How to treat a knuckle dragging open carry extremist

[zebonaut]

&sns=em

[Malraiders]

1. Yea if you see the cop as a knuckle dragging open carry extremist

Since the policeman trampled all over the person's constitutional rights.

Detained illegally.

That cop is lying and codescending.

He is also in the wrong about the entire stop.

Just saying.

[packman]

5. He was responding to a citizen's concern

how is that in the wrong? Condescending is right, too damn polite. He was 100% correct in trying to determine if the guy was a felon or not.

[Malraiders]

9. The cop said in the video to the citizen who complained, Carrying a rifle

in public in Texas is legal. So he had no reason to detain the 'citizen' carrying the rifle as was shown when he called the DA office and was told as much by an assistant DA who checked with her superior first.

And courts have ruled that stopping a person who is openly carrying a long gun to make sure that they are not felons in possesion of the firearm is wrong unless the policeman suspects the person carrying is a felon.

Also a firearm when legally carried can not be a reason to detain a person.

We are after all a country of laws.

This video may expklain it better:

[packman]

18. Really don't give a shit

about state passed laws controlled by gun-right screwballs. When ANY person is walking around with a gun, I want - as I believe 99.99% of the people in this country do - to know their intentions with that gun other than displaying their "Constitution" rights and going on some sort of ego trip. God knows where they are going with that gun and their intentions. Cops stopping someone carrying a high powered rifle with its deadly capability and talking to that person's intent is, in my opinion, legitimate - even if the state law says otherwise. Society evolves when they recognize that a bad law is a bad law.

Today's society is not yesterday's society. Today's weapons are not yesterday's weapons. People should have to show ID when walking around with a gun and give their intent in having such a weapon and ammunition - it makes common sense.

Posting of these "legal" drawdown videos between police whose sworn duty is to protect and assbutts walking around with their pseudo-penal weapons for no other reason than it gives them some sense of false bravado only reinforces my opinion about idiots and guns. Their legal streetsmarts and gun-carrying are signs that they believe themselves superior and by Gawd, they are going to make their point - camera crew and all.

I know you're going to reply and I do not want to turn this into a back and forth reply postings. You have strong feelings about laws and guns and nothing I say will change that . I have strong feelings about public safety and people who intimidate others, and nothing you say about state laws and court cases will change that.

[Malraiders]

19. I do have strong feelings about

living in a police state where laws are ignored by the police whose 'sworn duty' is to protect and serve.

I haven't seen "Protect" on the side of a police car in quite some time.

And Justices have ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect the public even when a person is armed with a protective order from the court.

If a cop swears to protect and serve the public - well maybe that is just more police force propaganda.

To read more about the ruling by the court(s) that ruled cops have no duty to protect, I give you:

https://www.google.com/search?q=society&rlz=2C1CHMO_enUS0538US0538&oq=society&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=court+rules+police+do+not+have+a+duty+to+protect+or+serve

And :

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

Where is written :

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone


By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone


By LINDA GREENHOUSE

Published: June 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

~~~~~~~~


One reason that we must hold the police accountable for their wrongful actions against the people who we disagree with is because if the police can get away with it with them, then one day they will be at odds with us and will probably get away with it with us also.

First they came for the _______ and I was not a ______ so I said nothing............

I hope this helps you to see my point. Like I said originally - I'm just saying.

[irisblue]

2. to hard to read the occasional words on the recording

[byronius]

3. Seems like a decent cop to me.

And dude, I would not live in a zone where that shit is permitted AT ALL. I prefer to live in a zone where that kind of gun-toting fellow is kindly and carefully arrested and evaluated.

I'm familiar with ammosexuals. It is a real thing. They are fucking dangerous and sick, and any municipality or business that invites or encourages the expression of their freakish obsession is begging for havoc.

[freshwest]

15. +1.

[packman]

4. Wearing a kilt in Texas?

Last edited Sat Feb 28, 2015, 12:19 PM - Edit history (1)

I would love to see a group of Arabs in robes carrying guns down a street in Texas. Wonder if they would be treated the same. So, after all that, he continues to walk down the street with a gun strapped to his back - felon or not.

[zeemike]

10. Or a black man in a hoodie.

Things would have went very differently...but in the end with this guy they got to talk gun talk and he got to continue.

[Monk06]

14. He's channeling Mel Gibson.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. What posesses a person to do something like that?

I cannot imagine that happening here in Massachusetts.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

7. walking talking sacks of shit

with all the things one can do with ones life...

sad

[AtheistCrusader]

8. You are required to identify yourself.

You are not required to provide ID, unless the officer has probable cause to suspect you lied about your identity, but you do have to identify yourself. That means 'My name is joe bob and I live at XYZ Street, bumshart nebrahoma USA' is sufficient. You actually can't refuse that. Not without risking getting detained until they can ascertain who you are.

If you give them that info, and they check it, and everything seems on the up and up, then they should have no probable cause to detain you, ID or no.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004)

[Spitfire of ATJ]

11. Just shoot him....

Oh wait,....he's WHITE.

[7wo7rees]

12. i live in Texas. i am ashamed of these open carry assholes.

This cop did everything right, was shut down by the DA office. If you are open carrying the rifle he was, peoole were calling in and afraid, the cop had every right to ask for id. What if it was a felon?

I respect the police officer in this and that person should never have been allowed to walk away.
The officer probably wanted to quit forever at that moment, and he seemed more than decent and very frustrated.

What a mess Texas is in.

[El Shaman]

13. No ID??

He forgot his purse.

[Fla Dem]

16. So ANYONE can open carry in Texas, you don't need id, or a gun permit? How insane. nt

[Malraiders]

20. Anyone can coduct themselves in public doing anything legally

without having to answer to random government officials at any time.

It is called being free.

[rickford66]

17. The laws will change.

I read that California at one time allowed open carry until the Black Panthers exercised their 2nd amendment rights. Maybe I miss-remember though. I'm positive dark skinned men will not be allowed to open carry. Hands in pockets is enough to get stopped.