LEO disarms soldier illegally

[win1freedom]

I'm as pro-2A as can be, but it's common fricken professional courtesy to place lethal weapons out of reach when asked by a LEO. Of course, the outcome of all such interactions is entirely dependent on the attitudes they bring to it. We have the duty to determine if a violation of the law is occurring. If there is nothing wrong, you will be on your way. LEO has the right to ensure their safety by TEMPORARILY separating a subject from anything that they could use to do them harm until they have determined if they must make an arrest or not. This is the very definition of a "Detention". LEOs are also allowed to conduct a pat down (Terry Search) for the same reason. From what the article states is true; it wasn't even that. The responding Officer requested that this ******* put down his rifle (which was listed as being loaded).

Lately we have all these geniuses spouting off this and that about killing cops and cops can't do this or that. So barracks room lawyers, a cop approaches an unknown situation where a man is armed and he's supposed to read the guys mind that he means the officer no ill will? That the poor guy is just trying to make a 2A point? Gimme a break. Cops disarm people all the time that have not committed a crime. It's called common sense. The USSC calls it "officer safety" and has repeatedly upheld it.

You're never going to win the "I think I know my rights" game while carrying a loaded gun in front of the police. Most states permit an LEO to disarm someone for the duration of the stop, this is by state statute so your milage may vary depending on what state you're standing in at the time.

Reasonable articulated suspicion just from the limited information I have in the article.

Two males (not sure how old the son looks) walking near an airport with a slung 'military' rifle. (doesn't really matter to me what kind it is but whatever) And the police recieved a call about it.

When contacted he has an M4 slung on his chest, loaded (and a concealed handgun). The officer attempted to deal with it reasonably by asking him to set it down while they talked and Grisham refused. The officer has every right to disarm him for his own safety until he can establish if a crime has, is, or will be committed. If Grisham had behaved like a grown man (and the cop wasn't an idiot) they would have chatted for a few minutes and both gone on with their days. I wasn't there. I don't think any of us were. It sounds like both sides could have acted a little differently to avoid these stupid prizes. You just can't faceplant every person who doesn't comply, and you dont have to be a douche and scream "revolution!" every time someone checks to see if everythings cool if you're open carrying.

Just A Number, I think you have your facts wrong, so you may want to watch the video again. The guy said that the officer approached him and while talking, the officer grabbed the gun and the guy reacted by pulling away out of reflex. He said the officer did not ask for the AR until after the LEO had just grabbed for the gun. Not sure if this is important to your point or not.

 

[Bayoupiper]

Just A Number, I think you have your facts wrong, so you may want to watch the video again. The guy said that the officer approached him and while talking, the officer grabbed the gun and the guy reacted by pulling away out of reflex. He said the officer did not ask for the AR until after the LEO had just grabbed for the gun. Not sure if this is important to your point or not.

It is important.

Any police officer worth a damn has had training that includes understanding that people will reflexively pull away when grabbed.

 

[madwabbit]

It is important.

Any police officer worth a damn has had training that includes understanding that people will reflexively pull away when grabbed.

some people reflexively grab back.

 

[Bayoupiper]

some people reflexively grab back.

True, but cops shouldn't.




.

 

[SVT]

Sigh....

Ron Paul is a kook.
Is that the outright lie I told?

lol, no, i would definitely not been bothered by stupid statement like that.

You spew lies and crap about law enforcement all the time on here and then try to wrap yourself in the flag of being a "rights lover" when you get called on it.

Do please provide evidence for the underlined/bold above.

you can't have it both ways.

And your hatred for me blinds you to anything I say.

I have a right to my opinion just like you do.

Get over it, and get over yourself.
.

what are you talking about dude?

 

[Just A Number]

Grisham's version has changed several times over the course of the news coverage...choosing the most self-serving version carries no water with me. In TX where this apparently took place you are required to disarm...fail to comply and it then becomes an arrest. So no, it doesn't matter a jot whether the officer tried to forcibly disarm him after he refused to comply. Never the less I stand by the play the game like a grown up and this kind of **** won't happen.

"Mr. Grisham I respectfully submit that you stop doing dumbass things. If you act the fool, you will be treated like one." It puts a fine point on trying to play the "I know my rights game." I actually find that most people DON'T really know what they are bound and not bound to do.

 

[tunatuk]

I would really love to see how it goes from the beginning. I'm a LEO, and think there is a WHOLE lot more to this prior to the camera rolling.

I've had dealings with people walking down the street open carrying before...it goes something like this:

Dy. Tunatuk sees subject on Easy St. with a gun on hip after receiving call about it from Joe Citizen.

Dy. Tunatuk: Hey bud, just got a call from someone in the area about you walking down the street. Just wanted you to know that everything is legal with that, but the neighbors in the area don't particularly like it. Have a good one.

Armed Citizen: OK, cool. Thanks.

Now, if it went a little different, and something like this:

Dy. Tunatuk: Hey bud, just got a call from someone in the area about you walking down the street. Just wanted you to know that everything is legal with that, but the neighbors in the area don't particularly like it. Have a good one.

Armed Citizen: **** you man, I know my rights. I can carry a gun all day long if I want. Mind your own damn business.

You better believe I'm going to investigate more thoroughly. The average person won't get overly aggressive if just informing him of something. If he does, there might be something more going on. An aggressive person, with a firearm, walking around somewhere, might lead a reasonable person to believe that there is something more going on, and it might warrant further investigation.

Watching a little bit of that video, leads me to believe that Mr. Army there got a little overly aggressive from the get go, if it started off with just a friendly heads up. But, since he didn't want to record the entire thing from the get go, just the part that shows the cops more negatively, we'll never know.

I'd love to read the report on that one.

 

[madwabbit]

I would really love to see how it goes from the beginning. I'm a LEO, and think there is a WHOLE lot more to this prior to the camera rolling.

I've had dealings with people walking down the street open carrying before...it goes something like this:

Dy. Tunatuk sees subject on Easy St. with a gun on hip after receiving call about it from Joe Citizen.

Dy. Tunatuk: Hey bud, just got a call from someone in the area about you walking down the street. Just wanted you to know that everything is legal with that, but the neighbors in the area don't particularly like it. Have a good one.

Armed Citizen: OK, cool. Thanks.

exactly how it should go.

this forum is 1/3 full of leo haters (who probably have had a few well deserved run-ins with the law) that think all cops should be executed for one misstep, and equally full of "tight-tshirt, tuff guy" leo's that think the guy should be tackled, hog-tied, and tazed for the simple fact that they are an almighty leo and this lowly citizen roamed his domain while carrying a firearm.

nice to see a neighborhood leo demonstrate responsible and respectful procedure, in both scenarios.

 

[tunatuk]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I wouldn't taze him. It depends on how it was going as I was there. If he refused to comply with me, after I had RS to stop and investigate further, it could be considered resisting. If he continued to resist, actively, he could potentially be tasered if he continued to refuse. We can what-if this to death, but in the end, we'd all be Monday Morning Quarterbacking the situation. The S.C. has ruled that LEO can take additional steps to ensure their safety, and I can't say if the officer in question felt safe or not. That's for him to articulate and describe.

 

[madwabbit]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I wouldn't taze him. It depends on how it was going as I was there. If he refused to comply with me, after I had RS to stop and investigate further, it could be considered resisting. If he continued to resist, actively, he could potentially be tasered if he continued to refuse. We can what-if this to death, but in the end, we'd all be Monday Morning Quarterbacking the situation. The S.C. has ruled that LEO can take additional steps to ensure their safety, and I can't say if the officer in question felt safe or not. That's for him to articulate and describe.

there's never a reason to resist an officer. sometimes the officer is wrong- take it up with the judge. resisting arrest should warrant the zapper whether hes armed or not imo

 

[Bayoupiper]

lol, no, i would definitely not been bothered by stupid statement like that.



Do please provide evidence for the underlined/bold above.



what are you talking about dude?

I really think you mistook me for someone else.


But if you look at the threads you have started about law enforcement, then you begin to see a pattern.



.

 

[Bayoupiper]

I would really love to see how it goes from the beginning. I'm a LEO, and think there is a WHOLE lot more to this prior to the camera rolling.

I've had dealings with people walking down the street open carrying before...it goes something like this:

Dy. Tunatuk sees subject on Easy St. with a gun on hip after receiving call about it from Joe Citizen.

Dy. Tunatuk: Hey bud, just got a call from someone in the area about you walking down the street. Just wanted you to know that everything is legal with that, but the neighbors in the area don't particularly like it. Have a good one.

Armed Citizen: OK, cool. Thanks.

Now, if it went a little different, and something like this:

Dy. Tunatuk: Hey bud, just got a call from someone in the area about you walking down the street. Just wanted you to know that everything is legal with that, but the neighbors in the area don't particularly like it. Have a good one.

Armed Citizen: **** you man, I know my rights. I can carry a gun all day long if I want. Mind your own damn business.

You better believe I'm going to investigate more thoroughly. The average person won't get overly aggressive if just informing him of something. If he does, there might be something more going on. An aggressive person, with a firearm, walking around somewhere, might lead a reasonable person to believe that there is something more going on, and it might warrant further investigation.

Watching a little bit of that video, leads me to believe that Mr. Army there got a little overly aggressive from the get go, if it started off with just a friendly heads up. But, since he didn't want to record the entire thing from the get go, just the part that shows the cops more negatively, we'll never know.

I'd love to read the report on that one.

Sadly version #2 is what you normally get.

I've told the story of the guy at Home Depot that tried to get a rise out of me.

He was visibly disappointed that I actually knew the law.




.

 

[SVT]

I really think you mistook me for someone else.

I double checked...no mistaken identity here.

But if you look at the threads you have started about law enforcement, then you begin to see a pattern.
.

I have no issues saying that 10.34% (3 out of 29) of the threads I've created here have to do with law enforcement and the Rights of US Citizens.

 

[Bayoupiper]

I double checked...no mistaken identity here.



I have no issues saying that 10.34% (3 out of 29) of the threads I've created here have to do with law enforcement and the Rights of US Citizens.

My record is clear, Ron Paul is a kook.


And those threads...........




.

 

[win1freedom]

Grisham's version has changed several times over the course of the news coverage...choosing the most self-serving version carries no water with me. In TX where this apparently took place you are required to disarm...fail to comply and it then becomes an arrest. So no, it doesn't matter a jot whether the officer tried to forcibly disarm him after he refused to comply. Never the less I stand by the play the game like a grown up and this kind of **** won't happen.

"Mr. Grisham I respectfully submit that you stop doing dumbass things. If you act the fool, you will be treated like one." It puts a fine point on trying to play the "I know my rights game." I actually find that most people DON'T really know what they are bound and not bound to do.

Just A Number, the guy is telling the other LEO in the heat of the discussion what happened and this on film. He is telling the first LEO, that you know you did not initially ask me to disarm before you grabbed for my gun. He must be a very cool customer to fake this after he is in handcuffs.

 

[alpinehyperlite]

Edit: never mind. Staying out of it.

 

[Grendal]

thats not even the worst part to me. thats a slam dunk in court.

the worst to me was "Is every citizen with a gun dangerous?" "I have a chp" Officers Answer: "Yes."

That... very much concerns me. If that mentality is shared amongst our friendly neighborhood leo's, then the tin-foil basement dwellers are about to declare victory.

If a stranger walks near your house with an AR-15, with your family outside (kids), would you not want him checked out?
Would you not want to know what his intentions are?

If he would have been half way respectful and not such an A**hole, the encounter would have gone a lot smoother.

I understand the policeman's position. It only takes someone a split second to raise a weapon and fire his gun.

His demeanor showed he had a propensity for violence. An average, normal person, does not act the way he acted.

 

[Just A Number]

I see the confusion...most of you have no idea who Grisham is. I'll let you in on a little secret, a self serving douchebag from way back. Some of you should go read the several written articles on this incident rather than trying to base your arguments on the content of the video provided by the "victim." It's tantamount to the title of the thread as well...Grisham has already said it's illegal to disarm him several times in the video, so it must be true.

Just title all these threads "when did you last beat your wife" they are functionally the same.

 

[alpinehyperlite]

While not supporting either side's actions, after reading about this Grisham dude, there is some seriously twisted stuff with this guy.

 

[Hitman]

Oh. I thought you guys were talking about ....