TX cops illegally disarm man after ninny citizen felt 'alarmed'

[green73]

http://vimeo.com/62032686
http://vimeo.com/62032686

[tod evans]

Contempt of cop....

[Neil Desmond]

If this isn't staged, then it's treason & the sentence that ought to be issued for these individuals (the ones wearing the matching costumes, disarming this man, and kidnapping him) for that offense is the death penalty, if found guilty of infringing on the 2nd amendment. Furthermore, because of this incident, I now feel far more threatened by the existence of police departments, and that all police departments need to be shut down ASAP; along with this, all police items or equipment need to be auctioned off (weapons, vehicles, etc.) or destroyed (matching costumes, handcuffs, etc.).

Is there any way to find out if this individual needs any financial support to sue the men in matching costumes? I might want to help him out in that way; if that's the case, perhaps he or someone could set something up for online donations (I'm not familiar with doing that). Actually, this gives me an interesting idea for a law - guess I'll do some research on it (I'll explain later, maybe in a different thread).

[WM_in_MO]

Chalk up one more contempt of cop.

[shane77m]

Probably one more kid that will now not trust the cops.

[belian78]

When will people stop letting themselves be disarmed?

[tod evans]

When will people stop letting themselves be disarmed?

Are you willing to engage in a gun battle with overzealous cops? [Don't answer]

The only way to prevent disarmament in situations like this is to resort to force of arms..

[FriedChicken]

I absolutely side with this man and against the cops in this video. It is baffling why, after they determined he had a CCW permit, that they continued - especially since they one cop acted like if he would have told them that to begin with there wouldn't have been a problem.

Having said that I have to wonder ...

Why did this guy go out walking with the rifle to begin with?
When the police showed up, why didn't he just let them know right away 'Its alright guys, would seeing my CCW permit make you feel better?' (just as a courtesy).
(The answer to these ponderings doesn't make any difference - he was within his rights so it doesn't matter - but I wonder anyway)


Cop was definitely a jerk who should be fired and have some assault charges placed on him.

[Neil Desmond]

The kidnapper tells him that once he finds out that there's no issue he'll be able to go on his way, then instead of letting him go on his way they make him get into one of their vehicles to take him who knows where and to do who knows what to him. He said he "fucking supports the police;" I wonder if he still feels that way now?

[Barrex]

It didnt touch me that much until I heard that kid weeping behind camera.

[Neil Desmond]

I absolutely side with this man and against the cops in this video. It is baffling why, after they determined he had a CCW permit, that they continued - especially since they one cop acted like if he would have told them that to begin with there wouldn't have been a problem.

Having said that I have to wonder ...

Why did this guy go out walking with the rifle to begin with?
When the police showed up, why didn't he just let them know right away 'Its alright guys, would seeing my CCW permit make you feel better?' (just as a courtesy).
(The answer to these ponderings doesn't make any difference - he was within his rights so it doesn't matter - but I wonder anyway)
What I'd like to know is why do you ask these questions? Why do you wonder about any of this? Why does anyone need to have a CCW? Concealing what you carry is a way to keep and bear arms; same with open carry. Any law that mandates or prohibits possessing arms, any part of arms, dictating how they are to be possessed, or requiring that a permit must be granted in order to possess arms a certain way are infringements on the 2nd amendment, if enforced.


Cop was definitely a jerk who should be fired and have some assault charges placed on him.
He committed no crime; only the individuals in matching costumes and the person who placed the call committed crimes. What they should have done (and it's too late now) was apologize to him profusely, begged for forgiveness, and arrested whoever called in a false report of a crime.

[Reason]

**Apparently only handgun open carry is banned in Texas**

[tod evans]

Pretty sure that open carry is illegal in Texas...

Not sure why a resident would not know this...

http://www.texasgunlaws.org/

Q: Can I carry a firearm on my person?

A: Yes, with proper licensing (Concealed Handgun License) you may carry a pistol or revolver on your person so long as it remains concealed. Long guns (rifles / shotguns) do not have to be concealed, but must be carried in a manner not calculated to cause alarm, and do not require a license.

[ClydeCoulter]

Does TX CCW require background checks? If so, that just goes to show that a background check is of no use to the PTB.

[Neil Desmond]

Pretty sure that open carry is illegal in Texas...

Not sure why a resident would not know this...

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[ClydeCoulter]

Pretty sure that open carry is illegal in Texas...

Not sure why a resident would not know this...

WTF kind of comment is that? You're "pretty sure"? and then question the resident?


http://www.texasgunlaws.org/

Q: Can I carry a firearm on my person?

A: Yes, with proper licensing (Concealed Handgun License) you may carry a pistol or revolver on your person so long as it remains concealed. Long guns (rifles / shotguns) do not have to be concealed, but must be carried in a manner not calculated to cause alarm, and do not require a license.

[phill4paul]

http://www.texasgunlaws.org/

Q: Can I carry a firearm on my person?

A: Yes, with proper licensing (Concealed Handgun License) you may carry a pistol or revolver on your person so long as it remains concealed. Long guns (rifles / shotguns) do not have to be concealed, but must be carried in a manner not calculated to cause alarm, and do not require a license.

Arbitrary law is arbitrary.

This from N.C.

Going Armed to the Terror of the People
December 20th, 2012
By Jessica Smith

After I eliminated this offense from the 7th edition of North Carolina Crimes, a few people asked me to add it back in. A statistics report from the N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts shows that in 2011 this crime was charged in 340 cases. That’s not a huge number, but it probably justifies including the offense in Crimes. In any event, since the book has been printed I can’t make any changes until the 8th edition is produced (note: even thinking about that gives me a migraine). In the meantime, here’s what you need to know about this crime.

Statute

This is a common law offense. State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 541-42 (1968); State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. 418, 418 (1843); State v. Staten, 32 N.C. App. 495, 496-97 (1977) (citing Dawson).

Elements

A person guilty of this offense

(1) arms himself or herself with an unusual and dangerous weapon

(2) for the purpose of terrifying others and

(3) goes about on public highways

(4) in a manner to cause terror to the people.

Punishment

Class 1 misdemeanor. G.S. 14-3(a).

Notes

Generally. For the elements of this offense, see Dawson, 272 N.C. at 549, and Staten, 32 N.C. App. at 497.

For a case in which the evidence was sufficient to establish this offense, see, for example, Dawson, 272 N.C. at 549 (armed with a carbine and four pistols, the defendant and three others drove on the public highways at night, firing bullets into a store and two homes).

Element (1). In Huntly, the court held that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Huntly, 25 N.C. at 422. In that case it was argued that a gun cannot constitute an unusual weapon, “for there is scarcely a man in the community who does not own and occasionally use a gun of some sort.” Id. The court rejected that argument, concluding: “A gun is an ‘unusual weapon,’ wherewith to be armed and clad. No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements–as a part of his dress–and never we trust will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment.” Id.

In State v. Lanier, 71 N.C. 288, 289 (1874), the defendant was charged with going armed to the terror of the people after riding a horse, at a canter, through a courthouse. Witnesses saw no arms of any kind. The North Carolina Supreme Court “attach[ed] no importance to the fact that the defendant had no arms” stating, “we think it may be conceded that the driving or riding without arms through a court house or a crowded street at such a rate or in such a manner as to endanger the safety of the inhabitants amounts to a breach of the peace and is an indictable offence at common law.” Id. at 290.

Element (3). It appears that the offense would not occur if the defendant remained on private property.

Element (4). The offense of affray involves fighting in public to the terror of the people. For purposes of that offense, cases hold that if members of the public experience fear, the “to the terror of the people” element is satisfied. In re May, 357 N.C. 423, 428 (2003). In an unpublished case involving a charge of going armed to the terror of the people, the North Carolina Court of Appeals found this element satisfied where the defendant shot his gun while driving closely behind another vehicle on a public highway. State v. Toler, 716 S.E.2d 875 (N.C. App. 2011) (unpublished) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that his actions were not “to the terror of the people” where the only people involved were those in the victim’s car, and stating: “We find this to be substantial evidence that this behavior was intended to be to the terror of the people and was in fact to the terror of the people. The fact that a limited number of witnesses testified regarding Defendant’s actions does not change the character of those actions.”).

Charging issues. Although it is proper to enumerate the acts or threats of violence that the defendant undertakes while armed, such allegations are not required.Dawson, 272 N.C. at 549 (indictment upheld absent such allegations).

[ClydeCoulter]

NDAA? Drones? Devaluation of their savings so that they fear not being able to provide for themselves in their old age? False Flags and lies to promote war?


Arbitrary law is arbitrary.

This from N.C.

Going Armed to the Terror of the People
December 20th, 2012
By Jessica Smith

After I eliminated this offense from the 7th edition of North Carolina Crimes, a few people asked me to add it back in. A statistics report from the N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts shows that in 2011 this crime was charged in 340 cases. That’s not a huge number, but it probably justifies including the offense in Crimes. In any event, since the book has been printed I can’t make any changes until the 8th edition is produced (note: even thinking about that gives me a migraine). In the meantime, here’s what you need to know about this crime.

Statute

This is a common law offense. State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 541-42 (1968); State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. 418, 418 (1843); State v. Staten, 32 N.C. App. 495, 496-97 (1977) (citing Dawson).

Elements

A person guilty of this offense

(1) arms himself or herself with an unusual and dangerous weapon

(2) for the purpose of terrifying others and

(3) goes about on public highways

(4) in a manner to cause terror to the people.

Punishment

Class 1 misdemeanor. G.S. 14-3(a).

Notes

Generally. For the elements of this offense, see Dawson, 272 N.C. at 549, and Staten, 32 N.C. App. at 497.

For a case in which the evidence was sufficient to establish this offense, see, for example, Dawson, 272 N.C. at 549 (armed with a carbine and four pistols, the defendant and three others drove on the public highways at night, firing bullets into a store and two homes).

Element (1). In Huntly, the court held that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Huntly, 25 N.C. at 422. In that case it was argued that a gun cannot constitute an unusual weapon, “for there is scarcely a man in the community who does not own and occasionally use a gun of some sort.” Id. The court rejected that argument, concluding: “A gun is an ‘unusual weapon,’ wherewith to be armed and clad. No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements–as a part of his dress–and never we trust will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment.” Id.

In State v. Lanier, 71 N.C. 288, 289 (1874), the defendant was charged with going armed to the terror of the people after riding a horse, at a canter, through a courthouse. Witnesses saw no arms of any kind. The North Carolina Supreme Court “attach[ed] no importance to the fact that the defendant had no arms” stating, “we think it may be conceded that the driving or riding without arms through a court house or a crowded street at such a rate or in such a manner as to endanger the safety of the inhabitants amounts to a breach of the peace and is an indictable offence at common law.” Id. at 290.

Element (3). It appears that the offense would not occur if the defendant remained on private property.

Element (4). The offense of affray involves fighting in public to the terror of the people. For purposes of that offense, cases hold that if members of the public experience fear, the “to the terror of the people” element is satisfied. In re May, 357 N.C. 423, 428 (2003). In an unpublished case involving a charge of going armed to the terror of the people, the North Carolina Court of Appeals found this element satisfied where the defendant shot his gun while driving closely behind another vehicle on a public highway. State v. Toler, 716 S.E.2d 875 (N.C. App. 2011) (unpublished) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that his actions were not “to the terror of the people” where the only people involved were those in the victim’s car, and stating: “We find this to be substantial evidence that this behavior was intended to be to the terror of the people and was in fact to the terror of the people. The fact that a limited number of witnesses testified regarding Defendant’s actions does not change the character of those actions.”).

Charging issues. Although it is proper to enumerate the acts or threats of violence that the defendant undertakes while armed, such allegations are not required.Dawson, 272 N.C. at 549 (indictment upheld absent such allegations).

[tod evans]

Cop made sure to state on camera that he was "scared"...:mad:

[Tod]

That cop reminds me of Ned Beatty.

Situation coming to a head before too much longer?

[Neil Desmond]

That cop reminds me of Ned Beatty.

Situation coming to a head before too much longer?
Not if the government quits misbehaving.

[tod evans]

Well, I get "scared" when I see armed/masked groups of armed men in body armor...

Wonder if I could get a prosecutor to press charges?

Wonder how well I'd do disarming the scary bad-men?

[aGameOfThrones]

if you're going to CCW you have to take into account other peoples' feelings, that or have a badge.

[enjerth]

So the legal justification given for arresting the citizen, at the time of arrest, was "for rudely displaying" a firearm?

The polite police are here to save the day.

[Neil Desmond]

So the legal justification given for arresting the citizen, at the time of arrest, was "for rudely displaying" a firearm?

The polite police are here to save the day.
Are we becoming a "polite state"?

[Matt Collins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXwP02Dkp7A

[FriedChicken]

I absolutely side with this man and against the cops in this video. It is baffling why, after they determined he had a CCW permit, that they continued - especially since they one cop acted like if he would have told them that to begin with there wouldn't have been a problem.

Having said that I have to wonder ...

Why did this guy go out walking with the rifle to begin with?
When the police showed up, why didn't he just let them know right away 'Its alright guys, would seeing my CCW permit make you feel better?' (just as a courtesy).
(The answer to these ponderings doesn't make any difference - he was within his rights so it doesn't matter - but I wonder anyway)


What I'd like to know is why do you ask these questions? Why do you wonder about any of this? Why does anyone need to have a CCW? Concealing what you carry is a way to keep and bear arms; same with open carry. Any law that mandates or prohibits possessing arms, any part of arms, dictating how they are to be possessed, or requiring that a permit must be granted in order to possess arms a certain way are infringements on the 2nd amendment, if enforced.


Questions asked:
1. Why do ask these questions
2. Why do you wonder about any of this
3. Why does anyone need to have a CCW?

Answers:
1. I didn't ask, just said I wondered. I made it clear that the answer didn't matter, just that I was curious. If I saw a man walking down the road with an AR I'd wonder why ... who wouldn't? I know that you will answer "I wouldn't wonder why!" but seriously ... just because I wonder why someone does something doesn't mean I question their right to do so. I wonder why some guys wear skinny jeans ... doesn't mean that they need a justification to my satisfaction to do so.

2. I'm not aware that I made a conscious decision to wonder, I just wondered. So I can't answer that one for you. You seem quite defensive and I can't help but wonder why.

3. 'CCW' stands for Concealed Carry Weapon, the reason for having one is for personal protection. Oh, you meant the permit for a CCW? Well for starters - its needed to remain, at least in the eyes of the judge, legal. Having a CCW without a permit is taking the risk of going to jail for it even though you have the right to do so.
I wouldn't consider it wrong to carry without a permit, because it is a God given right, but I would consider it risky.
If you meant to ask why the state needs to have a CCW permit? I guess its because they either don't care or don't understand the 2nd amendment. I also don't think they quite grasp the fact criminals don't often care to follow the law, so the bad guys will still have CCWs regardless of required paperwork.


Cop was definitely a jerk who should be fired and have some assault charges placed on him.


He committed no crime; only the individuals in matching costumes and the person who placed the call committed crimes. What they should have done (and it's too late now) was apologize to him profusely, begged for forgiveness, and arrested whoever called in a false report of a crime.

You make your statement as if it is contrary to what I said when its not. I pointed out the only law breakers were the officers and that they should have charges pressed against them for doing so.

I completely disagree with arresting the person who made the phone call ... what kind of authoritarian society do you wish for where if you think there might possibly be a crime being committed but aren't sure and you turn out to be wrong you're taken to jail?
Every time someone calls the police they might be incriminating themselves.
If I think my neighbors house is being broken into but it turns out my neighbor was just locked out so he had to climb through a window ... I don't want the police to come knocking on my door to press charges for false crime reporting.

You have a much greater desire for a more powerful state than I my friend.

No wrongs were committed till the cop put his hands on the mans rifle. I think it foolish to think that they were wrong for stopping to see if everything was ok.

[FriedChicken]

if you're going to CCW you have to take into account other peoples' feelings, that or have a badge.

This is true. I CC just about every day, I understand that if I'm in Walmart and I reach for something on the top shelf and my firearm is revealed it might worry someone. I know this ahead of time so I won't be surprised if it happens. Recognizing reality doesn't mean I think that person is reacting the way they should.
If this concerned person notifies security or police I already know how I will handle it. Which is to respectfully saying something very calm like "Yeah sorry about that, didn't mean to alarm anyone. - would you like to see my CCW permit?".

Is this the way things should be? Nope. Its just the way things are and I don't want to spend a full day in jail for the sake of making this particular point. I'm not against civil disobedience but I believe in choosing my battles.

[sailingaway]

Reid's gun bill would take HIPAA protetions away so doctors whose political opinions on guns may have not been relevant to you when you selected them can get 'alarmed' and decide they don't want to take chances and report anyone with any depression or other issue, temporary or not, and you wouldn't even know you were on the can't buy list until you tried to buy. So the DR would have no incentive to not do it. No due process. If you have a gun phobic psychologist or doctor (and I don't see that type as the rugged outdoors sort as a collective) you would be SOL pending a long expensive, uncertain process to beg back your right to carry a gun.

[FriedChicken]

Reid's gun bill would take HIPAA protetions away so doctors whose political opinions on guns may have not been relevant to you when you selected them can get 'alarmed' and decide they don't want to take chances and report anyone with any depression or other issue, temporary or not, and you wouldn't even know you were on the can't buy list until you tried to buy. So the DR would have no incentive to not do it. No due process. If you have a gun phobic psychologist or doctor (and I don't see that type as the rugged outdoors sort as a collective) you would be SOL pending a long expensive, uncertain process to beg back your right to carry a gun.

I didn't know for a fact the bill would do that, but I always feared that all the talk of 'keeping firearms from the mentally dangerous' would lead to exactly that.

[Brian4Liberty]

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

An easy Constitutional case. Too bad our court system has been compromised.


the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

[Brian4Liberty]

His crime was obvious. That red bandana.

[ZENemy]

If you BEG the government to give you permission to carry a gun then it can be taken from you at any time. What good is the second amendment if its not going to be enforced? You people waiting for them to come to your door need to understand they are already AT your door. They will change the rules on a whim, they will do whatever they want and will move the goal when you make a touchdown. Its not time for violence, its time for defense.

"I am armed and will respond equally with force" If you are a gun owner and are not willing to disobey UNJUST robbery, kidnapping or physical violence then just turn them in now.

[green73]

Video is four weeks old, but was just posted on Drudge.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345714/free-cj-grisham

RPF driving the the news cylcle? Hmmm

[Neil Desmond]

Video is four weeks old, but was just posted on Drudge.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345714/free-cj-grisham

RPF driving the the news cylcle? Hmmm
Screw Drudge and National Review. Let's fire Obama & make this guy President instead. Maybe he can even be nice and give those matching costume wearing dudes jobs in the White House - scrubbing all the toilets with toothbrushes.