San Antonio Incident Sparks Outrage from Open Carry Advocates

[bones_708]

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

You can't have it both ways. If they can detain him then they can use force to compel him to comply. The arrest is what happens when you don't comply when detained.

 

[London]

You can't have it both ways. If they can detain him then they can use force to compel him to comply. The arrest is what happens when you don't comply when detained.

Sure I can. The man wasn't threatening and did not need to be disarmed. They jumped the gun in their use of force.

 

[bones_708]

Sure I can. The man wasn't threatening and did not need to be disarmed. They jumped the gun in their use of force.

That's stupid. If the cop could legally detain him then he is allowed to disarm the guy regardless of your belief. I question if detaining him was legal because of the pre-eminence of the State in firearm laws but if he is detained the he must comply. You don't comply when you are directed to during a custodial stop then police are allowed to use force to make you comply and/or arrest you. They said they were going to disarm him and tried to get an acknowledgment that he understood and wouldn't resist and instead he basically wanted to argue about the legality of the stop. Hey buddy, they know your opinion and have decided that they believe they have the authority to proceed anyway. Repeating your opinion using the same canned phrases doesn't bring anything to the conversation.

 

[wakal]

Papers, please.

Subjects, not citizens. Remember kids, some people are allowed to do anything they want in the name of THEIR safety.

 

[TheDan]

(Why are so many "libertarians" fine with gov schools again?)

Personal opinions between libertarians are pretty varied, but I'm not sure which "libertarians" you've been consorting with... All the one's I know think government run schools are a terrible idea.

 

[breakingcontact]

Personal opinions between libertarians are pretty varied, but I'm not sure which "libertarians" you've been consorting with... All the one's I know think government run schools are a terrible idea.

My point is what % of self proclaimed libertarians send their children to public (government) schools while professing limited government? Perhaps these folks are properly educating their kids after their gov schooling but what of the masses who are being miseducated by the gov schools to not understand how this country began and to carry on the socialist revolution today?

 

[TheDan]

but what of the masses who are being miseducated by the gov schools to not understand how this country began and to carry on the socialist revolution today?

Unfortunately too many people still buy into the notion that we need the government to educate poor children; which is a ridiculous argument because if people were that concerned by it they would donate to charities that service those needs.

One thing we could do to try to "increment" away from government run schools is goto a voucher system. It's been popular everywhere that it's put into place. When people get a good portion of their property taxes back in order to send their kids to good schools it tends to open their eyes to the fact that yes there are options.

 

[breakingcontact]

Unfortunately too many people still buy into the notion that we need the government to educate poor children; which is a ridiculous argument because if people were that concerned by it they would donate to charities that service those needs.

One thing we could do to try to "increment" away from government run schools is goto a voucher system. It's been popular everywhere that it's put into place. When people get a good portion of their property taxes back in order to send their kids to good schools it tends to open their eyes to the fact that yes there are options.

No argument there.

 

[London]

That's stupid. If the cop could legally detain him then he is allowed to disarm the guy regardless of your belief. I question if detaining him was legal because of the pre-eminence of the State in firearm laws but if he is detained the he must comply. You don't comply when you are directed to during a custodial stop then police are allowed to use force to make you comply and/or arrest you. They said they were going to disarm him and tried to get an acknowledgment that he understood and wouldn't resist and instead he basically wanted to argue about the legality of the stop. Hey buddy, they know your opinion and have decided that they believe they have the authority to proceed anyway. Repeating your opinion using the same canned phrases doesn't bring anything to the conversation.

There are a lot of issues at play here:

1.) Were the requirements for Terry fulfilled?

2.) Does inspecting a visible weapon fall under Terry?

3.) Checking the chamber for a round without the owner's consent probably qualifies as a warantless search, especially when....

4.) ...officers set the man free then detained him again for the purposes of a search of his property. SCOTUS says this is a big no-no.

 

[bones_708]

There are a lot of issues at play here:

1.) Were the requirements for Terry fulfilled?

2.) Does inspecting a visible weapon fall under Terry?

3.) Checking the chamber for a round without the owner's consent probably qualifies as a warantless search, especially when....

4.) ...officers set the man free then detained him again for the purposes of a search of his property. SCOTUS says this is a big no-no.

Since the guy said the rifle was loaded I'm pretty sure that would count as PC. The only real issue as to the stop is if the SA ordinance violate state law on the preeminence of state law regarding firearms. If not then the stop seems good and definitely after he said there was a round in the chamber.

This isn't a federal case, little joke, but about Texas law.

 

[Southpaw]

Since the guy said the rifle was loaded I'm pretty sure that would count as PC. The only real issue as to the stop is if the SA ordinance violate state law on the preeminence of state law regarding firearms. If not then the stop seems good and definitely after he said there was a round in the chamber.

This isn't a federal case, little joke, but about Texas law.

Absolutely!!

 

[London]

Since the guy said the rifle was loaded I'm pretty sure that would count as PC. The only real issue as to the stop is if the SA ordinance violate state law on the preeminence of state law regarding firearms. If not then the stop seems good and definitely after he said there was a round in the chamber.

This isn't a federal case, little joke, but about Texas law.

See #4. SCOTUS says you don't get a replay once you set a suspect free.

 

[jordanmills]

For most any situation, I agree, but if a police officer has a gun on me and I am armed as well, such as in this type of situation, there is no way I am putting my hand on any firearm, as a matter of fact, my hand is going to be as far away from the firearm as possible. I will politely inform the officer that he is going to have to disarm me himself. Once you lay a hand on that gun your life is literally in their hands and what they interpret as a threat.

Exactly. I'll be happy to keep my hands still and far away from my hip. But there's no way I'm grabbing a gun when I'm already drawn on, no matter what they try to yell at me.

 

[Younggun]

My point is what % of self proclaimed libertarians send their children to public (government) schools while professing limited government? Perhaps these folks are properly educating their kids after their gov schooling but what of the masses who are being miseducated by the gov schools to not understand how this country began and to carry on the socialist revolution today?

Probably about the same as the percentage of conservatives who do the same. Kinda silly to single out libertarians.


Just sayin.

 

[majormadmax]

Exactly. I'll be happy to keep my hands still and far away from my hip. But there's no way I'm grabbing a gun when I'm already drawn on, no matter what they try to yell at me.

Smart move, as otherwise anyone who would do differently isn't going to be around to tell people about it!

I have learned a lot about what constitutes a threat and how it can be handled by the police. Luckily it has all been during training scenarios, but if confronted by the police while armed your best response is to comply with their instructions and keep your hands visible and as far away from your weapon as possible! If they know or even suspect you are armed, any sudden or non-compliant moves can have disastrous results!

 

[wakal]

Right.

A business associate found out what a "threat" was when he was ordered by a pint sized officer to "EXIT YOUR VEHICLE WITH YOUR HANDS UP."

So he did, standing to his full 6'7" with empty hands up.

The officer drew down on him, then ordered him to his face and cuffed him for...being "intimidating."

The only thing worse than little man syndrome is...tiny cop syndrome.

 

[majormadmax]

And the rest of the story is?!?

Why was he pulled over in the first place?

How did he respond to the cop? Was he aggressive? Argumentative? Hostile? How close was he to the officer? I am sure you are familiar with the Tueller Drill, but a person doesn't have to be armed with a knife to be a threat at close distances, especially when there is a considerably size disadvantage.

Plus, any idea whether there were other ongoing events that may have been related? What kind of calls did the officer already have to respond to that day? Any fatal car accidents? Armed robberies? Etc?

Lots of other factors could have been involved, but like many anti-cop stories, we only hear the selective bits.

I did a ride-along with a female officer who was about 5'2" tall and 110 pounds at the most. She was constantly mentally thinking about how she would have to take down a combative male over 6' and 250+ lbs. Now put yourself in her shows, responding to a situation where there little to no and often conflicting or wrong information from dispatch. Is she suppose to wait until something happens, or does she take control over the situation first? "Action before reaction" is what officers are taught, stay ahead of the curve and don't get overcome by events.

I know it's easy to criticize the police, but maybe if you put yourself in their shows for a while you'd understand why they act like they do sometimes. Honestly, I wouldn't want the job, as I see enough stupidity and outright ignorant acts by the public on a daily basis based only on my half-hour drive to work and back. Extend that out to 8+ hours a day, add the stress of the job, and maybe a little slack is deserved.

 

[wakal]

You mean when my ex-cop friend exited the vehicle slowly, and with his hands in plain sight for a simple speeding "revenue enhancement" stop?

Holster sniffers...so amusing...

Remember kids, some people are more equal than others, and like it that way. Because they are better, and their job lets them get away with...anything...as will their co-workers and various apologists.

Ah, poor little girl. Back when there were entrance standards for officers....simple things like "get over this six foot wall"...tiny folks didn't have to worry about DOING THEIR JOB. What a horror.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

And the rest of the story is?!?

Why was he pulled over in the first place?

How did he respond to the cop? Was he aggressive? Argumentative? Hostile? How close was he to the officer? I am sure you are familiar with the Tueller Drill, but a person doesn't have to be armed with a knife to be a threat at close distances, especially when there is a considerably size disadvantage.

Plus, any idea whether there were other ongoing events that may have been related? What kind of calls did the officer already have to respond to that day? Any fatal car accidents? Armed robberies? Etc?

Lots of other factors could have been involved, but like many anti-cop stories, we only hear the selective bits.

I did a ride-along with a female officer who was about 5'2" tall and 110 pounds at the most. She was constantly mentally thinking about how she would have to take down a combative male over 6' and 250+ lbs. Now put yourself in her shows, responding to a situation where there little to no and often conflicting or wrong information from dispatch. Is she suppose to wait until something happens, or does she take control over the situation first? "Action before reaction" is what officers are taught, stay ahead of the curve and don't get overcome by events.

I know it's easy to criticize the police, but maybe if you put yourself in their shows for a while you'd understand why they act like they do sometimes. Honestly, I wouldn't want the job, as I see enough stupidity and outright ignorant acts by the public on a daily basis based only on my half-hour drive to work and back. Extend that out to 8+ hours a day, add the stress of the job, and maybe a little slack is deserved.

Not trying to be a jackass, but maybe she shouldn't be a cop if she can't do the job the right way. Not everyone's cut out for every job.

I'm not saying she doesn't do a good job of other LEO things, but I'm not in the NBA because I'm not crazy tall. Maybe 5'2" women shouldn't be cops out on patrol by themselves.

 

[Southpaw]

I have to agree with Hippie on this. Not everyone is best suited for every job.