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

  • #91
    Look at it this way...

    I work for a security company that requires me to work at federal facilities. We are armed. we are required to get a CCW in order to be hired.

    Scenario one.

    I am in uniform and at work. The President comes to visit.

    Scenario two.

    I am in uniform and on my way to work. I am wearing my duty gear as I leave the house, including my issued weapon.

    Scenario three.

    I am walking downtown and the President is making a secret stop to say high to his supporters at a scheduled rally. I am carrying my gun concealed not knowing the President is going to show up.

    The michigan law says open carry is legal, adn you must have a license for concealed carry.

    What is the difference in any of those three scenarios as far as the law is concerned? I am the same person, with the same attitudes, and the same capabilities in each. Why should we treat any one of them different than the other?
    Though their numbers are many, as the grass upon the field, we will count them at the end of the day.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by kingsman View Post
      Look at it this way...

      I work for a security company that requires me to work at federal facilities. We are armed. we are required to get a CCW in order to be hired.

      Scenario one.

      I am in uniform and at work. The President comes to visit.

      Scenario two.

      I am in uniform and on my way to work. I am wearing my duty gear as I leave the house, including my issued weapon.

      Scenario three.

      I am walking downtown and the President is making a secret stop to say high to his supporters at a scheduled rally. I am carrying my gun concealed not knowing the President is going to show up.

      The michigan law says open carry is legal, adn you must have a license for concealed carry.

      What is the difference in any of those three scenarios as far as the law is concerned? I am the same person, with the same attitudes, and the same capabilities in each. Why should we treat any one of them different than the other?
      I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make. (Scratching my head).

      The man in this incident was not a uniformed security guard, and was not carrying concealed.

      - V

      Comment


      • #93
        If it is not illegal to do something, it should not even be possible to cause any form of disturbance for doing it. In this case, the man was intending to get attention (which he did) but that is not a crime. If in fact it is not illegal to open carry, then regardless of what the pansy liberal idiots around him thought he should not have even been approached. The cops in this situation were acting I believe in good faith, but that does not excuse acting upon false information (they did not know the law). If he was too close to where the Obama was going to be for them to be comfortable with him having a weapon, they should have expanded the secure perimiter.

        Would the same have happened if the man wore a yellow t-shirt and everyone around him thought yellow t-shirts were scary? Absolutely not. I realize that a t-shirt does not have the same ability to harm others as a gun, but until the man puts his hand on the weapon, draws it and puts his hand on the trigger that gun is no more than a piece of metal on his side. The mere presence of a gun is not dangerous and can not possibly cause a disturbance that warrants police attention under the law.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Ceridwen View Post
          Looking at this whole "open carry" concept from a different perspective (one not about its legality or illegality but of practicality) -- if criminals are akin to wild animals--

          Many other animals carry bright colors as signals to predators advertising their deadly natural defenses against predation (poison generally.) While very effective against most predators certain species of predators have adapted natural immunities and find the brightly colored animals tasty and easy to find too (the criminal mirrror would be a equivilently or more heavily armed criminal with the advantage of surprise and willing to fire first)

          Soooo..... a mixed blessing I would say, but I would rather fly with the other drab colored birds and have my actual capabilities surprise the predator rather than have him have the chance to contemplate the best way to defeat it at his convienance.
          I disagree. I don't think that a more heavily armed criminal will still want to deal with someone that could possibly kill them.

          Let's put you in the criminal's shoes, you have two choices.
          1. Rob the person that you know has a gun, and will most likely kill you.
          2. Rob someone that doesn't appear to have a gun, but might have a CHL and kill you.

          Well, both choices don't look too good, but I would have to go with number 2 and I'm sure you would as well.


          Criminals target weak victims, I guarantee you they don't want to die just like anyone else. With robbing someone that is open carrying, they know that there is a high probability of that outcome.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by TX_Loudmouth View Post
            If it is not illegal to do something, it should not even be possible to cause any form of disturbance for doing it. In this case, the man was intending to get attention (which he did) but that is not a crime. If in fact it is not illegal to open carry, then regardless of what the pansy liberal idiots around him thought he should not have even been approached. The cops in this situation were acting I believe in good faith, but that does not excuse acting upon false information (they did not know the law). If he was too close to where the Obama was going to be for them to be comfortable with him having a weapon, they should have expanded the secure perimiter.

            Would the same have happened if the man wore a yellow t-shirt and everyone around him thought yellow t-shirts were scary? Absolutely not. I realize that a t-shirt does not have the same ability to harm others as a gun, but until the man puts his hand on the weapon, draws it and puts his hand on the trigger that gun is no more than a piece of metal on his side. The mere presence of a gun is not dangerous and can not possibly cause a disturbance that warrants police attention under the law.
            Wrong. It all comes down to reasonableness.

            It is perfectly legal to play music. It is not so legal (in a vast majority of areas) to play music so loud that it disrupts the public.

            By very definition, "Disturbing the Peace" laws make normally legal actions illegal if it infringes upon the public's right to not be unreasonably disturbed.

            - V

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by vvincelli View Post
              Wrong. It all comes down to reasonableness.

              It is perfectly legal to play music. It is not so legal (in a vast majority of areas) to play music so loud that it disrupts the public.

              By very definition, "Disturbing the Peace" laws make normally legal actions illegal if it infringes upon the public's right to not be unreasonably disturbed.

              - V
              Not wrong in the least. While I respect your opinion and I see your point, the law is the law.

              He disturbed no one. Nothing he did affected the lives of anyone around him in ANY way. He disturbed nothing. If the mere possession of a firearm in the open qualified as disturbing the peace, every LEO in this country would be guilty daily. Just because he does not have a uniform and a badge, it does not mean he is breaking the law. The mere presence of a gun, when legally possessed, is not and can not be against the law. The law says it is legal to open carry so no matter what ANYONE, including law enforcement, thinks he can do it all day and twice on Sunday. If you disagree with his right to do that, call your senator and get it outlawed. Until that day, he has every right to possess that gun anywhere not prohibited by law out in the open and there is not a thing anyone can legally do.

              For the record I am not pro open carry, I think it is a "Shoot-Me-First" sign, but I am very pro individual rights. What he did was not smart but he got the attention he was looking for. That said, the officers (all agencies) screwed the pooch. This man did nothing wrong and was inconvenienced for it. Even if he was not charged with a crime, he should have never been arrested or detained. If the officers did not know the law, shame on the department for not training properly. If they did know the law, shame on the officers for acting inappropriately.
              Last edited by TX_Loudmouth; 04-23-2009, 03:22 PM.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by TX_Loudmouth View Post
                ...shame on the officers for acting inappropriately.
                And shame on every Officer who has ever conducted a Terry Stop, since, according to your logic, there was no right to detain since no probable cause of a crime was present.

                And shame on the Supreme Court for determining that falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater is not protected, as also according to your logic, it should not at all be illegal.

                This man did nothing wrong. No disturbance was caused. The LEO's in this story were not alerted to the incident by very concerned members of the public. I'm sure it didn't cause any type of fear in the attendees.

                In fact, terms such as "created unreasonable fear" should have absolutely no place in our justice system. After all, no one has any right to not be placed in unreasonable fear by anyone else.

                Hell, for that matter, it should be perfectly legal for him to unholster it and wave it around at anyone, since unless he actually pulls the trigger there is no harm to the public. I'm thinking the brandishing laws need to go.

                While we're at it Police Officers should be forced to not return fire until they are actually struck by a fired round. After all, simply pointing a gun in someone's direction causes no physical injury, and firing the same gun still causes no injury unless the projectile strikes someone.

                You've opened my eyes completely. Shame on our entire Country for not allowing people to do whatever they wish to do. Murder? Rape? Robbery? Well come on now. A minority of the public want to do it so it must be ok.

                Everyone call your legislators and demand that our Country immediately be turned over to anarchy.

                (Give me a break. He intentionally engaged in a course of conduct which he KNEW would cause public fear. No different than brandishing a firearm. Most State's "disturbing the peace" statutes don't even REQUIRE intent, just recklessness. This was intentional.)

                - V
                Last edited by vvincelli; 04-23-2009, 06:30 PM.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by vvincelli View Post
                  And shame on every Officer who has ever conducted a Terry Stop, since, according to your logic, there was no right to detain since no probable cause of a crime was present.

                  How do the two even equate to you? Probable cause means a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or will occur. This man was doing nothing but standing in a park handing out flyers. The gun on his hip is irrelevant.

                  And shame on the Supreme Court for determining that falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater is not protected, as also according to your logic, it should not at all be illegal.

                  Nice try again. Shouting fire causes a reasonable person to fear that their life is in danger, thus causing a disturbance. See where this is going? Your logic fails.

                  This man did nothing wrong. No disturbance was caused. The LEO's in this story were not alerted to the incident by very concerned members of the public. I'm sure it didn't cause any type of fear in the attendees.

                  The officers were well within the law to ask the man what he was doing and why just like with any other citizen. The fact that more than one person was alarmed does not make it "reasonable". As stated earlier, just because someone is disturbed by something, it does not make it illegal.

                  Hell, for that matter, it should be perfectly legal for him to unholster it and wave it around at anyone, since unless he actually pulls the trigger there is no harm to the public. I'm thinking the brandishing laws need to go.

                  Wow. Brandishing is guess what... A CRIME! Brandishing is a punishable offense. Do you honestly believe anything you are typing? Are you even reading what I am typing? The mere possession of a gun is NOT a crime even though you want it to be. Brandishing IS a crime. How could you possibly try to compare the two?

                  While we're at it Police Officers should be forced to not return fire until they are actually struck by a fired round. After all, Simply pointing a gun in someone's direction causes no physical injury, and firing the same gun still causes no injury unless the projectile strikes someone.

                  Actually, according to the laws of my state, merely gripping your weapon even if it remains in a holster is considered to be deadly force and in order to do so you must already be lawfully authorized to use said force. This of course does not apply to a police officer. This person is not a police officer therefore I am sure a similar law applies to him. He never touched his weapon therefore never committed a crime.

                  In fact, you've opened my eyes completely. Shame on our entire Country for not allowing people to do whatever they wish to do. Murder? Rape? Robbery? Well come on now. A minority of the public want to do it so it must be ok.

                  Everyone call your legislators and demand that our Country immediately be turned over to anarchy.

                  (Give me a break)

                  - V
                  I truly believe that you must be messing with me for kicks. If that is the case, you got me.

                  You take an argument about enforcement of a law that does not exist, and twist it like I am arguing that lawlessness should prevail. The two are not the same. As I said, I don't agree with the guys tactics but what he did is not illegal (according to what has been posted which is what we are debating under assumption). I am not here to bash cops and I have not done that nor will I ever. If you are a cop, I am sure you know that what you are talking about is not only ridiculous but if you did it in real life you know full well you would be sued. You can not, no matter how big your badge is, enforce a law which does not exist. A reasonable person put in this situation as an officer (who knew the law) would be fully justified in talking to the guy and finding out what his deal is and even keeping a strong eye on him. Anything more would not hold up in court and I really believe you know that.
                  Last edited by TX_Loudmouth; 04-23-2009, 07:07 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    What I was referring to in the first part was your statement that the LEO's involved had no right to even detain him since no crime occurred, and shame on them.

                    You're wrong. Terry gives them that right even without evidence of an actual crime. Reasonable suspicion.

                    Point One: a high-security, high-profile political rally.

                    Point Two: a man openly armed with a firearm where it is not only unexpected, it is extremely not kosher. No different than a masked man sitting in the driver's seat of a car parked in front of a bank. Please don't try to tell me that the public at large expects to see people open-carrying at presidential rallies.

                    The other point I was trying to make was that there are indeed laws on the books which make causing unreasonable fear very much illegal. Something you simply don't want to see.

                    "Disturbing the peace" is most definitely a crime. When are you gonna get it? He wasn't arrested solely for possessing the gun - that part, I totally agree would be legal in many other areas. Hell, he wasn't charged with any type of weapon possession charge! As it should be. He was arrested for intentionally causing a public disturbance by way of open-carrying a gun in an area that any maroon would know would create that exact reaction.

                    Let me give you another analogy (even though I know it won't do any good):

                    You go down to a street filled with bars. You begin yelling into the air that you're fed up with your girlfriend, and you just will not stop yelling - creating a public disturbance. You can be locked up - plain and simple.

                    You're not being locked up because you kept saying that you're fed-up with your girlfriend, you're being locked up due to your volume and creating a public spectacle.

                    This guy didn't get locked up solely because he was legally open-carrying. He got locked up because he was open-carrying at a Presidential rally. By his own statements, he knew that it would cause a public ruckus. He was banking on it.

                    I'm really tired of hearing about these open-carry shock and awe campaigns that are specifically designed to cause public disruption. They hide behind "oh, we're just trying to educate". I was born at night, but not last night.

                    - V
                    Last edited by vvincelli; 04-23-2009, 07:40 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Tx loudmouth........The arrest is very easily justified...the perp went into a park, in a potentially very crowded situation where he could easily lose control of his firearm. He was handing out fliers an action which quite obviously distracted him from the most important duty he had which was to safeguard that firearm. He put Obama and all those around him at risk, thereby at the very least disturbing the peace. And by the way, I do not know about your part of the woods, but here in NY other than the regular lawsuits brought by the Rev Al, very few if any cops are sued for arrests.

                      Comment


                      • Let me posit one more point....when citizens see a cop carrying they also assume that he has the experience and training to deal with the stress that comes with being in a situation that could involve DPF. I don't care how well you shoot at a range, it all goes out the window in real time and your training better kick in.

                        Comment


                        • Point taken. I thought about it last night and I see your points. It would be the same as a person talking incessantly in a place where it is supposed to be quiet. Talking is not illegal, but being a PITA to others can be. I still think the situation was blown way out of proportion but oh well.

                          Comment


                          • Thanks.

                            Sometimes it's quite hard to explain the distinction because everyone's initial thought is that he was arrested solely due to the legal firearm, but that's not the case.

                            Completely agree with you that it's a lot bigger deal than it should be, but that's exactly what he expected, knew would happen, and wanted.

                            Not saying he isn't entitled to stand up for what he believes in, but there are more rational and proper ways to do it.

                            The shame in this incident is all his.

                            - V

                            Comment

                            MR300x250 Tablet

                            Collapse

                            What's Going On

                            Collapse

                            There are currently 4305 users online. 297 members and 4008 guests.

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

                            Welcome Ad

                            Collapse
                            Working...
                            X