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

[QuickNDirty]

Man, did they not learn anything from that dude getting arrested in Temple for walking with his kid with an AR on his back? It's completely legal in TX to open carry a rifle/shotgun in public without a license, and handguns with a license.

That dude gave Temple hell over that (ultimately didn't accomplish anything. Found guilty of interfering with an officer, appeals court upheld the ruling, and he dropped his civil suit). Here he's gonna do it again. Little less resistance this time, though. He may have a better case.

 

[diverdon]

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

 

[Maggot]

I think this is a situation in which it is right to use the word 'Pig', so I will. That cop isa fat, grotesque piece of shit PIG. I doubt it but I hope he loses his job and Mr. Grisham owns Olmos, Tx.

 

[QuickNDirty]

I think they realize they done messed up shoving that AR in that chick's face. They just repealed their little ordnance.

http://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/olmos-park-city-council-repeals-open-carry-ordinance

The city council gave a unanimous vote to repeal the ordinance. All members refused to give further comment, including Mayor Ronald Hornberger.

backstory on why CJ Grisham was there in the first place.




By example, this was a more civilized approach.

 

[Maggot]

These were decent cops. I thought that while it was not required to carry ID you are required to give your name to LEO if asked. Correct me if thats wrong.

 

[Veer_G]

Why, really, do people insist on provoking cops like this? When it gets to be time to have to carry a rifle, that's one thing. But "auditing" a PD? What, are they secret shoppers? Lawsuit trolling? I still don't think that in-your-face OC is the smartest way to advocate for 2A.

 

[W54/XM-388]

Sometimes the cops need to be reminded that just because "someone" doesn't like your freedoms, state laws are the state laws & take precedent over their evil little city ordinances.

 

[QuickNDirty]

Why, really, do people insist on provoking cops like this? When it gets to be time to have to carry a rifle, that's one thing. But "auditing" a PD? What, are they secret shoppers? Lawsuit trolling? I still don't think that in-your-face OC is the smartest way to advocate for 2A.

Grisham's initial arrest.


I get what you're saying, but damn, man... It's legal. It's completely legal.

We can imagine the 911 transcript was something to the effect of:
911: '911 where's your emergency?'
Caller: 'Yeah, there's a guy with a gun running down county road whatever'
911: 'Did you see the gun?'
Caller: 'Yeah'
911: 'Do you have a description of the person that has the gun?'
Caller: 'Yeah a white guy with a red bandana, camo hat, black shirt, jeans, and a rifle on his chest, and some other kid in a white shirt and jeans'
911: 'Can you repeat the location one more time?'
Caller: 'Yeah, it's county road whatever'
911: 'Ok, we'll get someone out there right away'

Imagine that situation if it we alter some details:
911: '911 where's your emergency?'
Caller: 'Yeah, there's a guy with one of those muslim head things on running down county road whatever'
911: 'Do you have a description of the person with the muslim head thing?'
Caller: 'Yeah a colored guy with a muslim head thing, black shirt, jeans'
911: 'Can you repeat the location one more time?'
Caller: 'Yeah, it's county road whatever'
911: 'Ok, we'll get someone out there right away'

In the first case, you've got a guy breaking no laws running down the road, gets lit up by the police, and resists being disarmed. Ends up going to jail because of ignorance.

In the second case, you've got a guy breaking no laws running down the road, gets lit up by the police, and resists a frisk. Ends up going to jail because of ignorance.

Sec. 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. (a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder.

Resisting that is illegal.

I can't for the life of me remember where the limitations to an officer's ability to conduct a frisk are defined, but it has something to do with a 'reasonable suspicion' of a crime going on and the person probably being armed. Resisting that is illegal.

Just because these guys are being kinda obvious about things doesn't make what the officers did OK. Before Grisham got out there, this chick BUC-G or whatever (back up camera - girl) got smacked by an officer because she refused to stop filming, which is also not illegal. I mean, yeah, standing on the corner of an intersection with a rifle dangling and a big sign that says the police are hiring liars, cowards, and thieves is a douchebag move, but god damnit, it's not illegal.

None of what they did was illegal. None of it warranted the response of those officers.

Now to carry on about in your face OC... Yeah, they're trolling the cops. They wouldn't be trolling the cops if the cops had any respect for the 2A whatsoever. If the cops had respect for the 2A and they still tried to troll them, then the cops should have ridiculed them instead of smashing some chick and acting like ridiculous assholes.

That's my opinion, anyway.

 

[srtsam]

As a gun lover I'm like "fuck yeah" open carry, America, 2A etc... But, In todays climate the police would be remiss if they were not to at least approach and see if they could tell the person was a threat, asshole, or other. Plus it must be a tough spot for the police. Yeah, a lot or most cops are not educated on the all the laws let alone interpretation of the law. Couple that with the fact that cops are lied to probably 95% of the time. All this combined makes something like this not a good situation for the law abiding citizens and the police. the shooter at the country concert appeared to be normal and look how that went. I'm not sure the guys baiting the cops are really helping the 2A. I also thought you had to present id if an officer asks for it. Shit though, that even sounds like Nazi type shit. "papers please?"

 

[Maggot]

Im starting to see a pattern here. Fat, ugly, stupid guys who probably got picked on in school become cops and use their new found power for payback. Andother grotesque pig; a disgrace to all genuine LE.

As to Veer's question:Because its his right to. There should be no issue of provocation. He was out on a country road, not near any schools, business's, or homes, walking with his son, legally carrying a legal rifle. ther should have been NO ISSUE. Mr shitwad just wanted to show how bad he was.

 

[Maggot]

As a gun lover I'm like "fuck yeah" open carry, America, 2A etc... But, In todays climate the police would be remiss if they were not to at least approach and see if they could tell the person was a threat, asshole, or other. Plus it must be a tough spot for the police. Yeah, a lot or most cops are not educated on the all the laws let alone interpretation of the law. Couple that with the fact that cops are lied to probably 95% of the time. All this combined makes something like this not a good situation for the law abiding citizens and the police. the shooter at the country concert appeared to be normal and look how that went. I'm not sure the guys baiting the cops are really helping the 2A. I also thought you had to present id if an officer asks for it. Shit though, that even sounds like Nazi type shit. "papers please?"

Youre not even required to have ID. I believe you are required to give your real name.

 

[srtsam]

yeah those 2 cops in the temple were a couple of douches.

 

[QuickNDirty]

Im starting to see a pattern here. Fat, ugly, stupid guys who probably got picked on in school become cops and use their new found power for payback. Andother grotesque pig; a disgrace to all genuine LE.

As to Veer's question:Because its his right to. There should be no issue of provocation. He was out on a country road, not near any schools, business's, or homes, walking with his son, legally carrying a legal rifle. ther should have been NO ISSUE. Mr shitwad just wanted to show how bad he was.

You're mixing things up. Grisham in temple was doing nothing wrong or even impolite. Grisham in Olmos park is literally trolling the police, because other people trolled them with harsh consequences. The reason anyone trolled at all is because of an illegal ordnance banning loaded open carry which just got repealed today, 2 days after grisham got arrested and charged with a laundry list of bullshit.

 

[QuickNDirty]

Youre not even required to have ID. I believe you are required to give your real name.

You can't provide a false identity.

 

[Slash0311]

In Indiana, the police contact would be "reasonable suspicion". Anyone should expect at least an equal armed response until things are deemed not to be a threat or a crime committed. If they have a rifle, I'd have mine. The very nature of a weapon call adds to the danger level.

For me, as an officer making contact, I would remove the weapons from the person while I'm investigating what's going on. If no crime, everything is returned and "have a nice day". Refusing to identify to a police officer, resisting, disorderly conduct are all crimes that can lead to an arrest. Disorderly and resisting certainly would apply to what I saw of the video.

I've had calls where a person was carrying in a store. Yes, just carrying. I spoke to them, much like I described above, and they were on their way. A little time, no problems.

Now, let's add one more thing to the context of this discussion. An officer was shot and killed about an hour south of me yesterday. The suspect was last known to be heading north (my general direction) in a white truck with Kentucky tags. If I happen to stop a similar truck tonight, should I have to wait for a cop killer to take shots at me before, drawing my own weapon? These are The types of things officers deal with on a daily basis so that the general public can keep a routine and ignor what's really going on around them.

 

[W54/XM-388]

If the police were actual decent public servants who were wanting to make sure everything was fine, I don't think anyone would have been able to fault them if they simply rolled up and politely explained that some butt hurt snowflake took exception to their display of freedom, but since they did, the police have to do a quick check to make sure you are law abiding citizens & not out to cause trouble, ask to check their ID, or run their name & then verify they were not prohibited persons or wanted for anything & then be on their way.
Bring a few buddies just in case of trouble, but be polite & don't threaten people and all should be fine.

Instead the Police chose to violate their rights by making a false arrest as well as officially lie when writing up as many trumped up charges as possible (seems the way to do things these days), as well as use excessive physical violence just to prove who should be the only dicks in town.

A good start would be to hold those stupid police personally liable for the court & attorney costs for getting the arrest records expunged & any civil settlement. It would be a giant wake up call for police everywhere that they may have to pay for what they do.

Some states however have stupid laws where you can carry something openly but can't carry it concealed, stupid!
I'd generally tend to avoid open carry in any urban setting unless there are specific called for circumstances, just because I don't need the bad guys to know for sure that I carry most of the time.

 

[QuickNDirty]

Now, let's add one more thing to the context of this discussion. An officer was shot and killed about an hour south of me yesterday. The suspect was last known to be heading north (my general direction) in a white truck with Kentucky tags. If I happen to stop a similar truck tonight, should I have to wait for a cop killer to take shots at me before, drawing my own weapon? These are The types of things officers deal with on a daily basis so that the general public can keep a routine and ignor what's really going on around them.

Unfortunately, a similar thing to your second half happened in my backyard yesterday. I dunno why c2h edited the video the way they did, yesterday they had the full video including the full pursuit, but I believe the officer did a fine job handling this FUBAR situation.

https://www.click2houston.com/news/...-after-pointing-gun-at-officers-officials-say

The Grisham thing isn't like that, though. Hell, Grisham even called the chief before he went out there. From statements made by the officers during confrontation, they're panicing because something happened in Florida.



On your point about them being disorderly/resisting, are you saying that when the police showed up, parked in the street, drew their guns on them, and shouted at them to get on the ground, them not doing so was resisting? I could see that, but damn, that's a crazy response for a guy that was not breaking any laws up until he didn't submit when the police, with guns drawn, told him to get on the ground.

 

[W54/XM-388]

I doubt if you made the police grovel on the ground at gunpoint they would just get over it like they expect citizens to do.
The police shouldn't expect decent people to think of them as anything but scum if they force them to grovel on the ground at gunpoint, for no good reason.

If you have a right to carry weapons, then there is no excuse for the police absent any other evidence or threats to be threatening you with murder & punishing you with public humiliation.

I doubt they would appreciate someone holding them at gunpoint while they checked that they were legit police and not imposters?

 

[Slash0311]

I would agree that this was totally different than how I would have handled it. The officers in the video approach (or stand off) as if the situation was a felony. My question for them would be "why if there are no obvious laws being broken?"

But regardless of how I would have done things, these officers made a choice of setting up from a distance and giving verbal commands that were not being followed. The street is not the place to argue who is right or wrong. That's what the courts are for. The courts can only decide if an officers interpretation of the laws, an officers actions, or the actions of a citizen were correct.

QnD, to your question of disorderly conduct. In Indiana it's a pretty low bar. If I tell someone to stop talking or making noise and they continue, that's disorderly conduct. In this video (I only watched up the the takedown) the guys are shouting at the officers they've done nothing wrong and broken no laws. Their shouting and continued shouting (If they were told to stop) would be disorderly and enough to go to jail. For me, disorderly has to snowball and wouldn't be something I would consider until my directions aren't being followed and the guys with the guns are just shouting back at me.

Again, the way the officers did things are certainly not how I've done things without some obvious crime being commuted and I think they took the bait on this one.

 

[Unknown]

Sec 411:207 allows an officer to disarm a LICENSE HOLDER. So if a person was open carrying, and did not have a license, technically, the officer would not have authority to disarm them.

Common sense says try and win your case in court, not on the street. Just because someone is legally carrying openly on the street does not mean that they won't have problems from ignorant, or willfully jerk police wanting to disarm them, check their ID, or otherwise check them out. When people go looking for attention, they usually end up getting attention from the police.

Most of the public would complain if the police didn't ask questions about someone walking down the street with an openly displayed firearm. It would be an all around better situation if the police were more knowledgeable about open carry laws, just asked a few general questions that didn't come across like "show us your papers" then told the person with the firearm, "carry on, have a nice day"

 

[CrazyHorse_mk14]

I get that it’s legal, being from Texas I’m proud that we’re allowed by law to carry long guns openly as long as it’s not in a threatening manner. My interpretation of this laws scope is to prevent say a hunter from facing crimes for carrying his deer rig down the street to the hunting grounds.

How do you carry a AR and not seem threatening? I’m for real not the type a guy that freaks out when seeing “banana clips” or otherwise alarmed that a citizen is carrying something that’s viewed so negatively. However, ain’t nobody in my neighborhood ever walked down the road carrying a rifle just because they could. I would find that suspicious by nature regardless of the law. As a concerned citizen I would probably ask wtf is going on, how do I know he didn’t just kill my neighbor and stole his AR ?

A wise old police officer once told me “you may beat the rap but won’t beat the ride” if your doing something shady expect to be questioned about it. Being a douchbag isn’t gonna help when dealing with other douchbags! It’s perfectly legal to piss on electrical fences, don’t mean it’s smart.

 

[QuickNDirty]

The street is not the place to argue who is right or wrong. That's what the courts are for. The courts can only decide if an officers interpretation of the laws, an officers actions, or the actions of a citizen were correct.

Absolutely. I think Grisham in this case would have made his point a little better by not being so whiney, and following officer instructions. If he had followed instructions and they still arrested him for doing nothing wrong, I think that would have create a much more stable foundation for a lawsuit. Whether or not that would have resulted in the repeal of their ordnance that they were demonstrating in perceived defiance of, I dunno.

QnD, to your question of disorderly conduct. In Indiana it's a pretty low bar. If I tell someone to stop talking or making noise and they continue, that's disorderly conduct. In this video (I only watched up the the takedown) the guys are shouting at the officers they've done nothing wrong and broken no laws. Their shouting and continued shouting (If they were told to stop) would be disorderly and enough to go to jail. For me, disorderly has to snowball and wouldn't be something I would consider until my directions aren't being followed and the guys with the guns are just shouting back at me.

Gotcha, in TX disorderly conduct is pretty clear. It even has a defense of 'It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4) that the actor had significant provocation for his abusive or threatening conduct.' Whether or not that would fly as a result of police pointing guns at a law-abiding citizen I dunno =)

'On the charge of disorderly conduct, how do you plead?'
'Not guilty, your honor. Those officers making me fear for my life for no reason was significant provocation for my use of profanity and exposing my anus or genitals in a public place'

www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.42.htm

In Tx we do have a thing called failure to obey a lawful order which is a dicey ambiguous thing. It's fairly clear at this time that it's never a 'lawful order' to tell a citizen to stop filming something in public, or to stop talking. Everything else pretty much depends on the alignment of the stars.


He wasn't charged with either of those, though. I think his charges at the moment are:
Resisting arrest - It's not clear in the video if he did this. The officer used a taser, though, so maybe he tried to back away or something.

Interfering with the duties of a public servant - Same for this, not clear from video if he, for example, tried to stop one of the officers from arresting someone else.

Obstructing a passageway - Didn't happen, I think they tacked this on because he walked across the street. He did not 'obstruct' it though. The officers did that.

Assaulting a peace officer - I don't think he's that stupid, but not clear from video.

 

[...]

Why, really, do people insist on provoking cops like this? When it gets to be time to have to carry a rifle, that's one thing. But "auditing" a PD? What, are they secret shoppers? Lawsuit trolling? I still don't think that in-your-face OC is the smartest way to advocate for 2A.

while i personally think it stupid to OC a rifle through civilized town (mainly because its a pain in the ass)......im not about to tell anyone they cant do it.

if its legal, who am i to stop them?......who is anyone to stop them?

someone doing legal activities is not "provoking" the cops...........if the cops are too fucking stupid to get provoked over people not breaking the law....they shouldnt be cops.


thats literally saying, "how dare a person have the audacity to flaunt their freedoms!".......

 

[...]

How do you carry a AR and not seem threatening? I’m for real not the type a guy that freaks out when seeing “banana clips” or otherwise alarmed that a citizen is carrying something that’s viewed so negatively. However, ain’t nobody in my neighborhood ever walked down the road carrying a rifle just because they could. I would find that suspicious by nature regardless of the law. As a concerned citizen I would probably ask wtf is going on, how do I know he didn’t just kill my neighbor and stole his AR ?

do you get freaked out when you see someone OC or CC a pistol?
how do you know they didnt just kill someone and steal their pistol?

do you get freaked out when you see someone in the woods with a rifle?......that must be traumatizing during hunting season.

the person in the woods with a rifle is no different than a person at Starbucks with a rifle......so long as they are both following the law, why would one alarm you and the other not?


hell, ive been threatened by other hunters in the woods more often than i have people in a city.........if anything i would be more afraid of the hunter than the guy enjoying his coffee.

 

[JeffLebowski]

Sometimes the cops need to be reminded that just because "someone" doesn't like your freedoms, state laws are the state laws & take precedent over their evil little city ordinances.

Crap like this is how we get new, restrictive state laws passed. Watch.

 

[...]

Crap like this is how we get new, restrictive state laws passed. Watch.

so we cant enjoy freedoms we have, because if we do we risk them being taken away?

if thats the case, do we even have them to begin with?

fuck, you might not want to openly practice your religion, you dont want someone seeing it and getting pissy and taking your right to openly practice religion away.....you have to restrict your own rights so others cant do it for you.

 

[JeffLebowski]

so we cant enjoy freedoms we have, because if we do we risk them being taken away?

if thats the case, do we even have them to begin with?

fuck, you might not want to openly practice your religion, you dont want someone seeing it and getting pissy and taking your right to openly practice religion away.....you have to restrict your own rights so others cant do it for you.

These are tards trolling for a lawsuit. If you are privy to the secrets of getting our freedoms back, show us how it’s done in Massachusetts.

 

[...]

These are tards trolling for a lawsuit. If you are privy to the secrets of getting our freedoms back, show us how it’s done in Massachusetts.

it doesnt matter what their intention is.......its fucking legal according to the law.

them OC shouldnt be considered "trolling"......its only considered trolling because people are too fucking stupid to know whats legal

they dont need to get this specific freedom back......they already have it........but you are saying they shouldnt be allowed to exercise it, because them exercising the rights they have will get them taken away.

 

[Slash0311]

Here's what I think is being missed in our society as a whole whether it's BLM and a guy with a cell phone or someone open carrying a rifle. Police can come up and speak to anyone. That's the reasonable suspicion to see if a crime has been committed. During that investigation, a person doesn't have to speak to that officer... UNLESS that officer then has probable cause of a crime. At that point a person can be detained or arrested based on that information. Once the PC threshold has been crossed, resisting or further arguing at the scene does no good. Every one of us, officer and citizen, is responsible for our actions. Why do we have a mentality to argue things on the scene? Follow directions and then file your civil suit to let the courts decide. Getting all butthurt at the scene typically doesn't go well.

 

[W54/XM-388]

Here's what I think is being missed in our society as a whole whether it's BLM and a guy with a cell phone or someone open carrying a rifle. Police can come up and speak to anyone. That's the reasonable suspicion to see if a crime has been committed. During that investigation, a person doesn't have to speak to that officer... UNLESS that officer then has probable cause of a crime. At that point a person can be detained or arrested based on that information. Once the PC threshold has been crossed, resisting or further arguing at the scene does no good. Every one of us, officer and citizen, is responsible for our actions. Why do we have a mentality to argue things on the scene? Follow directions and then file your civil suit to let the courts decide. Getting all butthurt at the scene typically doesn't go well.

Those are some excellent points.

However...

What happens when you know you are not breaking the law and are acting in a lawful manner, but then the police show up & want to hassle you, humiliate you, arrest you for something that is perfectly legal, or when they have no evidence of any criminal activity or wrong doing. Either the Police are ignorant of the law or they purposely don't care.

What then?

 

[Slash0311]

I'm not going to say that doesn't happen. As to the question of "what then" comply and let your attorney have a field day in court.

Look at it like this. Lets say what you describe happens. You're 100% legal and minding your own business when officers arrive (for whatever reason.) Fast forward to being in front of a judge and jury. Which would look better? Complying with every order and direction and going to jail? OR... Refusing to comply. Arguing every point. Telling the officer he's an idiot for not knowing the law. Getting tased, beat down... THEN going to jail??? Short of injuries and hospital bills making the harm and suffering claim higher, you still want to jail bit looked like an idiot.

 

[CrazyHorse_mk14]

do you get freaked out when you see someone OC or CC a pistol?
how do you know they didnt just kill someone and steal their pistol?

do you get freaked out when you see someone in the woods with a rifle?......that must be traumatizing during hunting season.

the person in the woods with a rifle is no different than a person at Starbucks with a rifle......so long as they are both following the law, why would one alarm you and the other not?


hell, ive been threatened by other hunters in the woods more often than i have people in a city.........if anything i would be more afraid of the hunter than the guy enjoying his coffee.

No I don’t freak out everyone carry’s pistols round here! It’s “normal” guy in the woods with a rifle = same... guy in a urban area walking down the street would be out of the ordinary!

True story, several years ago a couple of innocent looking enough military age males walking the neighborhood with shotguns over there shoulder.. perfectly legal even tho nobody does it. Had they been able to walk along unmolested expressing their freedom. Nobody would’ve known they were high on meth and just stole the guns.

Carry openly but expect people to ask you wtf your doing! I myself can think of better ways to express my rights than walking through town with my AR..

Cops are mostly dicks why give em a freebie..

 

[QuickNDirty]

These are tards trolling for a lawsuit. If you are privy to the secrets of getting our freedoms back, show us how it’s done in Massachusetts.

Well, man... With the actions of these people, a city realized their ordnance prohibiting loaded open carry was not a good idea afterall. They repealed it yesterday.

http://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/olmos-park-city-council-repeals-open-carry-ordinance

The actions of CJ Grisham and the other OC Texas people did that. In a small way, they improved the freedom of people in Olmos Park, Texas.

 

[ArmyJerry]

seems people are not complying and starting to shoot back over the past few years. Going to get much worse before we turn the corner. Cops need to read and understand the constitution and respect their fellow citizens then they might get some respect back.

Those are some excellent points.

However...

What happens when you know you are not breaking the law and are acting in a lawful manner, but then the police show up & want to hassle you, humiliate you, arrest you for something that is perfectly legal, or when they have no evidence of any criminal activity or wrong doing. Either the Police are ignorant of the law or they purposely don't care.

What then?

 

[...]

No I don’t freak out everyone carry’s pistols round here! It’s “normal” guy in the woods with a rifle = same... guy in a urban area walking down the street would be out of the ordinary!

True story, several years ago a couple of innocent looking enough military age males walking the neighborhood with shotguns over there shoulder.. perfectly legal even tho nobody does it. Had they been able to walk along unmolested expressing their freedom. Nobody would’ve known they were high on meth and just stole the guns.

Carry openly but expect people to ask you wtf your doing! I myself can think of better ways to express my rights than walking through town with my AR..

Cops are mostly dicks why give em a freebie..

“Out of the ordinary”... sure....

A guy walking down the street dressed as montazuma would also be “ out of the ordinary” (assuming were not in Vegas)........doesn’t mean police have a right to show up and harass him.

Regarding your example..... yeah, I’m sure police would catch a lot more criminals if they could harass law abiding citizens more than they already do........

I’m guessing your opinion would change if police pulled you over every day to see if you were breaking the law.

Just because them harassing OCers doesn’t effect you.... you’re ok with it?

 

[Slash0311]

So then using all of the above discussion as a guide, when can an officer approach a person open carrying for any reason?

Gun store just got robbed and a guy walking away with a gun in hand... crap. Can't make contact because he's got rights.

Again I'll say that contact is part of an investigation. I can approach anyone. It's up to the courts to decide if my actions were correct.

Also, just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should. Yelling "fire" in a theater for example. That action can lead to problems for others but the first amendment say freedom of speech. If you choose to open carry opens yourself up to increased attention.

 

[...]

So then using all of the above discussion as a guide, when can an officer approach a person open carrying for any reason?

Gun store just got robbed and a guy walking away with a gun in hand... crap. Can't make contact because he's got rights.

Again I'll say that contact is part of an investigation. I can approach anyone. It's up to the courts to decide if my actions were correct.

Also, just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should. Yelling "fire" in a theater for example. That action can lead to problems for others but the first amendment say freedom of speech. If you choose to open carry opens yourself up to increased attention.

1) if the person is not doing anything wrong..... no, the police should leave him the fuck alone.

2) if a gun store was robbed, and you see someone running down the street with an arm full of guns.... that is PC.

Just the same if a BestBuy wa robbed, and you see a dude walking down the street with an arm full of stereos.... that’s PC.


But just because someone has a stereo walking down the street doesn’t mean they stole it, and it doesn’t mean the police can roll up and harass you about it....same with a gun.


Just because some pussy doesn’t like seeing a guy with a rifle doesn’t give the cops a right to harass anyone, it’swithin the law for them to do so.... so anyone who doesn’t like it can fuck off.


We have legal marijuana here in MA..... I’m against it....... but it’s someone’s legal right to smoke it..... I’m not about to call the police on someone rolling up a joint...... nor would I expect police to roll up and harass someone for doing so.



Fuck, yall claim to “ support the 2A”...... but I guess y’all only support the bits of it you agree with...... bunch of fucking hypocrites.

Because whenever someone exercises that right in a manner you don’t agree with, y’all are in favor of them being harassed and shamed for it.

Y’all can go eat dick

 

[Slash0311]

Where we disagree is "harass" And "making contact" you can like it or not but the courts have sided many times that there is a difference between them.

In my example, I don't say "running" away from the robbery. Let just say that it was some random joe walking In the same area as the gun shop. Would an officer not be able to make contact with that person without harassing him?

 

[ArmyJerry]

Avoid contact at at all costs, they are armed agents of the state, nothing good comes from any interaction with them.

 

[ArmyJerry]

Just think, these are the people that will be sent to seize your newly outlawed weapons. And you will have the same people making excuses for them.

 

[...]

Where we disagree is "harass" And "making contact" you can like it or not but the courts have sided many times that there is a difference between them.

You interrupting me and forcing me to stop what I’m doing while you attempt to interrogate me..... when you have no PC of a crime being committed is ‘ Harassment’...... I don’t care how you try to justify it to yourself.

 

[Slash0311]

You interrupting me and forcing me to stop what I’m doing while you attempt to interrogate me..... when you have no PC of a crime being committed is ‘ Harassment’...... I don’t care how you try to justify it to yourself.

One last try...

I'm not trying to justify myself. The COURTS have said there is a difference whether you like it or not or agree or not.

There is also a legal difference between an "interrogation" and making contact to make an inquiry. As long as that time of contact is "reasonable" the COURTS have ruled it's okay.

You can disagree all you want. You can say cops of vindictive jackwangs that are clueless. Saying or feeling that way won't change what the courts have ruled on.

 

[ArmyJerry]

The courts are wrong, Fuck them, just avoid the police, never talk to them, never help them, avoid all interaction with them. Most of the goddam laws on the books are unconstitutional. The cops are not your friends, they are armed agents of the state and will carry out orders no matter how illegal and Unconstitutional.

 

[Slash0311]

For the record, it's called a "Terry Stop" and needs reasonable suspicion. As long as the time is reasonable, courts have ruled. The key is that there has to be reasonable suspicion.

 

[QuickNDirty]

So then using all of the above discussion as a guide, when can an officer approach a person open carrying for any reason?

I'm of the opinion that cops are people, too. Someone wants to come up and talk to me, fine, go ahead and do that. I do it all the time to other people, why should I expect any different?

Shit goes wrong when people don't give a damn about each other, though. Those deer park officers maintained the dignity of the dude they were questioning. Olmos Park PD rolled up ready to kill people. Fairly similar circumstances either way.

 

[...]

One last try...

I'm not trying to justify myself. The COURTS have said there is a difference whether you like it or not or agree or not.

There is also a legal difference between an "interrogation" and making contact to make an inquiry. As long as that time of contact is "reasonable" the COURTS have ruled it's okay.

You can disagree all you want. You can say cops of vindictive jackwangs that are clueless. Saying or feeling that way won't change what the courts have ruled on.

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?

 

[Renegade]

Why, really, do people insist on provoking cops like this?

Why do cops arrest law-abiding citizens?

 

[Renegade]

Youre not even required to have ID. I believe you are required to give your real name.

You do not even have to give your name unless arrested. Exceptions of course licensed activities.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.38.htm

 

[Maggot]

You do not even have to give your name unless arrested. Exceptions of course licensed activities.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.38.htm

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

 

[Veer_G]

One last try...

I'm not trying to justify myself. The COURTS have said there is a difference whether you like it or not or agree or not.

There is also a legal difference between an "interrogation" and making contact to make an inquiry. As long as that time of contact is "reasonable" the COURTS have ruled it's okay.

You can disagree all you want. You can say cops of vindictive jackwangs that are clueless. Saying or feeling that way won't change what the courts have ruled on.

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.