Evidently laws dont apply if someone feels "uncomfortable" -AKA hiker Arrested in TX

[flyandscuba]

I think he was looking for a confrontation. He got one. While doing so -- made a horrible example for his son. Asking the boy to enter in to the confrontation to retrieve his camera was foolish and placed his son at risk. Remember the father and son "sovereign citizens" in West Memphis, Arkansas? That "child" proved to be deadly to two LEOs. I'm sure his boy is real proud of ol' pop.... I just hope that he doesn't inherit some of his pop's traits.

 

[bayonet_53]

He was carrying that AR in public irresponsibly.

The 4th A was about British soldiers seizing homes as HQ and stores and property in the name of the King. The BoR was directly as a result of how the King was mistreating the colonists and was not , has not, can not, was never intended to be ammended. I'm talking about ALL the other State/local statutes/ordnances, which do have case law.

We seem to be having problems with perception and context. The comment, "we're exempt from the law" was a knee jerk reaction to a dude spouting off about his misinterpetation of a law. Of course, they're exempt from a law that doesn't exist.

I stand by my intial assessment that he's a DB and an idiot and got what he deserved. He's lucky he didn't get shot. Most anywhere else, he would. I wonder what ECSO or PPD would handle him. How would you handle him?


My position is, all LEO should be up on the case laws, so that when they see a situation, they perceive and deal with it correctly. How can you enforce the law if you don't know what the current exact definition is? In other words, show me police brutality or false arrest and I'll show you a cop who doesn't know case law and is misinterpeting the law. I'll go so far to say that if a cop says that they don't need case law, that cop intends to interpret the law on his own- judge, jury and executioner.

What law did he violate?

How would I have handled the situation, and not him? First, I would have called any of the complainants and corroborated what I was being told by dispatch. The officer stated that they had "many" calls. That way I could verify if there is a violation of the law. If I was told by the complainants that he is merely walking down the road with a rifle, then I would educate them on open carry/right to carry legislation. Second, I would follow up and try to locate the individual. I may drive past him and then back and make observations of my own. Next, if I did not see a violation I would pull in behind the man parking my truck to give me a tactical advantage. I would get out and ask the man if I could talk to him. If he agrees to talk to me then great. I would inform him of the perception of the populace and maybe give him some suggestions. If he old me "NO", I will not stop and talk to you then right then and there I have to make a decision. Do I have reasonable suspicion to stop and detain this person. If my answer is no then I would go on my way. I would then BOLO out to other officers in my area what is going on.

If I identified the man as a threat or any of the complainants stated that he was pointing the firearm at them or others, then I would immediately call for back up. I would get out my black rifle. Then my fellow officers and I would complete a high risk stop on the man. I would then have the complainant fill out a sworn statement as to what they witnessed.

So, the 4th Amendment is no longer viable then since we no longer have a British occupying force? Based on your logic it only applies to a specific instance if British soldiers are seizing your home, HQ, or stores.

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It appears to me that the 4th supports my argument. Was Grisham seized? Did the officers have probable cause? The stated reason for the stop, detention, disarming, and arrest was so that they could find out if Grisham could lawfully have a gun. Please outline the officer's reasonable suspicion to believe that Grisham was unlawfully possessing the firearm. Then expound upon your reasonable suspicion and develop it into the probable cause that would warrant a lawful arrest. In an open carry/right to carry state mere possession is not reasonable suspicion.

Unless there was credible information that Grisham was violating the law with the firearm that he was in LAWFUL possession of then the officers did not have a lawful reason to stop, detain, and disarm Grisham. They knew this, and that is why there is not a firearm charge against Grisham. He was arrested for obstruction based on a unlawful detention that should have never happened in the first place.

What is needed to have a violation of the law? Intent, ability, and opportunity. You can imagine each aspect as a supporting leg of a tripod. If one of the legs is missing the tripod will fall. Did Grisham have the ability and opportunity? Sure he did. What was his intent? Was it to get into an altercation with LEO so that he can create a lawsuit based on a civil rights violation? I think yes. Is that against the law? No.

My remarks about case law was a direct rebuttal to you posting that I needed to post case law with FL statute 790.25. Your impugning of my character though does expose the fact that you cannot present a logical argument. You seem to have a penchant for that.

 

[B52]

My prediction for the outcome of this TEXAS encounter of a good guy with a gun. 1)Cops are wrong and some may be fired for improper conduct. 2)Possibly a new prosecutor after the next election. 4) Money will be paid by the offenders to the defendant after the civil trial.

Here is why, If you harass someone exercising a right. You need to lose your job. If the cop acted this way with anyone else, I challenge them to keep their calm when being wrongly treated as a criminal. It's lawful to carry the AR15 as he was exercising his right. Anyone remember axiom "a right not used is right lost".

No stepen and fetchen is needed to pacify the sheepole or dumb cop because some thinks the look of carrying a black gun scary.

Note DEFCON 5 is total peace. DEFCON 1 is at war. I am a Old SAC dog.

 

[Fletch]

I am disheartened though that you would like to have a police force that slams peoples face into the asphalt for using vulgarity. Does that go both ways? Can I walk up to a citizen and curse them while in uniform? If I do, should they be able to slam my face into the asphalt? Any officer that cannot maintain their composure, and decides to use violence against citizens as a form of punishment should be in jail where they belong.

I am not defending Grisham; I am defending the Constitution/Bill of Rights

I don't advocate or want a police force that would slam people for using vulgarity but we've all seen it. When the cops put someone on the ground their face is usually on the ground is it not? I've never really seen a graceful take down that gently places the suspect prone. The very nature of the action usually results in the head whacking the ground to some degree.
We will see how the finer points of the law are applied to this case. It's seems to me when he made initial contact and asked why do you have the weapon and Grisham responded in an agitated and aggressive manner then he gave them suspension that he may not be lawfully carrying.

Under your interpretation of the law the police have no way to verify the legality of his carrying. A criminal would just lie and say I'm hiking and I am able to legally posses firearms. So that's it? Under your interpenetration of the law if a felon or mentally unstable mass shooter was walking on his way to shoot up a school all he has to do is lie to the cops and they have no authority under the law to check his identity. Can you imagine the fallout if a mass shooter was contacted by police and then went on to murder and the officer's response was well he said he was hiking and legally able to own a gun so we let him be. How is that going to fly? It ain't going to and it's dishonest and not realistic to say otherwise.

Walking down a highway with an AR in the manner he was carrying is reasonable enough suspicion to stop and verify identity. At that point he resisted the officers and that is what he is charged with. It was his choice to resist and hinder their ability to investigate and he will pay some sort of criminal penalty for it. The correctly did not charge him with a weapons violation.

It will be interesting to follow and I respect you opinion on the matter. We disagree and that's fine. I don't think the strict interpretation of the constitution you advocate is necessary to prevent government tyranny. There is a balance of protecting rights and giving authorities the ability to prevent crime. If he would have been a nut and went on to shoot several people then it's a fair statement that their constitutional rights were violated. My rights end were yours begin I believe the saying goes.

 

[Fletch]

I think he was looking for a confrontation. He got one. While doing so -- made a horrible example for his son. Asking the boy to enter in to the confrontation to retrieve his camera was foolish and placed his son at risk. Remember the father and son "sovereign citizens" in West Memphis, Arkansas? That "child" proved to be deadly to two LEOs. I'm sure his boy is real proud of ol' pop.... I just hope that he doesn't inherit some of his pop's traits.

I do remember and I linked a video of it in a earlier post. It is chilling and a shocking reminder of how fast an officer can be faced with a bad bad situation. Officers, as I'm sure you know, are trained now to look for signs and typical behaviors of sovereigns. The guy isn't one....yet....but he was displaying a lot of behaviors that officers are trained to go on alert for if observed. About the only thing he didn't do was present them with big pile of bogus paper work.

 

[B52]

The cop's will have to use some other means to determine intent of a crime. Asking why you are here is the premiss of your statement of how can a cop know. With your logic as a cop I would stop everyone walking on a public way why are you here. Show me you ID (papers). Think it can't happen here in the USA? The answer is it already does. Your behind the curve of knowing your rights. The government has to wait for a crime to be committed. They can assume because your other wise. That mens the cops, they are the government but still just citizens. Yes the cop job is hard, they are paid for it and should suffer when over stepping.

 

[CCHGN]

What law did he violate?

See, it's not about him violating any law, they didn't get a chance to get that far. That was about him obstructing an investigation.

How would I have handled the situation, and not him? If he old me "NO", I will not stop and talk to you then right then and there I have to make a decision. Do I have reasonable suspicion to stop and detain this person. If my answer is no then I would go on my way.

Wow, just wow. You are truly one out of a million.


.

So, the 4th Amendment is no longer viable then since we no longer have a British occupying force? Based on your logic it only applies to a specific instance if British soldiers are seizing your home, HQ, or stores.

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It appears to me that the 4th supports my argument. Was Grisham seized?

No, not in the context of the 4th A.....I'll give you that there has been case law on the 4th and now there a very clear definition and that includes that if the police have reasonable suspicion that a crime is progress, they can search without a warrant, but the 4th has nothing to do with this case.

Unless there was credible information that Grisham was violating the law with the firearm that he was in LAWFUL possession of then the officers did not have a lawful reason to stop, detain, and disarm Grisham. They knew this, and that is why there is not a firearm charge against Grisham. He was arrested for obstruction based on a unlawful detention that should have never happened in the first place.

what? so as long as you don't see him commit a crime, you assume he's legal? Apparently, when citizens call about a man with a gun carrying, in their opinion, a threatening manner, they have the authority to investigate. That gave them the authority to approach him and ask for ID. Now , when he refused, it became a whole different incident. From that point on, it didn't matter if he'd broke any laws or not, now it becomes a belligerant man with a gun who refuses to co-operate. Now they want to disarm him, until they can determine who he is and if he can legally have the gun. He refuses to give up his gun, so the next logical protocol is to cuff him and take the info they want. I am positive this is procedure everywhere. Like I said, some places they'd shoot him.

My remarks about case law was a direct rebuttal to you posting that I needed to post case law with FL statute 790.25. Your impugning of my character though does expose the fact that you cannot present a logical argument. You seem to have a penchant for that.

Well, it seems to you that I can't, which would make sense, since you're misperceiving alot, taking stuff out of context and taking it way too personal. If you go back , you said

I do not know the specific laws in TX, but in FL you may open carry as listed below.

To which I replied, that you needed to include case law, because the fact is, we may not be able to carry as listed, but as has been currently defined by a judge.. The ONLY true statement you can make is,"You can carry as listed below, if there's no case law to say otherwise." That's why I said you had to include case law and used the brandishing as an example, it's perfect to show how a statute can be in place, but be bad and in fact, case law correctly defined it.

 

[bayonet_53]

I don't advocate or want a police force that would slam people for using vulgarity but we've all seen it. When the cops put someone on the ground their face is usually on the ground is it not? I've never really seen a graceful take down that gently places the suspect prone. The very nature of the action usually results in the head whacking the ground to some degree.
We will see how the finer points of the law are applied to this case. It's seems to me when he made initial contact and asked why do you have the weapon and Grisham responded in an agitated and aggressive manner then he gave them suspension that he may not be lawfully carrying.

Under your interpretation of the law the police have no way to verify the legality of his carrying. A criminal would just lie and say I'm hiking and I am able to legally posses firearms. So that's it? Under your interpenetration of the law if a felon or mentally unstable mass shooter was walking on his way to shoot up a school all he has to do is lie to the cops and they have no authority under the law to check his identity. Can you imagine the fallout if a mass shooter was contacted by police and then went on to murder and the officer's response was well he said he was hiking and legally able to own a gun so we let him be. How is that going to fly? It ain't going to and it's dishonest and not realistic to say otherwise.

Walking down a highway with an AR in the manner he was carrying is reasonable enough suspicion to stop and verify identity. At that point he resisted the officers and that is what he is charged with. It was his choice to resist and hinder their ability to investigate and he will pay some sort of criminal penalty for it. The correctly did not charge him with a weapons violation.

It will be interesting to follow and I respect you opinion on the matter. We disagree and that's fine. I don't think the strict interpretation of the constitution you advocate is necessary to prevent government tyranny. There is a balance of protecting rights and giving authorities the ability to prevent crime. If he would have been a nut and went on to shoot several people then it's a fair statement that their constitutional rights were violated. My rights end were yours begin I believe the saying goes.

I respect your opinion as well, but what has happened in this debate is that you either have to be pro-TX officer or pro-Grisham. I choose to be pro-Constitution. When you remove emotion and personal opinion from the situation and institute a clear thresh hold that must be satisfied before violating someones rights then the only option your left with is that this was an unlawful stop, detention, disarming, and arrest.

To stop and detain someone you must have reasonable suspicion that a crime/violation of the law has been, is being, or will be committed. If you meet that thresh hold then you began to develop probable cause for an arrest. If you satisfy the thresh hold of probable cause then you have a good arrest. If anywhere along the way you cannot prove intent, ability, or opportunity then you must release the person. You can only detain a person based on reasonable suspicion, and only so long as to determine if there is probable cause of a crime/violation of the law.

Reasonable suspicion must be based on credible and reliable information. You cannot detain someone to manufacture reasonable suspicion. That is a violation of civil rights. There are plenty of groups that act like Grisham and try to goad LEO's into confrontations. There are several here in FL that exercise their right under FL ss 790.25. I support open carry, and therefore, I do not view people lawfully carrying as my enemy.

It is not my interpretation of law in reference to stopping and ascertaining lawful possession of a firearm in FL under 790.25. Respectfully, If you do not agree with the way the legislation is written then you need to get involved with the state legislation to bring about change. The law is clear it outlines when, where, and under what circumstances a person may open carry. To stop a person I must have reasonable suspicion to believe that the person possessing the firearm is doing so illegally based on credible and reliable information. So, to answer you question, no I cannot just stop random people and demand that they identify themselves to me. What I have a right to do is, if they are engaged in hunting or fishing, check the appropriate license. But what if they are walking down the street? Well, then I would stop that person based on the reasonable suspicion that they are unlawfully open carrying. I would ask them under what lawful reason were they open carrying a firearm. The moment that they tell me that they are going to or from a hunting, fishing, or camping trip then I must end my detention. This is not my interpretation. Do I think it is wise to hike along the road with a firearm exposed? Not really. I do not have a problem with open carry while hunting, fishing, and camping.

As a nation we cannot trample the rights of others so that we can feel warm and cozy. If I am passing by a home and I see a black man inside in a predominately white neighborhood should I assume that he is a burglar? Should I kick down the door and take the man down at gunpoint? What if I just drive by and it turns out the man was a murderous home invader that just killed a family? Then what? It sounds silly, but in that scenario no one would fault me for driving by the home. And certainly no one would be advocating LEO's going around kicking in doors to make sure that the persons in the homes are not criminals.

We are a nation that is based on the rule of law, not the rule of man. We operate on the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof. I am not willing to sacrifice my rights based on evil people committing evil deeds.

Note DEFCON 5 is total peace. DEFCON 1 is at war. I am a Old SAC dog.

Roger that! If I am only mistaken about my DEFCON levels and not the Constitution then I will accept that mistake all day long. LOL

 

[CCHGN]

To stop and detain someone you must have reasonable suspicion that a crime/violation of the law has been, is being, or will be committed..

I think this the heart of your position and I think it is absolutely wrong. I suggest to separate stop and detain. The fact is they got a call about the man with a gun and felt threatened( the cop said so). That gave them cause to stop him. Now his actions gave them cause to detain him. I don't know of any cop who won't do what they did if a stop refuses to comply. Especially an armed stop. I've been pulled over all over Florida and out in Las Vegas( dark tint) and voluntarily informed the officer I was armed and ALL of them immediately took my pistols, before proceding any further. I have no problem with that. I don't feel like any of my rights have been violated. I got my pistols back.

 

[Snow Bird]

Just for my information....I have heard for years that a person can be detained for 24 hours without charges being filed. Is this true. OR must there be cause to be detained. This thread is intersting to say the least. I for one would like to see the dash cam and see what happened before he turned on his camara.

 

[bayonet_53]

See, it's not about him violating any law, they didn't get a chance to get that far. That was about him obstructing an investigation.


Wow, just wow. You are truly one out of a million.


.



No, not in the context of the 4th A.....I'll give you that there has been case law on the 4th and now there a very clear definition and that includes that if the police have reasonable suspicion that a crime is progress, they can search without a warrant, but the 4th has nothing to do with this case.




what? so as long as you don't see him commit a crime, you assume he's legal? Apparently, when citizens call about a man with a gun carrying, in their opinion, a threatening manner, they have the authority to investigate. That gave them the authority to approach him and ask for ID. Now , when he refused, it became a whole different incident. From that point on, it didn't matter if he'd broke any laws or not, now it becomes a belligerant man with a gun who refuses to co-operate. Now they want to disarm him, until they can determine who he is and if he can legally have the gun. He refuses to give up his gun, so the next logical protocol is to cuff him and take the info they want. I am positive this is procedure everywhere. Like I said, some places they'd shoot him.






Well, it seems to you that I can't, which would make sense, since you're misperceiving alot, taking stuff out of context and taking it way too personal. If you go back , you said
To which I replied, that you needed to include case law, because the fact is, we may not be able to carry as listed, but as has been currently defined by a judge.. The ONLY true statement you can make is,"You can carry as listed below, if there's no case law to say otherwise." That's why I said you had to include case law and used the brandishing as an example, it's perfect to show how a statute can be in place, but be bad and in fact, case law correctly defined it.

It is exactly about him violating a law! LEO cannot stop someone for any reason. The stop and detention must be based on reasonable suspicion based on credible information. So what was the reasonable suspicion for the stop? If it was to determine that the man could lawfully possess the firearm then it was a bad stop, detention, disarming, and arrest. You keep saying that they had a right to investigate. Investigate what? A man with a gun. A lawfully possessed firearm in an open carry state. Mere possession is not reasonable suspicion. You may find Terry vs. Ohio and Texas Penal Code section 46 to be good reads.

What was the reasonable suspicion that he violated a law? What was the reasonable suspicion for the investigation? You cannot answer that question because there was none. The officer did not feel threatened until halfway through the video after he initiated the unlawful detention. There was a call of a man with a gun. A person lawfully possessing a gun in an open carry/right to carry state is not violating the law. Mere possession is not reasonable suspicion. The officers knew this or at least should have. If their department is not conducting training on open carry and officer interactions then the department is setting the officer up for failure. Regardless, there are still those pesky civil rights that I took an oath to protect and defend. I must exercise the utmost due diligence when determining if I have a lawful reason to violate those rights. As a LEO we don't always get it right. We are humans and every man has his flaws. But there is a difference between making a mistake causing a bad arrest and creating a situation to fit your needs to make an arrest.

Regardless of how you feel about me, I will put on my badge, I will put on my vest, and I will take up the incredible burden of carrying a firearm to keep my fellow man safe. I will go to places you would not dare step foot on. I will deal with the worst our society has to offer. I will see gruesome things, and help people at their most vulnerable state. I will never forget why I put on the uniform; for me it is to stand in the way of evildoers that prey on the innocent of our country. I will live every day to honor the oath that I took to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution and the Constitution of the state of Fl. I will enforce the laws and regulations, but I will also exercise discretion where discretion is due.

We are a nation that is based on the rule of law, not the rule of man. We operate on the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof.

CCHGN you offer nothing relevant in my humble opinion. I am done engaging you. If you feel so inclined you can apply at many police departments to become a reserve officer. I believe this would be an eye opening experience for you.

 

[bayonet_53]

I do remember and I linked a video of it in a earlier post. It is chilling and a shocking reminder of how fast an officer can be faced with a bad bad situation. Officers, as I'm sure you know, are trained now to look for signs and typical behaviors of sovereigns. The guy isn't one....yet....but he was displaying a lot of behaviors that officers are trained to go on alert for if observed. About the only thing he didn't do was present them with big pile of bogus paper work.

I have studied that video many times. In fact we just went through sovereign citizen training recently. If I was to run into one of these types during a lawful stop, I would take whatever paperwork they wanted to give me and pass it on to my chain of command. I would not get caught in a goofy loop of arguing the merits of the paperwork. If there is an arrestable violation then I would arrest them, and they could then argue the validity of their sovereignty within a court of law. I would definitely be at DEFCON 1.

 

[wildrider666]

I do not know Fl LE training requirements. I guess you get your LE training (On your dime) then go find a Job, and then do the field training portion. In my Second Career The State chose me, Sent me too the Academy on there dime and payroll then I got assigned and did the Field Training. Point of the matter is: My former States Academy course of instruction covered State and Federal law, Case Law (Several levels) are also studied.

Please consider this: What is lawful activity may not be normal common behavior in the area. The State allows open carry and it is common in rural/farming communities but not seen in the Cities. Since the "activity" in the current environment is neither routine or normal for the area it neccassates further investigation. If your asked to turn off your car: you do it. If asked for Lic, reg and Ins: You provide them. If you are asked to step out of the car and over to the sidewalk: you do it. You comply when an Officer wants your firearm too. Without argument, delay, or putting your hands on the officers hands (why he was charged I think). I support the Cop.

Along the same lines: If you have a CCW and a weapon on your person and you tell or LE asks, You may well be disarmed too. Why some may indignantly ask? because all kinds of documents are forged. Your CCW is not valid until the "System" says its valid. Things always have a potential to escalate. You may have a CCW or be allowed to open carry BUT if you got too many parking tickets or something else sneaking up: your going to jail. Same if you have a loaded weapon legally (No CCW) in your vehicle. In this case return of the weapon is solely based on the outcome of the stop.

 

[bayonet_53]

I do not know Fl LE training requirements. I guess you get your LE training (On your dime) then go find a Job, and then do the field training portion. In my Second Career The State chose me, Sent me too the Academy on there dime and payroll then I got assigned and did the Field Training. Point of the matter is: My former States Academy course of instruction covered State and Federal law, Case Law (Several levels) are also studied.

Please do not buy into the fallacy that I am completely ignorant of case law. My statement about case law was in rebuttal to CCHGN stating that I need to post case law in reference to FL ss 790.25. I have attended in depth classes put on by my State Law Enforcement Legal Department. I have attended Role Based Training using simunitions dealing with open carry legislation. I payed my way through Basic Recruit Training and received my standards. I then attended break-out training a the State Academy.

If your asked to turn off your car: you do it. If asked for Lic, reg and Ins: You provide them. If you are asked to step out of the car and over to the sidewalk: you do it. You comply when an Officer wants your firearm too. Without argument, delay, or putting your hands on the officers hands (why he was charged I think). I support the Cop.

What is the context of this stop? Did I have reasonable suspicion to stop this vehicle? I am not trying to be smart, but without knowing those factors I cannot speak to it. The arrest of Grisham came after he was detained. The reason given for the detention was to ascertain if Grisham could legally possess the firearm. On that basis the officer will have to articulate in a court of law why he believed that Grisham was unlawfully possessing the firearm. As officers we cannot go around flippantly stopping citizens and demanding ID's. I cannot stop a person of Hispanic descent just to make sure that they are legally in the country can I?

Along the same lines: If you have a CCW and a weapon on your person and you tell or LE asks, You may well be disarmed too. Why some may indignantly ask? because all kinds of documents are forged. Your CCW is not valid until the "System" says its valid. Things always have a potential to escalate. You may have a CCW or be allowed to open carry BUT if you got too many parking tickets or something else sneaking up: your going to jail. Same if you have a loaded weapon legally (No CCW) in your vehicle. In this case return of the weapon is solely based on the outcome of the stop.

I disagree. First, if you have someone lawfully stopped and detained and it becomes evident that they have a firearm you would disarm the person for Officer Safety based on a perceived threat. I can care less of the authenticity of the paperwork; if I perceive a threat I am disarming so that I can make it home alive. It is not always prudent to disarm a person that you have stopped. You can ask for the location of the firearm, and then instruct the person not to make any movements near or towards the firearm while you are conducting business. How will you disarm them during a speeding ticket? At gunpoint? Do they hand the firearm to you or do you enter their conveyance to retrieve it? If you do choose to enter the conveyance are you now searching the conveyance? When an attorney has you on the stand and asks 'why did you disarm a soccer mom in her minivan full of kids coming back from the fields?" You will tell the judge and jury that you did it to verify documents? How about if you are on a vehicle stop and the person is completely compliant. They apologize for speeding. They hand you all the documents you request. They may even say I understand if you give me a ticket today. Then you ask "Do you have a firearm in the vehicle?" Do they have to answer you? If they remain silent what is your course of action?

I also noticed that you used the term "weapon" where I chose to use firearm. Is the use meant to encompass other instruments that may be used to cause harm or is it solely a replacement for firearm?

Please consider this: What is lawful activity may not be normal common behavior in the area. The State allows open carry and it is common in rural/farming communities but not seen in the Cities. Since the "activity" in the current environment is neither routine or normal for the area it neccassates further investigation.

In the state of FL, I again disagree. FL ss 790.25 clearly defines lawful possession and use. If a person is fishing on a pier and has a 1911 holstered in plain view he is not in violation of any law. I do not have reasonable suspicion to stop and detain this person to verify if he is lawfully possessing the firearm. I do have the lawful right to see said persons license, which could potentially be used to verify lawful possession, but then I am opening up a whole new can of worms. Now if I see someone walking down the sidewalk near the pier and not engaged in fishing I will stop this person. I will ask them if they have a lawful reason to open carry the firearm. If they tell me that they just finished fishing and that they are on their way home then my reasonable suspicion has been satisfied and I must end my detention. Normal behavior is not a requirement of the law. Reasonable suspicion based on credible information is. Who gets to determine what is normal behavior? Rule of law; not rule of man.

 

[Fletch]

Rule of law; not rule of man.

That's a great concept in theory but the law is interpreted by men. A good lawyer knows the law, a great lawyer knows the judge. It's not as black and white as some want to believe.

 

[wildrider666]

Disect it, change it, add to it, read into it: whatever works for you. I will not tell you how to do your job. Not my place. I retired from the road you barely traveled.
Good luck.

You can lead a horse to water but....

Done and unsubed.

 

[Ric-san]

Wow, good stuff here from both sides. Yea this vet is a 'unique snowflake' no doubt. Fox News radio has a article saying that the charges have been reduced to interfering with a peace officer while performing a duty – a class B misdemeanor. Court date is set for May 29th...right around the corner...

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/war-veteran-arrested-for-rudely-displaying-rifle.html

 

[bayonet_53]

Rule of law; not rule of man.

That's a great concept in theory but the law is interpreted by men. A good lawyer knows the law, a great lawyer knows the judge. It's not as black and white as some want to believe.

At my level of person to person interaction I have to make the decision on what level of enforcement to take if I have reasonable suspicion to believe that a violation has taken place. I tend to use the least level of enforcement that will bring a person into compliance. Most times I can accomplish that by use of a warning, other times a citation, and also with arrest. If you do not like those that are elected by you to make the laws and sit at the bench then it is up to you to get involved to make changes. What happens after I make an arrest in a court of law is out of my hands, but I am going to make sure that I made the right decisions based on applicable law, the Constitution, totality of circumstances, and discretion before that person is made into a criminal.

Disect it, change it, add to it, read into it: whatever works for you. I will not tell you how to do your job. Not my place. I retired from the road you barely traveled.
Good luck.

You can lead a horse to water but....

Done and unsubed.

That's it? You enter into a debate, albeit an internet forum debate, and you have your position rebuffed so you take your ball and go home? I never asked anyone on here how I am supposed to do my job; nor have I told anyone how to do theirs. I commend you on your retirement. It is a hard road that you have walked full of obstacles and danger. I have the utmost respect for those that have gone before me and paved the way both in my LEO career and my military career. I also believe that we must admonish those within our ranks that believe that they are exempt from the law.

I have no hard feelings, in fact it would be nice to talk about our difference of views over a cup of coffee. I always seek knowledge from the people I serve, seasoned officers, and the "been there done that" guys of my unit.

 

[Fletch]

Serious but hypothetical question for you Bayonet and I'm not trying to score some debate points or intending to ask a gotcha questions here? You've stated how strictly you would apply your interpretation of the 2nd and 4th amendments to the situation at hand. What if this "agitated" individual you didn't feel you had the authority to even stop and id went on to murder several innocents with the weapon that was an unusual and out of place display from the norm but technically not a violation of state laws.

As an officer of the law you swear an oath to uphold the constitution and to serve and protect. How would you deal with the lost lives that a simple id'ing of the individual could have prevented? Would the comfort of knowing you upheld your interpretation of the 2nd and 4th amendments let you sleep at night without 2nd guessing your convictions or application of the law. Would you feel any responsibility in the deaths? Would your thoughts change on this if it was a loved one who was murdered by this individual? Or would you simply accept that your interpretation of the constitution is more important to preserving the freedoms we enjoy and that the lives lost, while tragic, are the cost of freedom and protection from a tyrannical government?

Do you think there is a slight possibility that your interpretation of the 2nd and 4th amendments may be flawed considering that you are in a minority of peace officers who do believe that the officers were acting within the confines of the law? If not, do you the think the majority of peace officers around the nation who believe the stop was legal and constitutional are out of control agents of the state and a danger to freedom and civil rights? Would society as a whole be better off without them?

If the legal system of Texas finds no fault with the officers actions and convicts him of obstruction of an officer will you accept that or contend that the prosecutors, judge, and jury all subverted the Constitution and this man's rights were violated?

 

[CCHGN]

It is exactly about him violating a law! LEO cannot stop someone for any reason.

Well, the reality is, yes they can and they do......

What was the reasonable suspicion that he violated a law? What was the reasonable suspicion for the investigation? You cannot answer that question because there was none.

Yes, I've answered it several times, you just refuse to accept it. The call(s) opened an investigation. The caller(s) said he was acting in a threatening manner. Just because YOU don't see it, doesn't mean you can dismiss it. You still have to treat it as a threat. You may not decide what is too threatening or not.They approached him with the intent to check his ID and see if he's legal and find out why he's carrying on like he is. He forced his own detention.

Regardless of how you feel about me, I will put on my badge, I will put on my vest, and I will take up the incredible burden of carrying a firearm to keep my fellow man safe. I will go to places you would not dare step foot on. I will deal with the worst our society has to offer.

I don't feel one way or the other about you, you're the one taking this personal. You place yourself upon high, it's that elitist attitude that turns alot of folks off about LEO....newsflash: civilians "take up the incredible burden of carrying a firearm to keep myself and my fellow man safe" too, we go into society and see the worst too. Remember, many times, we face the worst before y'all ever show up.
Btw, I was in the Marine Corps for 8yrs, went overseas and saw tragity. After Viet Nam, they put folks in boats and pushed them into the China Sea. One of my first jobs was to retreive those folks. Almost every boat had human bones in them( folks were eating the dead). IN 1979 Olongapo, PI, under martial law, I've seen kids shot down in the street by armed police for stealing. Folks there were so poor, they'd slit your throat or rent you their 10 yr old daughter( or son) for $10.. What I'm wondering is why you feel the need to even bring this up?

CCHGN you offer nothing relevant in my humble opinion. I am done engaging you. .

LOL, you're guilty of what you accuse someone else of doing: get your position rebuffed, so you take your bat and ball and go home. Well, ok then.......