? Wouldn't be YOUR fault for disarming him... right...?

                                Your contradict yourself in your writing... You SAY you recognize his right to carry, but in the same paragraph you are ordering him to remove his arms... What would you do if he said "go pound sand"?? You gonna arrest him?

                                One thing I learned after 20+ years on the job... Never issue an order you can't lawfully back up with your powers of arrest. It makes you look like a small new born cat (get the picture?) Never issue an order to someone, unless you know you are authorized by law to enforce that order. I was partners with a few that wrote those checks, and I told them afterwords that, should they act in a similar manner again, they were on their own. I will not loose my career over someone else's heavy handedness.

                                Another thing I learned after some time, is that, people have rights, whether I like what they do, or not. Whether I approve or not. It was my job to enforce the law, not make a bunch of tree huggers feel better about themselves. Screw them. They are the ones that are violating the person carrying's rights, not the other way around.

                                Never threaten someone, or order someone to do something when they are doing nothing wrong. It's the quickest way to financial ruin, and loss of job.
                                As far as "rights" are concerned; I look at them this way... I don't tell you what church to go to, and you don't tell me what kind of firearm I can own...

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 4525 users online. 265 members and 4260 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 26,947 at 08:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X