Skip to comments.Firearm incident sparks debate over rights
Posted on 08/03/2013 9:13:44 AM PDT by marktwain
RUTLAND Joshua Severance says his Second Amendment rights to openly carry a firearm were violated, but Rutland police say they were following the law when they handcuffed and briefly detained the Milton man this week.
In a case that appears destined to end in a courtroom, Severance, 26, says he was walking down a residential Rutland street Monday afternoon with his shirt off and his 9mm Beretta semiautomatic handgun holstered on his hip when a city police cruiser stopped in front of him and an officer ordered him to place his hands on the hood.
I figured they wanted to run the serial number and do a background check which is all well and good and part of being a responsible gun owner, Severance said Thursday. The next thing I knew I was being handcuffed, told I was not under arrest and was put into the back of a cruiser.
Ed Cutler, legislative director for Gun Owners of Vermont, said what police in Rutland did wasnt wrong, it was illegal.
I think what they did was harassment and I would be happy to sue (Rutland), he said. Just because someone is carrying open the police have no right to detain them in any way.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesargus.com ...
It reminds me of the meme that has been going around of police beating on unresisting people as they shout "stop resisting, stop resisting".
As far as I am concerned, any officer engaged in either of the above two deceptions should be fired and prosecuted.
If someone is cuffed, yet not “under arrest” it is at best, unlawful detention and possibly kidnapping.
It reminds me of the semi-satirical/semi-cynical
crime of Failure to Respect.
>>I am seeing this more and more, saying “you are not under arrest” as they snap on the handcuffs.
They claim that its for “officer safety”. I guess its for your safety too since, the cowards with a badge will overreact and kill you if you even sneeze in their presence.
Yep, and they can question you too. Miranda only kicks in when you’re under arrest. Otherwise they can question all day and detain you. So they’ll typically put it off until the last second possible. It’s a shakedown method.
“you are not under arrest” as they snap on the handcuffs”
would this not be kidnapping and unlawful containment if you are not under arest? seems to me to be a criminal act and you should be able to sue their pants off
Police state? You tell me are we getting there?
I don’t have a problem if the police politely ask for ID to verify you are not a convicted felon, while you stand there unencumbered and unrestrained. Frankly, I would have no problem if they asked me to remove the magazine and verify the chamber was empty while they checked the ID; as long as I retained possession of the gun and was not restrained.
Cuffing someone (same thing as locking them up) so you can essentially look at their ID is unlawful detention. Doing it “politely” doesn’t make it lawful.
That happened to my nephew this spring.
I say that, because they are parsing the definition of “arrest”. If you cannot be arrested indefinitely without being charged, then neither can you be detained indefinitely without being “arrested”.
I have lost about all the respect that I ever had for the police. They are not on a mission to protect and to serve the citizenry, they simply treat everyone they encounter as a known felon (until proven differently).
For those cops that say, “hey I just want to get home alive tonight”, well so do I, so am I justified in treating every policeman as a felon in a phony cop uniform, or a crooked cop, or a stupid cop? Because, “hey, I just don't want you to shoot my family to death, before you go home safe tonight”.
As far as I am concerned, any officer engaged in violating constitutionally protected rights should be "not Tasered", and "Not arrested" and then fired (bye bye pension) and prosecuted as a felon (and lose 2A rights).
Unlawful detainment and deprivation of rights under the color of law...
“We dont know who you are and until we determine youre not a threat to people in the area were going to detain you as a precaution, that usually helps, he said.”
I’m assuming the cops are pulling over EVERY SINGLE vehicle that rolls into that neighborhood, handcuffing the drivers, and running a background check on them...because vehicles are used as deadly weapons on a regular basis..
Don’t give them any ideas.
It's something new to some people I guess. It's only been going on for about a hundred and fifty years.
No. Maybe an Obama appointed judge would agree with you, but the overwhelming majority of judges, including the USSC would disagree with that.
Notice how the left and the complicit media poison the waters from the beginning by even suggesting that rights are debatable.
The instant any officer handcuffs you is the time to say nothing but “I want to call my lawyer”.
Handcuffing without arrest is an intimidation tactic and a violation of civil rights.
Americans must defend freedom against all enemies,foreign and domestic.
Maybe that is a hidden provision of Obamacare, but it is otherwise stupid to claim.