Here come the lawsuits - Olmos Park TX officers arrest CJ Grisham.

[...]

Funny how some of us rattle on about Libtards getting butthurt over their offended sensibilities, despite facts flying in the face of opinion, until the combat boot is on the other foot, and some Sovereign Citizen type bitches about the intrusion of laws and regulations harshing their fairness mellow. Owie, owie.

some libtard being offended ..........and someone not wanting to be harassed for not breaking the law are no where near the same thing......

literally the same as a cop questioning you every time you leave the house because you have a turban on, and he thinks youre a terrorist.

 

[Veer_G]

some libtard being offended ..........and someone not wanting to be harassed for not breaking the law are no where near the same thing......

literally the same as a cop questioning you every time you leave the house because you have a turban on, and he thinks youre a terrorist.

You keep on trying to toss me that same poor repressed minority herring, like I'm a penguin or something. We aren't going to salvage 2A by walking around openly with rifles. We're going to alienate others, if anything, and make it all the more likely that we slide down the slope into something most of us couldn't begin to imagine. Buy ammo, maintain your equipment, practice, but please think twice about provocation, unless you want to lose reasonable types like @Slash0311 ...

 

[...]

im not tossing you shit.....youre old enough you can get your own damn herrings.............im making an example to point out the hypocrisy of some of yalls statements.

you are saying we cant exercise our rights.....because well lose them?

thats some back assward liberal logic.


i dont give a fuck if some liberal cunt gets offended......they are always offended.

by that logic, the blacks should have just "gotten in line".....and not "provoked" anyone during the civil rights movement.

rosa parks should have just sat her black ass at the back of the bus, eh?

 

[Veer_G]

im not tossing you shit.....youre old enough you can get your own damn herrings.............im making an example to point out the hypocrisy of some of yalls statements.

you are saying we cant exercise our rights.....because well lose them?

thats some back assward liberal logic.


i dont give a fuck if some liberal cunt gets offended......they are always offended.

by that logic, the blacks should have just "gotten in line".....and not "provoked" anyone during the civil rights movement.

rosa parks should have just sat her black ass at the back of the bus, eh?

Slash and others have tried, with great patience, to explain the average police perspective on this thing. I don't think that AR-15 attention whore exhibitionism does us a damned bit of good. I think it's completely counterproductive to the cause, and that doesn't make me a liberal. Arguing that it does just underlines the polarization and betrays a complete lack of logic. I'm not discussing it further, but when it becomes a factor in our disarmament as a people, look back on the thrills of cop-baiting and understand that we were all forced to take a bite of a shit sandwich to pay for it.

 

[...]

Slash and others have tried, with great patience, to explain the average police perspective on this thing.

from what i gathered......the police perspective on things is "theres a guy minding his own business, not committing a crime....but hes doing something i dont like.....so lets bust his balls to see if we can find something to arrest him for".......

 

[QuickNDirty]

from what i gathered......the police perspective on things is "theres a guy minding his own business, not committing a crime....but hes doing something i dont like.....so lets bust his balls to see if we can find something to arrest him for".......

That is not even true in the context of this thread.

All of the shit I posted had officers interacting with someone because some cunt called the cops on them. Why some cunt would call the cops on someone that wasn't doing anything illegal is another issue entirely, but this thread is about cops showing up BECAUSE SOMEONE CALLED THEM.

Given that the officers don't know what the fuck to expect, it could be a Nick Cruz situation, it could be some gangbanger motherfucker that just robbed some shit from someone, or it could be some asshole trolling them, or just some dude walking down the damn road, ultimately the cops don't know what they're about to get into.

My perspective is not of a LEO, but it's not entirely unlike a game warden. The folks I encounter in the woods, I don't know who the fuck they are, they're almost always armed, they may be meth heads, or just some dude that doesn't give a damn that he's trespassing.

Given my perspective, I treat everyone with some base level of respect. I accept that I don't know everything going on, and I damn sure don't want to get shot or kill anybody. There are cases where some armed guy could be on my property legally (e.g., recovering game that they shot on their property and it ran onto mine. I've done that myself a time or two.)

So, when I'm in that situation, I don't draw down on people, but fuckin hell I'm ready to let one fly at a moments notice. I don't start yelling commands like some retard faggot before I have more information to go on.

The deer park video is more or less how I handle that type of shit. The Olmos Park video is some bullshit.

I've only had a the law show up in a few cases in something like 20 years. I was fortunate that those people didn't give me any shit when I called the GW because they were poaching. I have zero fucking patience for poachers. I have a lot more patience for local retards.

I consider my situation when I think of 911 calls. 911 calls are people calling to report something that needs some attention. My analog is I hear someone breaking the fucking law on my property. I can hear their fourwheelers, or them talking, or whatever. You really never know what kinda shit you're about to get into. It may even result in getting really drunk at the expense of the offender in my case.

I dunno what you're going on about cops just showing up and harassing someone for no reason, but I assure you, this thread is not about that. It's about cops that were called out because some cunt was scared and thought they needed to be there, and two very different ways of handling it. Some good ones, and some bad ones.


ETA - Found the full video that c2h edited.

 

[...]

I dunno what you're going on about cops just showing up and harassing someone for no reason, but I assure you, this thread is not about that. It's about cops that were called out because some cunt was scared and thought they needed to be there, and two very different ways of handling it. Some good ones, and some bad ones.

if i call the cops on someone for smoking a joint, the cops are going to tell me "sir marijuana is legal, stop calling us"

yet if someone calls the cops on someone who has a rifle on their back not bothering anyone......they send out officers to track them down and question them?

why dont the cops say "sir carrying a rifle is not a crime, stop calling us".....?


and if the person on the phone is claiming they are acting in a threatening manner when they are not, why arent they arrested for making a false police report? or "misusing emergency services".......




see yall are fine with this because it doesnt effect you any....so long as its not you being bothered you could care less, right?

 

[Dirty D]

Most police departments will order filming stopped then destroy the film/cameras/memory while doing the arrest.

SCOTUS has already ruled that LE may not stop anyone from filming them, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t still happen.

 

[QuickNDirty]

Good points.

Pot isn't legal here. Calling 911 on someone smoking pot here usually ends in an arrest if they can smell it or see it.

I think, like slash said, being armed automatically escalates things. I think that is a problem, perhaps, but I don't know how dispatchers are trained or what the policy is there. I do know 911 dispatchers are on par with DMV workers, and on average, aren't very competent at anything at all. When you call 911, they make a determination and if it warrants cops, fire, EMS, or whatever, they send those folks out. 'guy with gun' may very well mandate a police officer being dispatched to check it out. We can see something like that with the dude that got gunned down on his front porch because someone made an elaborately false 911 call.

I dunno how you'd go about punishing someone for being a pussy, though. I mean, some 30 something black female calling into 911 saying some strange dude she's never seen is standing on a sidewalk with an AR-15.. How can that be a crime? At it's face, dude with AR-15 is not illegal, sure, but some citizen is concerned about it and states it plainly. What can you do?

Can you get 911 dispatchers that are fully trained and qualified police officers? Maybe... They could go on to ask, "ma'am, is the gentleman threatening anyone? Is he doing anything criminal, or is he just a dude on the sidewalk with an AR-15?" and perhaps get to the point that there's a guy with a gun that's doing absolutely nothing illegal, but again, these 911 dispatchers are a maybe a quarter step above retarded.

Finally, I'm not fine with what happened to CJ Grisham. I think Olmos Park fucked up in a big way, but I don't mind the police showing up and being decent people when their presence is expressly requested.

 

[Slash0311]

McA... in my area, EVERY call gets a response. Dogs barking... we go. Loud music with no noise ordinance... we go check. Guy with a gun, we go check.

My big question for you is this, "how is an officer to know that you are just every day joe out for a stroll with a OC gun as opposed to a gangbanger that just knocked over the liquor store IF I can't go speak to them, as you suggest?" Answer is I can't without SOME level of investigation.

I will also say, I keep responding since it's a discussion. We're not talking crazy or name calling. I'll have a civil conversation as long as it seems productive. Thanx for that.

 

[diverdon]

Who made the 911 that brought the police? In my opinion if this guy brought a gun to carry hoping for a confrontation with police, and he brought a camera person to film the confrontation with police, then there is an excellent possibility that he had someone call 911 and prime the police for a confrontation. If that is the case it goes a long way toward putting all the responsibility back on him.

 

[fdkay]

Grisham is a piece of shit.
He intentionally provokes contact.
I'm not making excuses for the bad behavior of the police, but all you have to do is look at his record of doing this shit.
Where the fuck is the objectivity here?
Is it legal to open carry in Texas?
Yes.
Will the police respond. Again, yes. Someone WILL call.
I have had folks call the Police because someone was picking up trash on the side of the road.
There are three basic types of contact.
Consensual contact. "Hey, buddy, what's up?".... "Fuck you"...." Well, have a nice day.", end of contact.
Reasonable suspicion. Something is out of the ordinary. What are you doing? What area are you in? What time is it? Why are people concerned?
You know, the white guy driving the BMW on the South Side where no white folks live, but happens to stop at the known drug house at 2 am.
Probable Cause. Facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable and prudent officer to believe that a crime has been or will be committed.
Notice, I didn't say that the officer witnessed you doing something wrong.
For instance, the known thief/junkie walking down the street with a pillow case full of jewelry and silverware in a neighborhood where he doesn't belong.

While it is certainly someones right to open carry here, you MUST expect that someone is going to call the police, after all, that is EXACTLY why you are open carrying a rifle. It isn't for protection. It is for no other reason then to scare the libtards and provoke a reaction.
So, intentionally displaying a firearm in a public place in a manner likely to cause alarm is a misdemeanor offense of Disorderly Conduct. When the cops show up, they are investigating a possible criminal offense. Since there is reasonable suspicion and you are the subject of the investigation and the detention is reasonable, you MUST provide your name, date of birth etc...
So, when the cops show, cooperate, be respectful and you SHOULD receive the same in return. Record all you want to, it is your right, just make sure that the person doing the recording doe not interfere with the interaction.
If the officers conduct is unreasonable, then take your recording to the chief and discuss it with him. If he is a douche as well, then post it for the world to see.
Army would be the first one on here bitching if the cops would have stopped Nikolas Cruz before he got to the school. You know, because he didn't do anything wrong yet.
We have open carry advocates here in our area. You know what they do? They tell us ahead of time when and where they are going to open carry. They come to some of our community events, open carrying. They don't carry with magazines in the rifle. They work with us, we work with them. They are never "in your face" or aggressive, they merely want to educate. We fully support that.

 

[fdkay]

if i call the cops on someone for smoking a joint, the cops are going to tell me "sir marijuana is legal, stop calling us"

yet if someone calls the cops on someone who has a rifle on their back not bothering anyone......they send out officers to track them down and question them?

why dont the cops say "sir carrying a rifle is not a crime, stop calling us".....?


and if the person on the phone is claiming they are acting in a threatening manner when they are not, why arent they arrested for making a false police report? or "misusing emergency services".......




see yall are fine with this because it doesnt effect you any....so long as its not you being bothered you could care less, right?

Some folks are "threatened" by a mere picture of a firearm.
A police officer is a public servant. We are required to serve ALL of the public, not just the one you like.
Hell, we take reports and make arrests when the victim is a piece of shit. ALL the time. Dirtbags hang with dirtbags and then cry when they get ripped off or get their ass kicked. They complain the loudest when we don't have enough evidence to support an arrest.

And no, you can't tell someone to stop calling the Police when they are scared. You can, sometimes, tell them to stop reporting things:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...cken-shortage-dhl-tower-hamlets-a8220321.html

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/nov/20/west-ham-fans-stop-calling-999

 

[ArmyJerry]

#1 they could have baker acted Cruz, he called them nd asked to be baker acted twice ferkrisakes. They even fucked that up. I lived in that area until a few years ago for 16 years, had a lot of respect for the BSO before this shit faced communist fuktard Israel got elected teh whole office went to shit.

#2 I have no problems with the Police, as long as they mind their goddam business, and I will mind mine, they really need to stop shooting citizens on youtube though. people are starting to shoot back.

#3, most agencies work for the Democrat and Republican parties and don't give a fuck about their oaths. They are agents of the two parties in effect and in fact, they are not there to "protect and serve" , that is bullshit, they are there to protect the parties and enforce revenue collection. Most of my life I didn't think this way, but listening to cops on this board, and in this section defending the indefensible over and over has changed my view of police greatly. it's also changed my view of our government too.

I thank you all for opening my eyes.

Army would be the first one on here bitching if the cops would have stopped Nikolas Cruz before he got to the school. You know, because he didn't do anything wrong yet.
We have open carry advocates here in our area. You know what they do? They tell us ahead of time when and where they are going to open carry. They come to some of our community events, open carrying. They don't carry with magazines in the rifle. They work with us, we work with them. They are never "in your face" or aggressive, they merely want to educate. We fully support that.

 

[Slash0311]

One other point that came to mind is that we don't know what the caller told 911. For example, if this is a total setup and Grishim had someone (or himself) call, he could have lied to get a heavier response by the police. If the caller said "a guy with a gun threaten people and pointing it at people" you can expect a different response from a caller saying "a guy with a gun walking down the street, not threatening anyone but out of place"

 

[QuickNDirty]

One other point that came to mind is that we don't know what the caller told 911. For example, if this is a total setup and Grishim had someone (or himself) call, he could have lied to get a heavier response by the police. If the caller said "a guy with a gun threaten people and pointing it at people" you can expect a different response from a caller saying "a guy with a gun walking down the street, not threatening anyone but out of place"

I didn't even think of that. If they staged their own 911 call that would piss me off so much. I would hope the chief would release it if that was the case.

 

[fdkay]

#1 they could have baker acted Cruz, he called them nd asked to be baker acted twice ferkrisakes. They even fucked that up. I lived in that area until a few years ago for 16 years, had a lot of respect for the BSO before this shit faced communist fuktard Israel got elected teh whole office went to shit.

#2 I have no problems with the Police, as long as they mind their goddam business, and I will mind mine, they really need to stop shooting citizens on youtube though. people are starting to shoot back.

#3, most agencies work for the Democrat and Republican parties and don't give a fuck about their oaths. They are agents of the two parties in effect and in fact, they are not there to "protect and serve" , that is bullshit, they are there to protect the parties and enforce revenue collection. Most of my life I didn't think this way, but listening to cops on this board, and in this section defending the indefensible over and over has changed my view of police greatly. it's also changed my view of our government too.

I thank you all for opening my eyes.

1. You do not have to request to be baker acted, as a matter of fact, requesting such would make it difficult to do so. Since, by your own admission, you are having mental health issues and recognize such, how can an officer reasonably state you are unable to make a rational decision concerning your own safety?
Why didn't he just go to the mental health agency and report himself and self-refer for admission?
Besides, you would have bitched that they did an emergency detention.

2. Cops minding their own business is not how crime is deterred.

3. Municipal agencies work for the city, regardless of who is in power. Sheriff's are elected officials and conduct their business accordingly.

 

[W54/XM-388]

If I am not mistaken, in TX, if you are open carrying a Handgun, the police can ask you for your carry permit if they wish.

There was a bit of a bruhah a bit ago here when an open carry group used to hang around the traffic lights in Arlington with their ARs & hand out flyers.

The end result was after some back and forth eventually they stopped making asses of themselves. We got open carry added & pretty much nobody does it in most urban areas, it's more now a protection if some SJW happens to see your holster.

That being said, try just wearing an empty holster & lots of people start to worry. (found that out by accident)

 

[...]

While it is certainly someones right to open carry here, you MUST expect that someone is going to call the police, after all, that is EXACTLY why you are open carrying a rifle. It isn't for protection. It is for no other reason then to scare the libtards and provoke a reaction.
So, intentionally displaying a firearm in a public place in a manner likely to cause alarm is a misdemeanor offense of Disorderly Conduct. When the cops show up, they are investigating a possible criminal offense. Since there is reasonable suspicion and you are the subject of the investigation and the detention is reasonable, you MUST provide your name, date of birth etc...
So, when the cops show, cooperate, be respectful and you SHOULD receive the same in return. Record all you want to, it is your right, just make sure that the person doing the recording doe not interfere with the interaction.
If the officers conduct is unreasonable, then take your recording to the chief and discuss it with him. If he is a douche as well, then post it for the world to see.
Army would be the first one on here bitching if the cops would have stopped Nikolas Cruz before he got to the school. You know, because he didn't do anything wrong yet.
We have open carry advocates here in our area. You know what they do? They tell us ahead of time when and where they are going to open carry. They come to some of our community events, open carrying. They don't carry with magazines in the rifle. They work with us, we work with them. They are never "in your face" or aggressive, they merely want to educate. We fully support that.

1) you have no fucking clue what a person intention is for carrying a firearm......none, you are just ASSUMING the persons intentions......last i checked, mind reading is not currently in police training.

2) if what im doing is perfectly legal.....you cant then claim its all of a sudden illegal under another statute....thats bullshit and more proof you guys look for reasons to arrest people.

is someone OC a pistol "disorderly conduct"?..........imma guess not........but someone OC a rifle (which is also legal) is?.......you can get fucked with that logic.

if i get frightened over seeing a muslim practicing his religion in public.....are you going to go harass him and threaten him with "disordly conduct"?........yeah didnt think so.

3) good for "open carry advocates"........but last i checked, i dont need permission to do something that is perfectly legal........

should we call the PD every time we go to church on sunday?......what if im planning on taking a trip to the library?

 

[ArmyJerry]

Texas is not a gun friendly state. Its turning into California

If I am not mistaken, in TX, if you are open carrying a Handgun, the police can ask you for your carry permit if they wish.

There was a bit of a bruhah a bit ago here when an open carry group used to hang around the traffic lights in Arlington with their ARs & hand out flyers.

The end result was after some back and forth eventually they stopped making asses of themselves. We got open carry added & pretty much nobody does it in most urban areas, it's more now a protection if some SJW happens to see your holster.

That being said, try just wearing an empty holster & lots of people start to worry. (found that out by accident)

 

[ArmyJerry]

well well well, you must be a precog.

1. You do not have to request to be baker acted, as a matter of fact, requesting such would make it difficult to do so. Since, by your own admission, you are having mental health issues and recognize such, how can an officer reasonably state you are unable to make a rational decision concerning your own safety?
Why didn't he just go to the mental health agency and report himself and self-refer for admission?
Besides, you would have bitched that they did an emergency detention.

Anyone can request that he gets baker acted, he just has to show he was a threat to himself or others. I probably would not botch if family or acquaintances asked to baker act someone or if cops took him to a hospital, don't confuse my bitching about cops arresting nurses in hospitals with taking someone to a hospital.

2. Cops minding their own business is not how crime is deterred.

I Don't think cops deter crime at all. They re revenue collectors and report writers, and chalk outliners, more trouble than they are worth most of the time. Show some stats to back up your bullshit.

3. Municipal agencies work for the city, regardless of who is in power. Sheriff's are elected officials and conduct their business accordingly.

Sheriff's office is a country office separate and above municipal offices

 

[Dthomas3523]

the same courts that ruled restrictions on the 2A were legal?......those courts?

so if you roll up on someone not breaking the law and they tell you to "fuck off".......are you going to say "have a nice day".....thats what most people would do if they just wanted a "conversation".

or are you going to get out of the car, demand their papers, ask them what they are doing, where they are going, what they are doing.....maybe lie to them to get them to talk to you.....?

im guessing youre gonna do the later.......sounds an awful lot like an interrogation to me.

but so long as "the courts" tell you its ok, youre in the clear to harass as many people as you like.....am i right?

Depends on the situation.

If I am called for someone walking down the street with a rifle, I roll up on him, ask them how they are doing, and if I can see an ID, they tell me to fuck off, and nothing else appears out of the ordinary.....yep, I get back in my unit and observe them from a public location until I’m satisfied there’s no danger to anyone. It’s legal for them to open carry in public and it’s legal for me to keep an eye on them in public.

Now, if the situation is as someone state above, a gun store was robbed in a recent time period that a reasonable LEO would consider the suspect to still be in the area........I roll up and ask them for ID and to inspect the weapon to make sure it’s not one of the stolen rifles.....they tell me to fuck off. Totally different. While I do NOT have PC to make an arrest, I 100% have reasonable suspicion to detain said person until I make sure the weapon is not related to the reported crime. This very brief detention and inspection of what may very well be a law abiding person is more important to public safety than the minor abruption this will have on the law abiding person’s day and constitutional rights.

The first example is a consensual encounter in which the person contacted has the right to walk away at any time without being detained.

The second example is a brief investigative detention and the person only has the right to leave once I have satisfied my suspicion AND have not found suspicion of another crime (as long as the detention is legal for one offense of while attempting to satisfy suspicion of initial offense a LEO can develop suspicion for related and unrelated offenses in which he/she has the authority to enforce).

Obviously LEOs are humans and don’t always do things by the book, this is the way it should be done.

 

[Slash0311]

McA... I like how you are choosing to read the mind of us here and putting words in our mouths without answering my earlier question... "how am I to know you are legally carrying unless I can approach you to investigate?"

No Where did I say that OC (rifle or handgun) was responsible for a disorderly conduct charge. So my "logic" stands. OC is what initiates the contact. Refusing to stop loud conduct is what gets the disorderly.

As to your point of the Muslim, yes. If someone called, I would go initiate contact there as well. If that person's actions continued after i told them to stop, yes again. Disorderly conduct would apply. Again, I like how YOU are the one making assumptions and jumping to conclusions.

 

[Dthomas3523]

And yes, you can be doing something legally and at the same time do something illegal.

If you’re shooting a weapon on your own property, it’s legal, but if a stray bullet hits and kills someone, it will like be manslaughter and some sort of reckless discharge depending on the state. You won’t be charged for the possession of the weapon, but what you did with it.

You may be legally open carrying, but if your actions are found to be that you did so in a way to cause a public nuisance or disturbance, now you are doing something possibly illegal. No gun charges(unless you were reckless). Again, no charge for the possession of the weapon, but your actions may be illegal.

 

[Dthomas3523]

And furthermore, LEOs are not required to eliminate ALL possibilities of legal conduct before they make an investigative detention.

If that were the case, only people caught red handed would ever be arrested.

 

[Dthomas3523]

It looks like if you are just detained youre required to gine name, address, DOB. Dont have to be arrested. I guess if you ask "Am I under arrest, am I free to leave?" and you arent, then youre being detained, and required?

Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or

Yes, being detained and being arrested are two different things.

YouTube’ers have gotten this wrong countless times and unfortunately provided the public with terrible information.

Different states require different times when you are legally obligated to provide identification.

 

[...]

As to your point of the Muslim, yes. If someone called, I would go initiate contact there as well. If that person's actions continued after i told them to stop, yes again. Disorderly conduct would apply. Again, I like how YOU are the one making assumptions and jumping to conclusions.

please......that is fucking bullshit and you know it.....i dont know who you are trying to convince here......yourself maybe

 

[Dthomas3523]

Very informative when it comes to Texas.

https://fairandfairlaw.com/texas-open-carry-laws-fail-to-id/

 

[fdkay]

1) you have no fucking clue what a person intention is for carrying a firearm......none, you are just ASSUMING the persons intentions......last i checked, mind reading is not currently in police training.

2) if what im doing is perfectly legal.....you cant then claim its all of a sudden illegal under another statute....thats bullshit and more proof you guys look for reasons to arrest people.

is someone OC a pistol "disorderly conduct"?..........imma guess not........but someone OC a rifle (which is also legal) is?.......you can get fucked with that logic.

if i get frightened over seeing a muslim practicing his religion in public.....are you going to go harass him and threaten him with "disordly conduct"?........yeah didnt think so.

3) good for "open carry advocates"........but last i checked, i dont need permission to do something that is perfectly legal........

should we call the PD every time we go to church on sunday?......what if im planning on taking a trip to the library?

Which is why the fucking contact. To discover what the intent is.
Boy, you sure do make some fucking retarded leaps.
How the fuck is practicing your religion in any way related to displaying a firearm?
Where the fuck in the Texas penal code, under disorderly conduct, is religion mentioned?
It isn't asshole.
Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;
(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;
(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;
(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;
(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;
(6) fights with another in a public place;
(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;
(10) exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act; or
(11) for a lewd or unlawful purpose:
(A) enters on the property of another and looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in the dwelling;
(B) while on the premises of a hotel or comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's own through a window or other opening in the room; or
(C) while on the premises of a public place, looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using the area.
(a-1) For purposes of Subsection (a), the term "public place" includes a public school campus or the school grounds on which a public school is located.
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4) that the actor had significant provocation for his abusive or threatening conduct.
(c) For purposes of this section:
(1) an act is deemed to occur in a public place or near a private residence if it produces its offensive or proscribed consequences in the public place or near a private residence; and
(2) a noise is presumed to be unreasonable if the noise exceeds a decibel level of 85 after the person making the noise receives notice from a magistrate or peace officer that the noise is a public nuisance.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor unless committed under Subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8), in which event it is a Class B misdemeanor.
(e) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under Subsection (a)(7) or (9) that the person who discharged the firearm had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the person or to another by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code.
(f) Subsections (a)(1), (2), (3), (5), and (6) do not apply to a person who, at the time the person engaged in conduct prohibited under the applicable subdivision, was a student younger than 12 years of age, and the prohibited conduct occurred at a public school campus during regular school hours.
(g) Noise arising from space flight activities, as defined by Section 100A.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, if lawfully conducted, does not constitute "unreasonable noise" for purposes of this section.

 

[Slash0311]

please......that is fucking bullshit and you know it.....i dont know who you are trying to convince here......yourself maybe

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. You are the one make irrational comments, jumping to conclusions, and making assumptions. Plus you do not know me to even have a clue as to how or what I would do if I got the call you described.

So, for the record, it's NOT "fucking bullshit"

But you have yet again refused to answer a simple question...

"How am I to know the intentions of someone if I cannot make contact with them"?

I like your tactic though. You have no vaild argument in a debate. You refuse to answer a question. You try distraction to take away from the weakness of your position. And finally make poor assumptions of something you clearly have no knowledge of.

 

[...]

Which is why the fucking contact. To discover what the intent is.
Boy, you sure do make some fucking retarded leaps.
How the fuck is practicing your religion in any way related to displaying a firearm?
Where the fuck in the Texas penal code, under disorderly conduct, is religion mentioned?
It isn't asshole.

both are constitutionally protected rights you fuck.......you know, the constitution, that thing you swore to uphold and protect........you did you not actually mean it when you took that oath?

 

[Dthomas3523]

both are constitutionally protected rights you fuck.......you know, the constitution, that thing you swore to uphold and protect........you did you not actually mean it when you took that oath?

The Constitution only protects your rights from unreasonable infractions.

Example: you have the Constitutional Right to travel unimpeded on the highway. But the SCOTUS has ruled that immigration checkpoints within a reasonable distance of the border have national security implications that outweigh the brief interruption of your Constitutional Right.

The Constitution is not without limits. Article III of the Constitution covers the SCOTUS.

So, if the SCOTUS rules on the interpretation of the Constitution and I am within that ruling, I am ABSOLUTELY upholding the Constitution that I swore and oath to.

You are entitled to your opinion, and you are also entitled, and I encourage you to exercise the right to challenge any action of any LEO, any law, and any interpretation any court makes on a law. However, there is a proper way to do this.

YOU could be the person who changes history, you have that right. But, people also need to do it in the proper way. Picking a fight with a cop on the side of the road is NOT the way to do it. Its typically a quick way to get your ass kicked and charged with a plethora of infractions.

Even if the cop is dead wrong, especially if he/she is acting in good faith (and many times even if they aren't), it doesn't justify anyone to take immediate illegal actions.

 

[Dirty D]

Unwatch this shit show, damn!

 

[...]

Even if the cop is dead wrong, especially if he/she is acting in good faith (and many times even if they aren't), it doesn't justify anyone to take immediate illegal actions.

just to be clear, i have never once condoned any illegal action towards police officers......or honestly anyone else for that matter.

and im not saying that as a CYA, i actually do mean that.

 

[Dthomas3523]

The originally posted video is a prime example of when/how not to challenge a law. These gentleman believe the local municipality enacted an illegal law (very well may be true).

However, the proper way to handle this is to challenge this law in court.

The cops in this video are action in good faith to uphold a law (whether illegally enacted or not by local municipality). LEO's uphold the laws passed and courts decide which ones are legal.

People complain that cops act like judge, jury, and executioners, but then complain when police don't make decisions on which laws are legal to enforce.

Could the cops in the video have handled it differently? Depending on their training and personal experience, yes. Was the way they handled it at the time also reasonable? Probably.

 

[Dthomas3523]

just to be clear, i have never once condoned any illegal action towards police officers......or honestly anyone else for that matter.

and im not saying that as a CYA, i actually do mean that.

Immediate illegal actions does not necessarily mean something violent or physical.

You could be open carrying in a state which requires you to identify yourself if requested by a LEO. By not doing so immediately when asked (and then voicing your opinion to the cop or court), you are taking immediate illegal action which is only going to escalate the situation and likely make for a day full of charges instead of a "have a nice day Sir."

In the originally posted video, these gentlemen took immediate illegal actions (at the time). The municipality enacted a law and they decided not to follow it. Their opinion of the law being illegal at the time has no bearing on the cops enforcing the law at the time.

 

[W54/XM-388]

As far as identifying yourself to the police if they stop and ask, while there may be differences of opinion and questions on if you are required or not, generally as our company lawyer said, no point not providing information promptly that the police can easily get anyways.

So if asked, you might as well just say.
Chances of it making things worse are very slim
There is a good chance it may help as if they check, they can see that you are a decent citizen and in your local neighborhood etc.

Also technology is getting a bit creepy and before long the police cruisers here will probably have facial recognition hooked up to their cameras and computers that already automatically scan all the license plates they drive by, so before long they may already know who you are supposed to be when they pull up. Also the Chinese are already putting in place Augmented Reality glasses that the police there wear, which scan faces constantly & identify any wanted ones, or can tell you who you are walking up to. This technology is being sold to them by western companies, so I'm sure it will start becoming in use here too.

 

[MAGUA]

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. You are the one make irrational comments, jumping to conclusions, and making assumptions. Plus you do not know me to even have a clue as to how or what I would do if I got the call you described.

So, for the record, it's NOT "fucking bullshit"

But you have yet again refused to answer a simple question...

"How am I to know the intentions of someone if I cannot make contact with them"?

I like your tactic though. You have no vaild argument in a debate. You refuse to answer a question. You try distraction to take away from the weakness of your position. And finally make poor assumptions of something you clearly have no knowledge of.

You do realize your dealing with an " EDP " . They can't be convinced of anything..ever !

 

[QuickNDirty]

You do realize your dealing with an " EDP " . They can't be convinced of anything..ever !

what's an edp?

 

[Slash0311]

what's an edp?

Most of us here...

"Emotionally Distrubed Person"

 

[ArmyJerry]

Unbelievable, the "you must comply complex" is strong in you, I hope you figure this out before you learn the hard way that is a flawed way to treat fellow citizens. Americans aint your fuckin slaves.

The Constitution only protects your rights from unreasonable infractions.

Example: you have the Constitutional Right to travel unimpeded on the highway. But the SCOTUS has ruled that immigration checkpoints within a reasonable distance of the border have national security implications that outweigh the brief interruption of your Constitutional Right.

A right is a goddamn right, the SCOTUS has no power to limit rights no matter how fucktarded they interpret them.

The Constitution is not without limits. Article III of the Constitution covers the SCOTUS.

Yes and nowhere does it say they have the power to limit rights.

So, if the SCOTUS rules on the interpretation of the Constitution and I am within that ruling, I am ABSOLUTELY upholding the Constitution that I swore and oath to.

If scotus rules against the constitution and the BOR they are in fact Unconstitutional, SCOTUS is not a Fucking imperial council they re just democrats and republicans chipping away at our freedoms like the other two branches. They are not an equal branch, not at all. they can and have been dismissed in our history when they in fact acted unconstitutional, by Lincoln.

You are entitled to your opinion, and you are also entitled, and I encourage you to exercise the right to challenge any action of any LEO, any law, and any interpretation any court makes on a law. However, there is a proper way to do this.

So what you are saying is sit back and be abused by fuck tards in blue you have no recourse, just shut the fuck up and take it, to that I say I don't want to hear shit when people push back and do what comes natural to freemen. Your obstinance toward fellow citizens is going to cause a lot of hurt on your team. Self defense against cops is legal.

YOU could be the person who changes history, you have that right. But, people also need to do it in the proper way. Picking a fight with a cop on the side of the road is NOT the way to do it. Its typically a quick way to get your ass kicked and charged with a plethora of infractions.

Dont condone picking fights with cops but the youtubes I see it's about 50/50 on who is the asshole.

Even if the cop is dead wrong, especially if he/she is acting in good faith (and many times even if they aren't), it doesn't justify anyone to take immediate illegal actions.

Again you want fellow citizens to get abused like fucking serfs, I think people need to assert themselves more often when confronted by asshole cops.

 

[Veer_G]

both are constitutionally protected rights you fuck.......you know, the constitution, that thing you swore to uphold and protect........you did you not actually mean it when you took that oath?

Cam, you're gettin' real close to a reckoning.

Smirking Sikh sardar sashays saunteringly towards Temple, Texas, turban-topped, toting two-ton, two-tone tribal toad-tickler tucked tauntingly towards toes ... but has the common fucking sense to keep everything pretty much on the DL.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Unbelievable, the "you must comply complex" is strong in you, I hope you figure this out before you learn the hard way that is a flawed way to treat fellow citizens. Americans aint your fuckin slaves.

You're beyond delusional my man. I hope you're just a troll. This is scary stuff.

No need to reply to my posts. I'll be ignoring you.

 

[ArmyJerry]

wittle baby cant take opposing views, man I hope you aint a cop.

 

[bigwatchpilot]

Why do cops arrest law-abiding citizens?

Because...the cops I know only see 2 types of people in this world: 1) Cops and 2) Perps...if you are not a cop you are a perp. If your next statement is 'I have not broken the law' their reply is you just have not been caught breaking the law yet.

 

[...]

Cam, you're gettin' real close to a reckoning.

Smirking Sikh sardar sashays saunteringly towards Temple, Texas, turban-topped, toting two-ton, two-tone tribal toad-tickler tucked tauntingly towards toes ... but has the common fucking sense to keep everything pretty much on the DL.

 

[QuickNDirty]

Immediate illegal actions does not necessarily mean something violent or physical.

You could be open carrying in a state which requires you to identify yourself if requested by a LEO. By not doing so immediately when asked (and then voicing your opinion to the cop or court), you are taking immediate illegal action which is only going to escalate the situation and likely make for a day full of charges instead of a "have a nice day Sir."

In the originally posted video, these gentlemen took immediate illegal actions (at the time). The municipality enacted a law and they decided not to follow it. Their opinion of the law being illegal at the time has no bearing on the cops enforcing the law at the time.

They got it repealed though. Hard to argue that their methods weren't the order of the day when they got results.

Before grisham got out there, another member was open carrying a rifle with snap caps in it and got arrested. His weapon was seized and searched and he was arrested for violating the ordnance which the city had no authority to enact in the first place.

Kinda funny that the officers didn't recognize fake ammo.

 

[Dthomas3523]

They got it repealed though. Hard to argue that their methods weren't the order of the day when they got results.

Before grisham got out there, another member was open carrying a rifle with snap caps in it and got arrested. His weapon was seized and searched and he was arrested for violating the ordnance which the city had no authority to enact in the first place.

I don't fault them for believing the ordnance was illegal (as it seems it was).

What I have a bit of an issue was how they went about it. They put those cops in a very bad position. Had anything gone slightly wrong on their (Grisham) end, they would likely be dead. He took the protest to the police, and not to the municipal government like he should have.

Also, they immediately started yelling at the cops, and not just one, but at least two people were yelling. This causes a lot of confusion on the cop's part.

While most of us strive to be the best we can at our jobs, remember, we are not superhuman. When you get to a call, see firearms and there's immediate yelling and confusion.......very, very bad things can happen. Had one of the cops decided to fire, and the other's joined in, they would almost assuredly been found justified as they were in good faith attempting to enforce a current local law and felt threatened when an armed subject refused to comply with commands.

Some would argue the cops knew it was a protest because they were telling them it was, but how many times have we seen a video of someone fighting police while saying "I'm not doing anything wrong."

Also, many LEO's may not necessarily agree with a certain law, but they are tasked with upholding it anyway. So, please keep that in mind as well.

Before anyone compares this to things such as the Civil Rights Movement, remember this is a bit different as firearms will always escalate the situation, no matter what. While this Grisham incident was a "peaceful" protest, again, anytime a weapon is involved, it starts off escalated.


Here are a couple very scary point of view videos. This is why I tell people, "90% of the people I come into contact with daily are very good people, but the minute I don't treat the situation (with respect until otherwise needed) like the other 10% is the day I don't go home."

 

[CrazyHorse_mk14]

Cam, I think your just having a hard time accepting the situation in today’s America. Your views are entirely agreeable and ring of the true intentions of the founding fathers. Would even go as far to say that they represent the idealistic American way.

The problem... this ain’t idealistic America. My ancestors where once lied to and herded into reservations that eventually got taken away from them, all of which done by the government that was “here to help them”. The Supreme Court decision was over ruled by a fucked up ass president and the Cherokee even tho civilized and law abiding citizen.. got fucked..

Cause America ain’t exactly free, and it’s always been that way. So untill everyone decides to OC and make the stand.. your the Indian now.. and tho whole country is the reservation !

 

[...]

Cam, I think your just having a hard time accepting the situation in today’s America. Your views are entirely agreeable and ring of the true intentions of the founding fathers. Would even go as far to say that they represent the idealistic American way.

i wonder how many times someone said that to MLK?

we wont get to the america we want by accepting the america we have.

i live my life in accordance with God and the Constitution of the United States..........everyone else can go fuck right off.........if more people did the same we wouldnt be in this mess in the first place.

ive had enough with peoples "interpretations" of the constitution......its written in fucking english......it doesnt need to be interpreted.