San Antonio Incident Sparks Outrage from Open Carry Advocates

[breakingcontact]

Breaking and southpaw - I'm not getting shot or risking it if I'm in his position. If they're rounding us up I won't make it easy for them to find me by walking around in a crowded city openly carrying. Until this is the case- my job is to take care of my family and a big part of that is stay out of trouble.

Understood and agreed.

 

[Acera]

We all have a tipping point. LEOs are no different.

Right now I don't think a large number of people think it's time to engage in an open armed revolt, time to stay safe, protect your job, career, family, etc. by not jeopardizing it all by taking a stand in a what might be a futile attempt at correcting the issues. If there comes a time when it gets markedly worse and a significant number of folks do decide to take a more aggressive stand I am sure there will be plenty of officers that either join that fight and/or refuse to obey unjust orders. Until then it's not in their or our best interest. I feel it's well advised to keep pressing on a political, legal and education levels (exactly what the 'other' side is doing).

(Note: I have avoided using the phrases 'most people', 'majority', etc. above for a reason. The highest numbers I have seen were only about 1/3 of the population in the colonies supported the American Revolution so it does not take 'most all' or even 'half' to make things change. Trust me, our adversaries know this also.)

 

[breakingcontact]

Our public skrewl system really has white washed the revolution. (Why are so many "libertarians" fine with gov schools again?) It wasn't some democratic effort. The true revolutionaries were indeed a minority. 3%? Who knows. But most colonials were loyal to the crown or were content to just keep grumbling. It was a small radical minority that rose up and flipped the script.

 

[Southpaw]

The cop told him that they were going to take his rifle and instead of saying he understood the guy just continued to spout his memorized lines.

Missed that. My speaker on my computer leaves something to be desired.

Breaking and southpaw - I'm not getting shot or risking it if I'm in his position. If they're rounding us up I won't make it easy for them to find me by walking around in a crowded city openly carrying. Until this is the case- my job is to take care of my family and a big part of that is stay out of trouble.

Totally agree too, I was just stating that if they want my gun in that sort of situation, then they can have it, if and only if they come and get it. They can do what is necessary to restrain me e.g. handcuffs, but I would explain calmly that I do not feel comfortable putting my hands on a gun while they are pointing a gun at me. Believe me, the tone and demeanor I explain that in would be understood and I would be very compliant.
Now if after the fact I felt I was wrongly detained or arrested, I would see what I could do in a court of law. If I can't, oh well. I'll get over it.

 

[majormadmax]

Peace officers in Texas have every right to disarm anyone they come in contact with for their and the individual's safety. Openly carry and you can expect it to happen no matter what the circumstances. Fail to comply and you can also expect the consequences. Ask, tell, make.

 

[London]

Peace officers in Texas have every right to disarm anyone they come in contact with for their and the individual's safety.

No.

 

[Acera]

Peace officers in Texas have every right to disarm anyone they come in contact with for their and the individual's safety. Openly carry and you can expect it to happen no matter what the circumstances. Fail to comply and you can also expect the consequences. Ask, tell, make.

No.

Ok, it would be nice if one of you could post up a link or quote a statute that supports your point. Just saying it would be nice to have something concrete to read on that issue.

 

[London]

Ok, it would be nice if one of you could post up a link or quote a statute that supports your point. Just saying it would be nice to have something concrete to read on that issue.

A person may be disarmed only during a detainment under the Terry doctrine or during an arrest. A cop can't walk up to a law abiding person and seize his gun anymore than he can walk up and seize any other private property. RAS (w/Terry requirements) or PC are required. During mere contact a cop has zero control over the situation and a person is free to refuse absolutely everything.

What MMM describes is an advocation of the unrestrained harassment of law abiding citizens simply because they possess a weapon. Unfortunately this is what is in fact happening right now.

 

[breakingcontact]

Comes down to reasonable suspicion. Guy walking around with rifle, reports of him pointing it people could justify this no?

I suppose thats the catch for me. Was he pointing it at people? Or is the mere report that he was doing so justification for reasonable suspicion?

I dont know.

 

[PhulesAu]

This is getting to be a little bizarre. All of these people seem to come out of the woodwork when the cops show, but nobody has video of him or others "pointing" the weapon at anyone.

 

[Younggun]

Yup, in the age of smart phones it's seldom that something crazy happens (like a guy walking around pointing his rifle at people) and isn't recorded.

I'm not really buying that it was part of the 911 call or I think the cops would have handled it much differently and not first offered to let him go home.

 

[Southpaw]

This is getting to be a little bizarre. All of these people seem to come out of the woodwork when the cops show, but nobody has video of him or others "pointing" the weapon at anyone.

Exactly, either the police made it up or more likely, someone called 911 said he was pointing the gun at people but didn't think it would be worth their time to actually sign a complaint against him, in which case the police have no way to charge him for it. And so they did not.
Require people to ID themselves, make a statement and appear in court for such 911 calls and people would be less likely to embellish their complaints. Until that is required, it will be another way that anyone legally carrying a long gun in places like SA will be at the very least detained for a chunk of their time or worse, arrested for a charge that is contrary to state law.

 

[bones_708]

This is getting to be a little bizarre. All of these people seem to come out of the woodwork when the cops show, but nobody has video of him or others "pointing" the weapon at anyone.

Yeah because when people start point guns everyone stands there making sure it's recorded.

 

[popo22]

Hypothethical: If you are a LEO and receive a report of an Aggravated Assault (man pointing a rifle at someone), go to the area and find a subject in that area carrying a rifle (matching description?), what would you do? Do you leave him and go back and try to contact the caller and get a statement or detain the possible suspect while others try to contact the caller to see if they will give a statement? In the meantime the suspect(?) continues to walk around and (possibly) point the rifle at others? Should we let the suspect just walk away with unknown intent or should we stop/detain them until we have enough "facts/information" ?

 

[DubiousDan]

Yup, in the age of smart phones it's seldom that something crazy happens (like a guy walking around pointing his rifle at people) and isn't recorded.

I'm not really buying that it was part of the 911 call or I think the cops would have handled it much differently and not first offered to let him go home.

On the interview on Joe Pags show the guy said the officer pulled up on him without lights flashing. Doesn't sound like an officer pulling up on an armed suspect he thinks has been pointing a rifle at people.

BTW, the guy says he was fined $2000 and is preparing an appeal.

 

[atticus finch]

Hypothethical: If you are a LEO and receive a report of an Aggravated Assault (man pointing a rifle at someone), go to the area and find a subject in that area carrying a rifle (matching description?), what would you do? Do you leave him and go back and try to contact the caller and get a statement or detain the possible suspect while others try to contact the caller to see if they will give a statement? In the meantime the suspect(?) continues to walk around and (possibly) point the rifle at others? Should we let the suspect just walk away with unknown intent or should we stop/detain them until we have enough "facts/information" ?

Most likely I would observe the individual to see what his behavior and/or discernable demeanor is, does it match what was reported or not? Is he moving in a hostile and/or aggressive fashion & holding the rifle as such, pointing it at people or otherwise handling it as such? Or is he simply walking along with the rifle slung over his shoulder in a non-aggressive fashion, wherein his entire behavior and/or demeanor is directly different from what was supposedly reported? If his behavior is the latter, I'd likely observe him for a while to see if it changes to what was supposedly reported. If there's no indication the initial reports were correct, call it in as an incorrect report & I'd go find some criminals and ruin thier day as that'd be my job.

 

[atticus finch]

Exactly, either the police made it up or more likely, someone called 911 said he was pointing the gun at people but didn't think it would be worth their time to actually sign a complaint against him, in which case the police have no way to charge him for it. And so they did not.
Require people to ID themselves, make a statement and appear in court for such 911 calls and people would be less likely to embellish their complaints. Until that is required, it will be another way that anyone legally carrying a long gun in places like SA will be at the very least detained for a chunk of their time or worse, arrested for a charge that is contrary to state law.

Very much agree, this entire anonymous ratting on people with no accountability at all has to stop. It is creating horrific situations for those stuck dealing with whatever some arrogant fool stupidly decides is somehow wrong in thier ignorant mind and worthy of dialing the popo. The problem being not what these arrogant fools actually know, it's what they think they know and they're wrong, yet now the popo shows up and the situation degrades from there. Make people stand behind what they say by making them directly legally accountable for thier actions and a lot of these fools who think they can just drop a dime on people and walk away will stop. As of now, anyone can basically call the police and say just about anything and there's no real means of holding them responsible for whatever havoc they wrongfully create.

 

[majormadmax]

On the interview on Joe Pags show the guy said the officer pulled up on him without lights flashing. Doesn't sound like an officer pulling up on an armed suspect he thinks has been pointing a rifle at people.

Not always the case. Had someone call the SAPD and claim I was "shooting at a billboard" during a transaction in a Valero parking lot where I pointed the rifle I was buying at a billboard to check out the scope. The officer that responded did not have his lights and/or sirens on, nor did he ever exit his patrol vehicle when he pulled up to the scene. He simply rolled his window down, asked what was going on, and we politely responded that we were in the process of selling/buying a rifle. He told us about the report and I told him no such thing was happening. I offered to let him inspect the rifle and/or our ID as I know that would normally be required to confirm my claim, but he politely informed us that wouldn't be necessary and wished us a good day before going on his way.

The bottom line is that much of what happens in these situations depends on everyone's attitudes. You can never know what kind of day an officer is having, he may have pulled the bodies of dead children out of a car earlier or dealt with an armed individual in a domestic incident prior to your encounter; which is why I have found the best method to be to present as little of a threat as possible (always keep your hands visible to the officer!), be polite, respectful and cooperate to the best of your ability. In the numerous encounters I have witnessed during my lifetime, such tactics tend to be the most positively received by the police, and in many cases (not always) will garner you the best response and even benefit of the doubt in the vast majority of cases.

Of course, if someone already has a pre-conceieved agenda that they are pushing and are seeking a confrontation, they'll get it. As I've said on many occasions in the past, play stupid games and win stupid prizes; and if anyone actually things such antics are doing anything to further the cause of open carry in this state, I am here to tell you that you are sadly mistaken. The vast majority of the time, all these episodes do is push more fence-sitters on this issue to the anti-gun side. It is simply not a smart tactic nor is it furthering the cause...

 

[Mike1234567]

San Antonio, a Democrat infested cesspool sanctuary city, even has a clause in the City Charter to prohibit the sales or transfer of guns and ammunition when the city manager declares a public emergency.

Problem is, the Democrat entitlement constituency lives and plays with the gun. They will be the first to gun and run in any public emergency.

I'm an Independent... or maybe Libertarian. I moved to Wilson County to get out of San Antonio and even farther away from Austin... and the Sheriff Department here seems okay.

 

[London]

Hypothethical: If you are a LEO and receive a report of an Aggravated Assault (man pointing a rifle at someone), go to the area and find a subject in that area carrying a rifle (matching description?), what would you do? Do you leave him and go back and try to contact the caller and get a statement or detain the possible suspect while others try to contact the caller to see if they will give a statement? In the meantime the suspect(?) continues to walk around and (possibly) point the rifle at others? Should we let the suspect just walk away with unknown intent or should we stop/detain them until we have enough "facts/information" ?

They were right to detain him, wrong to use force and arrest.