Posted on 04/16/2013 7:16:35 PM PDT by NewJerseyJoe
It was in his own words when he did an interview on the Lynn Woolley show monday morning. He yanked the rifle away from the officer, the officer pulled his weapon and held him at gun point until another unit could show up. The video shown starts after the second officer has arrived and is cuffing him. Everything in the video is after the incident that led to his arrest. Him going on that show was one of the worst things he could have done, can’t believe his lawyer allowed it.
“It is pretty bad when Police officers don’t know the law.”
And how did you come to that conclusion just from watching the video.
You are correct in this. Same with me. When i was younger, and/or drunk, I would get the LEO treatment. These days I say sir or ma’am. I got a ticket a couple years ago and I blame myself because I broke one of my rules - trying to explain myself/argue (a matter of perspective) - with the LEO. Don’t try to argue. Don’t try to explain. Just say sir or ma’am. Be respectful. Don’t grovel but don’t be confrontational either. Some here will say it is cowardly or you are giving them too much power, but it is better than the alternative.
What business did the officer have confiscating the weapon in the first place? Is there some Texas law that makes a lawfully held weapon instant police property on demand?
Doesn't matter. The Constitution protects "guys who act like asses" too.
Acting like a jerk is no reason to arrest someone. If that were the case, almost every cop in the state would be behind bars for life.
My personal LIBERTY means I can protect myself when anyone...even a COP...is acting out of bad faith....and people...especially cops...need to learn to use discretion. There are too many ninnies out there who think every shadow is the devil...and just because they think they see the devil doesn't mean the cop has to treat you like it. AND there are too many cops...many of which look like they eat at fat Burger on a nightly basis...who take their power overboard.
Do I think the vet carried that weapon on purpose...maybe even trying to start something? Probably. But bottom line: IT IS HIS RIGHT to do so.
The second we start judging the intents of someone's heart is the second we should just junk the WHOLE constitution...including the 1st Amendment.
If he did, so what?? The cop was clearly in the wrong on all points.
It's a saying...and it quit frankly disgusts me. It shows that they on occasion do arrest people knowing they have nothing that will stick...or knowing the DA won't charge...but they want to teach them a lesson.
That is not how law enforcement is supposed to work and frankly...it's how resentment gets started and builds.
SO. SO WHAT. Did he break any laws? Or did the cop.
Yeah...it probably did cross his mind he could have some trouble and it probably did cross his mind "hope so"....but again SO WHAT!
The second you or I...or the LAW becomes the thought police and are allowed to make judgments on the thoughts and intents of the heart and then make legal things illegal on the spot...or to declare "illegal" the things that scare little old ladies (which is basically what the cop said) is the second we lose this country...
And it is the second you better get a new handle...because you have lost the right to use the one you have.
The law is the law. Just because I choose to flagrantly display my right to arm does not make it illegal...although it may be ill-advised....still NOT ILLEGAL.
I think riding without a helmet is unsafe. It's leagal in Texas. Perhaps the law should start pulling over bikes with two people on them and arresting the driver for endangering the passenger.
You either make law enforement OBEY THE LAW or you will go down a slope that turns into a cliff.
“The officer may have wanted to see if it was fully automatic as well which would have changed its status as to whether it was a legal carry or not.”
The officer may want to do a lot of things, but legally he had no right to confiscate or even inspect the weapon. The cop had the right to conduct a consensual encounter, which is completely voluntary on the part of the subject. In other words, he does not have to stop or talk to the police. Unless the officer could provide articlable facts that rise to the level of reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is about to occur, he had no legal standing to detain or confiscate.
IIRC, cops have the right in most states to disarm you while investigating what is going on. After that, if there is no crime, they have to return the unloaded gun & ammo to you. At least, that is what I was taught in my CCW class in Arizona...
odd, we train soldiers not to have their guns pulled from their bodies and then get surprised when they respond instinctively, for one - secondly - under what authority or rule was the cop allowed to forcibly remove this gun from the civi?
meh - at 50, i dont need a kid in his 30's flexing muscles of authority by being rude to me. If an officer cant deal with people respectfully and within the tenets of law, he/she has no place in law enforcement.
too often they will escalate attitude to establish the authority and thats not right either. I actually had a trooper nail me for a seat belt infraction do a double take when after the ticket and he said "be safe", I replied, "you too" (in all sincerity)...and it wasn't a good doubletake.
Yes, but there is a huge difference between an investigation and a consensual encounter. Unless we are missing additional facts, this would not be an investigation, but rather a voluntary consensual encounter.
Not really. If you are stopped for any reason, the cop has the right to take control of the scene while figuring out what is going on. And in many cases, that means taking guns away from people while they ask questions and see what is happening. I was told to expect every traffic stop to include turning my gun over to the cop for the duration of the traffic stop. They do not need to arrest you first.
Not a lawyer, but that is what I was taught in Arizona, which is a pretty gun friendly state.
“IIRC, cops have the right in most states to disarm you while investigating what is going on. After that, if there is no crime, they have to return the unloaded gun & ammo to you. At least, that is what I was taught in my CCW class in Arizona...”
“Yes, but there is a huge difference between an investigation and a consensual encounter. Unless we are missing additional facts, this would not be an investigation, but rather a voluntary consensual encounter.”
In other words, no crime had been committed, thus there is no investigation.
“Not really. If you are stopped for any reason, the cop has the right to take control of the scene while figuring out what is going on. And in many cases, that means taking guns away from people while they ask questions and see what is happening. I was told to expect every traffic stop to include turning my gun over to the cop for the duration of the traffic stop. They do not need to arrest you first.
Not a lawyer, but that is what I was taught in Arizona, which is a pretty gun friendly state.”
Stopped for any legal reason, yes. If you are stopped for a legal reason, there is already reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is about to occur. During that “investigation” the police can disarm you. During the incident we are discussing, there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime, thus no “investigation” and no authority to disarm.
You do not need to be under investigation for a crime to be disarmed by the cops. If they don’t know what is going on, they have the right to take control of the scene to ensure both their safety and the public’s until they DO know what is going on.
If the cops have a complaint about a guy acting weird with a gun along a public road, they have the right to take the gun away while figuring out what is happening. If no law is being broken, they should then return the unloaded gun to the owner and drive off. But at least in Arizona, per my CCW class, you do not have the right to keep your gun when encountering the cops.
Based on what I was taught, the guy would have been in the wrong in Arizona. And the cop should have asked him to turn over his weapon while they investigated a complaint...
secondly - under what authority or rule was the cop allowed to forcibly remove this gun from the civi?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Its called Securing the Scene. The officer rolls up on a hostile individual who is itching for a fight (see video). Then Grisham really escalates things and they get worse.
When a LEO peaceably and lawfully secures your weapon for his own safety (again - see the video) and then you try and grab it back?
That is major-league stupidity. Grisham is lucky he wasn’t shot dead.
“Not really. If you are stopped for any reason, the cop has the right to take control of the scene while figuring out what is going on. And in many cases, that means taking guns away from people while they ask questions and see what is happening. I was told to expect every traffic stop to include turning my gun over to the cop for the duration of the traffic stop. They do not need to arrest you first.
Not a lawyer, but that is what I was taught in Arizona, which is a pretty gun friendly state.”
During a traffic stop, you have been detained because of reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. The cop cannot just pull you over because he feels like it. There have to be articulable facts of a crime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.