Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier

[ChunkyMonkey]

Something to be aware of for those with concealed carry permits.

Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier
December 31, 6:49
Atlanta Gun Rights Examiner (http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m12d31-Court-upholds-police-pointing-gun-at-lawful-carriers)

Ed Stone

It's open season on gun carriers.

A case out of the First Circuit has some painful lessons for gun carriers in Georgia. A United States Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld the constitutionality of pointing a gun at any citizen daring to carry, lawfully, a concealed weapon in public.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals is the Court just below the United States Supreme Court in the New England states. The case stems from a lawyer who sued a police officer after he was detained for lawfully carrying a concealed weapon while in possession of a license to carry concealed. According to the case opinion, the lawyer, Greg Schubert, had a pistol concealed under his suit coat, and Mr. Schubert was walking in what the court described as a "high crime area." At some point a police officer, J.B. Stern, who lived up to his last name, caught a glimpse of the attorney's pistol, and he leapt out of his patrol car "in a dynamic and explosive manner" with his gun drawn, pointing it at the attorney's face.
Officer Stern "executed a pat-frisk," and Mr. Schubert produced his license to carry a concealed weapon. He was disarmed and ordered to stand in front of the patrol car in the hot sun. At some point, the officer locked him in the back seat of the police car and delivered a lecture. Officer Stern "partially Mirandized Schubert, mentioned the possibility of a criminal charge, and told Schubert that he (Stern) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat."

For most people, this would be enough to conclude that they were being harassed for the exercise of a constitutional right, but the officer went further, seizing the attorney's pistol and leaving with it. Officer Stern reasoned that because he could not confirm the "facially valid" license to carry, he would not permit the attorney to carry. Officer Stern drove away with the license and the firearm, leaving the attorney unarmed, dressed in a suit, and alone in what the officer himself argued was a high crime area.

The attorney sued in federal court, but the District Court threw out his suit, ruling that Officer Stern's behavior is the proper way to treat people who lawfully carry concealed pistols. Mr. Schubert appealed, and the First Circuit upheld the District Court's ruling. The court held that the stop was lawful and that Officer Stern "was permitted to take actions to ensure his own safety."

The court further held that the officer was entitled to confirm the validity of a "facially valid" license to carry a concealed weapon. The problem for Officer Stern was that there is no way to do so in Massachusetts, where this incident occurred. As a result, the court held that Officer Stern "sensibly opted to terminate the stop and release Schubert, but retain the weapon."

Georgia is not in the First Circuit, but this case holds some harsh lessons for Georgians who exercise their right to bear arms. Recall that in the( MARTA case here in Georgia, the court held that the officer was entitled to take measures to protect himself, including disarming the person carrying, and entitled to investigate further for a half hour even after Mr. Raissi produced a Georgia firearms license. (http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m12d15-Federal-judge-rules-concealed-carry-is-probable-cause-of-criminal-activity)) Although the officers in that case did not actually point a gun at Mr. Raissi's face, as Officer Stern did to attorney Schubert, it is a logical conclusion that the court would have upheld the constitutionality of them doing so. The vast majority of the cases MARTA cited in its briefs to the federal court included an officer pointing a gun at the person stopped. In addition, carrying a concealed weapon onto the MARTA system is a felony, and no court is going to hold that an officer violated any constitutional right by pointing a gun at an armed felon.

Furthermore, it must be recalled that Georgia, like Massachussetts and the vast majority of states, has no system to confirm the validity of a Georgia firearms license. The similarities between the MARTA federal opinion and the First Circuit opinion are startling, and the implications for Georgia are clear.

This First Circuit case is a logical extension of the MARTA case here in Georgia, and it shows what armed Georgians can expect if the General Assembly does not take action soon to correct the presumption of criminality that federal judge Thomas Thrash attached to the exercise of the right to bear arms.

Welcome to the new "right" to bear arms.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m12d31-Court-upholds-police-pointing-gun-at-lawful-carriers

[KFinn]

From what I gathered, I feel like the ruling was a crock of shit. its a sad day. :(

[Batteriesnare]

+1. That is BS.

[SA Friday]

This is bad, the seizure part. I doubt you can ever win the rest of this suit.

The cop does have a way to confirm, but it requires his dispatcher to call the individuals home state and run a check that takes all of 30 seconds. The problem is confirming the status of the calling dispatcher to validate release of the info.

Some states have the ability to check other state's databases, but it's tough and real hit and miss. CA has some of that ability. CO's sucks for this IMO. The only other option to stop the seizure is to get the CCW's into NCIC for national review. Every LE agency has access to that regardless.

[Ranger353]

Maybe the ACLU will pick it up and appeal to the US Supreme Court.

But, maybe not. [ROFL1]

[KFinn]

well yes, I do agree that the officer does have the right to draw his weapon and check out the individual. DId he over react a little much with his theatrics? possibly. at least with cuffing him and putting him in the back seat. During a traffic stop I have been disarmed and the gun was emptied (mag and chamber) and placed in my back seat behind me when I was talking with the officer. Did I mind? No. Can I appreciate the officers perspective and actions in that case? By all means.

But in no way can I see him having the right to take the weapon AND permit and sending him on his way. WTF! The officer should have some respect and pride in his job and he should do it well and to the fullest. Check out the validity of the permit if you are that concerned about it being fraudulent and give the citizen back his crap!

[theGinsue]

Further proof that our Constitutional Rights are being trampled day after day with no recourse for "We the People".

I was particularly alarmed to read the comment "ruling that Officer Stern's behavior is the proper way to treat people who lawfully carry concealed pistols." Then tell me, just what is the point of having a CCW permit in the first place.

I firmly believe that most LEO's are only looking to do the right thing but it's those that choose to violate our rights and play Wyatt Earp that scare the hell out of me. When the court system, whose duty it is to dispense legal and Constitutional JUSTICE, chose to ignore our rights and protections as citizens, we can no longer expect that we have any rights or protections.

While I understand that this occured in Massachusetts where the common citizen has been reduced to a peasant in regards to rights (particularly as they apply to the Second Amendment), thanks to this court ruling, we should all expect to hear of more instances of this sort of behavior from around the country. I find it ironic that, in the birthplace of American Liberty, where the use of firearms was central to establishing those liberties, so many of the liberties we declared fundamental and inherant to human life are now just buzzwords of yesteryear.

What do you suppose will happen when (not IF) a legally carrying, law-abiding, citizen gets killed by an over-zealous LEO for doing nothing worse than exercising their right to bear arms? I expect that the officer will be cleared of any wrong-doing and the innocent victim will be buried as a criminal in th eyes of the government. I believe that this is the point where we will all be able to clearly declare that LIBERTY IS DEAD IN AMERICA.

Just my $.02

.

[KFinn]

+1!

I just find myself disgusted with some of the direction the Good Ole US of A is taking.

Why is it we have to fight so hard to keep one amendment right over another? We aren't cutting out the tongues of those that want their first amendment right. So why is it that we have to justify our second amendment right?

[Troublco]

This is another way for them to cut back on the average citizen's ability to defend oneself. After all, the only way to effectively rule the unwashed masses is after they're disarmed. They are pursuing this in the "Death of a thousand cuts" manner. A cut here, a slice there. If military personnel are not trusted with weapons outside a combat zone, why would they trust the peasantry with weapons?

Good thing I'm not cynical.....[ROFL1]

[Bailey Guns]

The funny (ironic) thing is, if Schubert had been some dirtbag carrying concealed illegally, he would have been arrested and taken to jail. He would have posted bond, probably plea bargained for some slap on the wrist punishment and been free to illegally carry concealed again.

This guy, a law-abiding citizen, basically gets screwed by the gov't and can do nothing about it. He's probably spent a small fortune in legal fees pursuing justice that is apparently unobtainable.

I don't have much positive to say about Officer Stern or our system of "justice" in this instance.

[Irving]

Everyone is so concerned about the officer's safety, when he is the one that escalated the situation, that they completely ignore the part where he makes a scene and disarms and abandons the guy in the middle of the street. If you're going to PUT people in danger, instead of protect the streets, might as well just quit your job.


An acquaintance of mine recently quit the Thornton PD after just over a year because he refused to accept the BS involved with being an officer. They basically told him to just find reasons to pull people over, he didn't agree and quit. He did the right thing in my opinion.

[Elhuero]

Cops do, every day, things that the rest of us would get a ticket and/or go to jail for.

They can point loaded guns at us with impunity, and can kill us if we do the same to them.

any LEOs here want to comment?


well, aside from this guy


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjGWuROfm54&feature=related

[Bailey Guns]

Cops do, every day, things that the rest of us would get a ticket and/or go to jail for.

Yeah...I'll comment. On this first statement, I'd say for the most part it's probably limited to minor things like traffic issues. So what? I probably stopped 10 to 15 people and gave them a warning for every person I wrote a ticket to. Outside of traffic offenses I'd say your comment is simply a broad generalization that you can't back up.

Are there bad cops? Of course. No disagreement there from me. Are all cops bad? No. But your statement implies all cops do something every day for which anyone else would be ticketed, arrested or jailed and it's just ridiculous.

Have you ever been stopped and not received a ticket? I bet most people on this board have. Not to mention few people are in jobs where if you do get arrested, even for something very minor, their jobs will be in jeopardy. I can't tell you the number of times I made someone throw their marijuana into the wind rather than ticket or arrest them. I doubt too many cops get caught with MJ and get to keep their job.

I believe we should hold police officers to a higher standard of behavior. Not an impossible standard of behavior.


They can point loaded guns at us with impunity, and can kill us if we do the same to them.

No, cops can't go around pointing loaded guns at anyone with "impunity". You can't even say that about the officer in this story. Sure he pointed a gun at a guy. But he's had to back his actions up in court several times now and there's no telling what he's had to do in terms of explaining why he did it that we don't see in this story. I don't agree with the outcome but apparently several courts have.

And if you're in the habit of pointing guns at cops...well, maybe you need to be shot. There's a reason cops wear uniforms with distinctive patches and shiny badges and nametags and all sorts of other shit on them. There's also a reason they drive cars with reflective tape plastered all over them that identifies them as police. It's so people don't go pointing guns at them. And if they do point guns at them, they're likely to get shot...deservedly so.

Sure, cops have a lot more latitude when pointing guns at people than the average citizen. The reason is because they are obligated to put themselves into dangerous and/or unknown situations. It's what they get paid to do.

If you, personally, are not fond of cops, I don't have a problem with that. Hey...everyone's entitled to an opinion. But far too many people, especially on internet forums, see police officers as whipping boys and can't seem to find anything positive to say about them.

You want generalizations? Nothing pissed me off more when I was a cop than to have some asshole who really deserved a ticket to start pissing and moaning because I didn't have anything better to do than right his dumbass a ticket. Rather than acknowledge they were going 55 in a 35, in town, during rush hour, the average guy will blame for the cop for not having anything better to do or simply just lie through his teeth that he was speeding. If the cop doesn't stop the guy you've got Joe Citizen on the phone to the cheif bitching that the cops "aren't doing anything" about the traffic problem.

You wanna pick out a particular instance of inappropriate police behavior, fine...I'll discuss it. But if you're gonna throw around accusations that all cops are bad, or all plumbers have unsightly butt-crack issues, I for one ain't buying it.

[Pancho Villa]

Remember, cops are people, just like us. I run a warehouse. A cop does his beat. Maybe he has more training than I do - and there is the very real possibility that he does not. Either way, it is a gross violation of the spirit of the law to treat police officers as some kind of protected class, who may do things that no one else can (and in fact, which other people would properly be arrested and put in jail for) simply because they are a police officer.

Imagine if you were open carrying and some home owner stepped outside with a shotgun and demanded you get on the ground, took your pistol because "you might be a criminal" and told you to fuck off until he could run a background check on you. Or if you were concealed carrying and said homeowner caught a flash of a pistol or a print.

The whole thought is ludicris, and if that had occured, we would be up in arms that the home owner should be arrested and severely punished for harassing an innocent man like that. Why was this police officer treated differently?

In my opinion, having a "protected class" of law enforcement officers is a very dangerous thing. Then police officer often becomes a job that attracts power-hungry assholes, rather than the upstanding, justice-loving individuals who we would want in there. I understand he's out there doing his job every day, but I don't think that should confer onto him special privledges that essentially put him in a legal class apart from the people he is supposed to protect.

Edit: Please understand I am not saying all police officers are this or that. I know my share of swell cops - and I've met my share of meatheat cops as well.

[Bailey Guns]

How can you say he was treated differently, Pancho?

He did what he did. He had to answer for what he did in court under direct and cross examination. Several times. It just so happens the courts agreed with his actions.

I would imagine he had some explaining to do if there was a complaint filed with his department, too.

I don't agree that what he did was right and I don't agree with the court's opinion. But my opinion on this really doesn't matter.

I really don't see where the officer in this case is getting any special treatment. He successfully argued to the court, more than once, that what he did was lawful. We just don't like the outcome.

[Bailey Guns]

I agree we should not treat officers as a protected class of citizen, generally.

However, they are offered more protections by law as crime victims (more than the average citizen) when in the line of duty that I agree with.

But you also need to know that officers are sometimes at risk that civilians are not...for example, when being questioned about alleged misconduct. Officers are oftentimes forced to incriminate themselves when answering questions about alleged misconduct. It may or may not be admissible in court but it can certainly lead to administrative punishment (including loss of a job). That's why the Garrity ruling came about. Even Garrity offers little protection when an officer is simply accused of misconduct and overzealous bureaucrats and administrators want to "make an example" out of him or her.

[Eow]

How can you say he was treated differently, Pancho?

Pancho is correct. If someone else did what that cop did, that person would be in jail. Thus, because he was a cop he was treated differently than an ordinary citizen would have been. That much is clear.

The question is whether the cop should have the right to do things ordinary citizens can't do. I think most would agree that they should have some ability to do so. So to what extent do we give them a pass on actions like this. I agree with Pancho's point that the more power that is given to cops in actions like this where there is no evidence anyone is in any danger, the more the profession is going to attract power-hungry ruthless types.

The job of a cop is tough. They have to put up with not only criminals but also moronic bureaucrats and politicians who have no idea what kind of dangers the cops face on the street every day. But their first duty (before any duty to obey their orders) should be to uphold the constitution. In my opinion, this cop, metaphorically speaking, whipped out the constitution and pissed all over it. He should be fired, but instead will probably get promoted.

[SA Friday]

Pancho is correct. If someone else did what that cop did, that person would be in jail. Thus, because he was a cop he was treated differently than an ordinary citizen would have been. That much is clear.

The question is whether the cop should have the right to do things ordinary citizens can't do. I think most would agree that they should have some ability to do so. So to what extent do we give them a pass on actions like this. I agree with Pancho's point that the more power that is given to cops in actions like this where there is no evidence anyone is in any danger, the more the profession is going to attract power-hungry ruthless types.

The job of a cop is tough. They have to put up with not only criminals but also moronic bureaucrats and politicians who have no idea what kind of dangers the cops face on the street every day. But their first duty (before any duty to obey their orders) should be to uphold the constitution. In my opinion, this cop, metaphorically speaking, whipped out the constitution and pissed all over it. He should be fired, but instead will probably get promoted.

Jesus, here we go again. Cops enforce law, civilians don't. Cops are obligated to protect people and put themselves in danger, regardless of what any of you wikipedia guinesses look up. Proactive law enforcement activities are the difference between someone getting caught with a gun illegally and the cops finding a dead body.

Cops can also be arrogant and brash. It's an ego feeding career that results in some cops evolving into everything from narcasistic neanderthals to out right criminals. There's a fine line between having to make the decision between affable law enforcement and going home in a body bag.

I don't like the way this cop reacted to this incident. I don't like the way the courts ruled, but I'm far from suprised. Ruling the cop was out of line drawing and point his gun would have caused a lot more problems than any discomfort any CCW carrier felt or feels in the future. My ultimate concern was the lack of the LE agency to do everything possible to prove or disprove an illegal act. He seized property and denied rights without knowledge of a crime. That's called a fishing expedition and is a very dangerous road for law enforcement.

Elhuero, In my 11 years as a Fed, I was held to a standard higher than you could even fathom. I was punishable for stuff the average citizen would have walked from, and laws and regulations that didn't even apply to anyone but me and my fellow Agents. You've never been in LE, that much is obvious. It's also obvious from your consistant posts in threads like this you have an unhealthy hatred for cops. Some day you should share with the rest of us what happened to sow that seed.

This ruling shows a weakness in CCW reciprosity. Work to fix it and resolve the issue.

[Eow]

Thanks for your post SA Friday, lots of good points. I wish all LEO were as professional and conscientious as you. I for one greatly appreciate the work that the good guys do to get violent criminals off the streets.

[SNAFU]

1- I note the sensationalism ,,It's an assault on CCW holders.
2-This happened in the Communist state of Mass.
3-No where does it say Mr. Schubert is from Georgia,if he was, is there reciprocity to Mass?
Know where you are and going,and reciprocity laws. If he was in NY he'd be jailed.
4-Yes I believe the LEO may have overreacted,but why? Was there a previous incident in the area?
5-"Officer Stern reasoned that because he could not confirm the "facially valid" license to carry, he would not permit the attorney to carry. Officer Stern drove away with the license and the firearm, leaving the attorney unarmed, dressed in a suit, and alone in what the officer himself argued was a high crime area."

I find this statement very interesting. Why didn't the LEO escort Mr. Schubert to the station for a possible illegal firearm possession?

IMHO there are too many unanswered questions.

[Troublco]

There are lots of things that lots of folks don't like involving police. Their job isn't a popularity contest, though. Those guys walk around wearing what amounts to a target, wondering who's going to take a shot at them next, when, and where. How many of us go to work with the knowledge that there is a real possibility that we could get shot during our shift by someone who just doesn't like us for what we do? That one minute, you're driving around and the next you're involved in something that turns into a gunfight. I'll bet that Bruce VanderJagt didn't go to work without thinking, at least a little, that what happened to him could happen at any time. How many people have any idea what it's like to go to work knowing that at any time, you could be the target of any number of idiots who, in some cases, are trying to "prove themselves" for gang membership or some other utterly moronic reason to end someone's life? You expect that sort of thing could happen in a war zone. They expect it every day, in the places we call home.

Cops should be held to a higher standard. However, at the same time you can't hold them to the exact same standard as your average citizen. That's what happens every time some idiot thinks that some soldier did something wrong and tries to hang them for it. You can't put someone in combat, especially in the sort of situations that occur with insurgents involved in urban combat environments, and then hang them every time some bean counter thinks they may have shot the wrong person. Combat is difficult, dangerous, and stressful in ways that can't be described to someone that hasn't been there. It changes people, forever. I have absolutely no doubt that being a cop is similar in many ways. They can't always tell who the bad guy is until they tip their hand, and by the time that happens the officer is behind the power curve. But saying that they have to protect everyone and enforce the law, and then say they have to do it while everyone with a cellphone camera watches for them to do the first thing wrong, is unrealistic. Is it right for an officer to beat someone after they're cuffed? No. That's brutality. Is it right for the first person with a camera to edit video showing only what they want to when someone has been resisting arrest with a vengeance? No!

Bottom line : Before you paint a group of people, in this case police, with the same brush, walk a mile in their shoes and then see what you think.

That doesn't excuse the times when an officer breaks the law, any more than it excuses a military member who blatantly breaks the regs. But you can't armchair quarterback everything. This particular situation was badly handled by the officer, I agree. But it isn't indicative of every such situation.

And I've never heard of an officer taking an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Military, yes. Not police. Their job is to enforce the law in their area of responsibility, sort out crimes, and protect the people where they can. Because let's face it, there's no way they can protect all of us all the time. I believe most of them feel that is their duty, some might not.

My earlier post was directed at the outcome; to me it seems apparent that Govt has come to a point where it (in an institutional sense) feels that the connection with the electorate has come to the point that we are there for it, instead of the way it should be. Especially now with Maobama's mob in there.

Soapbox moment over.

[SNAFU]

Remember there are those who give all for us too.
R.I.P. Big Thompson Heros
Sgt. W. Hugh Purdy, Colorado State Patrolman and Michael Conley Estes Park Police Officer

[clublights]

Sometimes we have to remember that things are written in a manner to uphold the writers view

Read the actual court documents .. and then you don't think the officer over reacted or was " out of line" at least I don't feel he did now .


http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=ponsor/pdf/schubert%20mo.pdf

[GreenScoutII]

Well, my take on this is that probably the cop overreacted to a percieved threat. The lawyer should have been released and his weapon returned to him immediately upon his producing a valid concealed carry permit. If for some reason the officer could not verify the permit on the spot, then the officer should have defaulted to the premise that one is innocent untill proven guilty, and returned the weapon anyway.

That said, knowing what I do of some lawyers, the guy was probably being a class A prick to the officer. To some degree, he probably brought it upon himself.

I've found that most LEO I've encountered are rational and reasonable human beings most of the time. If a guy is honest and courteous, most times he won't have a problem if he wasn't doing anything illegal.

One time I was driving south on Marksheffel road approaching Stetson Hills Blvd. The speed limit on that section of road was 50mph at the time. I was going about 60 as I was coming down that hill. Well, El Paso county had a motorcycle officer there shooting radar. He got me. He came up to my truck and retrieved my license, insurance, and registration.

When he came back, he asked if I knew why he stopped me.

I said, yeah, probably speeding

He asked if I knew how fast I was going.

I said, yeah, about 60..

He replied in the affirmative.

He then asked: Do you know what the posted speed limit is?

Again, I replied, yeah, 50..

He asked me then: Whats your hurry? Do you have a reason for driving so fast?

I replied, no sir. I don't have any good reason. I was just coming down the hill and picking up speed. To tell you the truth, I didn't expect to find you at the bottom of it...

He smiled a little bit, handed me back my paperwork, and said I appreciate your honesty. He told me to watch my speed and to have a nice day.

He had me dead to rights. I was speeding and he caught me. I guess by my being polite, friendly and not giving him a hard time, he decided to cut me a break.

[sniper7]

sounds like an over-reaction on the cops part to me, the lawyer should have had the gun "concealed"...if the cop could see it driving by there is a problem. the lawyer is lucky we wasn't nailed for open carry or something to that effect...not sure what MA laws are on that matter.

I understand the cops point of view but after showing a permit and doing what the officer requested the cop should take into account the guy probably has a valid ID and let him be on his way.

I am sure we aren't seeing the full story here.

My biggest issues are how the cop was driving by and saw the lawyer had a gun and why the cop didn't let him go after producing a valid ID.

both guys are losers IMO.

[Irving]

My issue is the attitude of the officer when he said, "No one is allowed to carry but me on my beat" or whatever he said. People who don't know, or won't accept laws, have no business upholding them. Everything else is neither here nor there in my opinion.

[Hoser]

Cops do, every day, things that the rest of us would get a ticket and/or go to jail for.

They can point loaded guns at us with impunity, and can kill us if we do the same to them.

any LEOs here want to comment?

So just exactly what did some Springs Cop do to you do make you hate all cops as much as you seem to?

You take every chance you can to bash all LE.

Its getting old. We get it. You dont like Cops.

[Irving]

You guys need to quit being cry babies. Elhuero is FAR from a cop hater. I'm starting to think you've never even run into a cop hater before, but I know that can't possibly be true.

[Bailey Guns]

Pancho is correct. If someone else did what that cop did, that person would be in jail. Thus, because he was a cop he was treated differently than an ordinary citizen would have been. That much is clear.

I think if you read your quote above you'll realize what you're saying really doesn't make sense.

Of course anyone else would have been arrested/jailed if they weren't a police officer. That's because they don't have the authority to take the same type of law enforcement actions the police officer does. Don't you suppose that's why cops get badges and guns and pretty uniforms and get to drive around in cool cars?

That's why cops can put you in handcuffs and take you to jail and not be charged with kidnapping.

Joe citizen isn't authorized to go around and arrest people at gunpoint generally, just like they're not authorized by law to make traffic stops and take other enforcement action. Cops are.

The rest??? What SAFriday said.

[Hoser]

Elhuero is FAR from a cop hater.

What color is the sky in your world...

[Bailey Guns]

If someone doesn't agree with El Huero's opinion of police officers they're a crybaby? El Huero gets to state his opinion and it's OK, but someone who disagrees is a crybaby?

Personally, I found the El Huero's post as quoted above by Hoser to be pretty whiny myself. But he's entitled to his opinion.

[Elhuero]

So just exactly what did some Springs Cop do to you do make you hate all cops as much as you seem to?

You take every chance you can to bash all LE.

Its getting old. We get it. You dont like Cops.


Gadzooks.

I was writing a reply to SA Friday, hit the wrong button and lost my progress. Got back in the thread and saw this.

On that note, I'm going to have to make a less than graceful exit from this thread, because at this point I think any answer I give will be wrong, and the senior drill instructor will beat me harder if I reverse myself.

Have a happy new year.

[espAmerica]

For the Court of Appeals write up go here

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=1st&navby=docket&no=091370

[Irving]

Cop haters have critizism for police no matter WHAT they do. I've only seen Elheuro chime in on stories about the police actions that are questionable. People are allowed to whine all they want, but labeling the guy as a cop hater is a little harsh in my opinion.

[Bailey Guns]

After reading the entire rulings from the district court and the appeals court I feel less inclined to so strongly criticize Officer Stern. Especially considering the state in which he works.

The court rulings paint quite a different light on the incident than does the original article.

[SA Friday]

Gadzooks.

I was writing a reply to SA Friday, hit the wrong button and lost my progress. Got back in the thread and saw this.

On that note, I'm going to have to make a less than graceful exit from this thread, because at this point I think any answer I give will be wrong, and the senior drill instructor will beat me harder if I reverse myself.

Have a happy new year.

Speak your mind. I do. We can't all agree.

[Irving]

Speak your mind. I do. We can't all agree.

Just one more reason why I like you so much.


I'm starting another thread in GD that we can all go have fun with. Maybe it will relieve tension from this one. ;)

[TFOGGER]

Nuke MA from orbit.....it's the only way to be sure (Maybe "miss" and hit DC too?)

[Troublco]

Threads like this are one of the reasons I like this forum so much. Everyone gets to speak their mind and be honest, and no one takes it personally. But at the same time, most everyone is mindful of what they do and how it affects others.

[Beer]

[Irving]

So did you guys hear about the court house shooting in Las Vegas this morning? A guy walked into a Federal court house and open fired with a shotgun. He shot a Marshal and someone else. I think those guys are okay, but the shooter was gunned down.

[MichiganMilitia]

Here's the latest that I've heard: The shooter and a courthouse security guard are both dead. U.S. marshal was injured but recovering.

[Irving]

Oh, that's no good. Have you heard anything about what kind of shot the guy used in the shotgun? Have they guessed at a motive yet?

[sniper7]

haven't heard of that one yet. sounds like he was a disgruntled dude that felt he was shafted by the court system...or could just be a nutjob.

hopefully more details will emerge soon.

[Irving]

Remember only a few years ago when a guy walked into our capital with a gun? I don't remember if he ever got any shots off or not though.