http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes...ing-rifle.html
this is clearly bull. comments?
Printable View
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes...ing-rifle.html
this is clearly bull. comments?
F@#%
What else can you say? Arresting officer should be fired.
As always, I'd want to hear the other side of the story but I'm inclined to think both police officers should be busted down to rookie status and forced to lecture at schools and citizen groups on citizens' rights under the Constitution. It'd be more of an object lesson to others on the force if they have to see those two sans stripes daily for clear unimpeachable and egregious rights violations than firing would be. Perhaps Temple would then get more Justice and less Sheriff Buford T. Justice.
Welcome to Texas ...so much for it being the last bastion of hope for us all.
There are some disparaging comments about Grisham being a "professional victim" in the comments section, and questioning his service. I don't think any of that is relevant. What's relevant is that this man was exercising his rights and was outright harassed by the police.
His arresting offense amounts to "scaring the liberals".
IN TEXAS.
WTF So he could have avoided this if he'd been "politely displaying" ?
What crap. That officer should be suspended if not outright fired. I bet he voted for our current president. Sheesh!
Geez.....
Bye bye free country.
Yeah. That's the problem. Not law-abiding citizens with guns. What a stupid thing to say. Why not correct the misinformed person as to what is actually legal?Quote:
“In this day and age people are alarmed when they see someone with what you have,” one of the officers told a handcuffed Grisham. “They don’t care what the law is.”
If you watch the videos, that's exactly what Grisham suggests to the police.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Holy crap
I couldn't understand most of what he or the officers said. But he's right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylinder Head
We know what is best for you, politely obey or you will be shown how to obey
Wow, that's messed up. Isn't there a supreme court decision that says you can resist unlawful arrest? With force if necessary?
thats exactly what I was thinking....... scary to think about, and in this case, he'll probably get rich, but unlawful arrest is unlawful arrest.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
Yeah but we all know how that endsQuote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
Disgusting. No "official immunity" for those officers...
I just want to throw this thread back up there, to remind everyone here how certain members feel about this sort of thing:
http://www.ar-15.co/threads/91813-Po...ht=law+student
If you don't want to go back and read, I can summarize:
A) This guy was a dick for carrying an unconcealed weapon
B) He's a dick for knowing his rights and arguing with a police officer
C) He's a dick for recording it
D) You're an idiot for agreeing with anything he did.
At work so I can't watch the videos, but my understanding of the difference between these two cases is that there's a difference between open carry (this one), and open carry with intent to sue (the one you linked).Quote:
Originally Posted by generalmeow
im not saying the cops are right but .... if he had his rifle slung across his back and unloaded till he was 100 yards from the highway then all this could have been avoided .......[Coffee]
There's a difference generalmeow. The law student you're talking about appeared to be trying to provoke a confrontation. In this instance, the subject was NOT trying to provoke a confrontation with the police, was NOT tossing a string of legal citations at the officer, etc. Completely different situations -- one makes the general community looks like asses (which the rest of us don't appreciate), the other makes the officers in question look like asses.
How do you know the kid was looking for a confrontation? How do you know this guy wasn't? I read on another forum that this same guy has other videos of similar confrontations with police.
The difference between the two videos seems to be that in this one, the cop didn't care that he was violating rights and continued on with the arrest, thus pissing you off. In the other video, the cop realized he was violating rights, and backed off, thus pissing you off, because who the fuck does this punk kid think he is?
They are literally identical situations, as far as the law is concerned. And if you're not breaking the law, you're not breaking the law, and you shouldn't get harassed.
The kid's video was typical of ambush "journalism" style videos and he was open carrying in an urban setting KNOWN to be overly sensitive. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to deduce the obvious. In the vet's case, he was hiking through in a rural area -- clearly not a setting you expect to encounter a lot of people, particularly LEOs. Again, I don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce he wasn't trying to set up a confrontation. Absolutely NOT identical situations and you have to be an extremist to take them as such.
Here is the link to the full video :
http://vimeo.com/62032686
"we are exempt from the law" wow.
That dude has some $$$ coming his way from the lawsuit.
terrifying....Quote:
Originally Posted by griebel303
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Giv
yup... agreed...
He definitely has money coming his way. Sad to see this happen in Texas of all places. I think the full video sheds more light onto the situation then the brief 30 second videos
What shit bag cops.
I was also very sad to see this go down in TX. If it were somewhere East coast I'd stomach it much more easily. These cops were in a tough spot because the people calling were likely panicing. Reports were probably that some guy was dressed up and carrying an assault rifle. Jamming up the law abiding good guys is exactly where this country is heading unfortunately and this guy will have an arrest record now even though the charges will not stick. Such bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by griebel303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
Tell me how legally they are not the same situation. And as far as I'm aware, the cops should only care about the law, not whether the person is a dick or not.
And again, I read, but have not bothered to confirm, that this same vet has other videos of himself in similar situations. And I bet there are no other videos of the law student.
I understand what you're trying to say, an as far as you're aware you're grabbing at straws here. Aloha already explained it, no need to continue on with arguing against it. Intent is the key word you're looking for. The law student went out with the intent to be contacted by LEO(s), this guy was carrying his rifle in case of contact with an animal. Completely different.Quote:
Originally Posted by generalmeow
So you guys say it, and it's fact? No point in arguing? I know why you're arguing it Ronin - because you said it was a dick move to not give your name to the police, even if your rights are being violated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
Where are you getting your information from that the law student had the intent to get abused by the cops? You don't think he would have been happier if he didn't get abused? I'm sure he had the intention, and expectation, of never getting harassed by police, because the law says he shouldn't get harassed. And his expectation was that the police would follow the law. That would be my expectation when I'm following the law.
He had the intent that if he was harassed, he would film it. So did this guy. I know, because that's what he did.
Let me announce my intention that if my rights are ever being violated, and I have a video camera on me, I will film it. Doesn't mean I'm looking for it. I would prefer my rights not get violated. So do I now have the intent to lure the police into violating my rights?
Yep.. Texas is the next in line for subjugation.
http://www.akfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146402
Here's another scenario: Everyone tells me if I drive on this certain road at 65mph, which is the speed limit, I'm going to get pulled over and harassed for 20 minutes, because people complain about others driving the speed limit because they have kids nearby. And at that point, of course, the cop has no other option but to pull you over and harass you.
If I was going to drive that stretch, am I asking for it by going 65? If I'm filming it to prove that I'm not breaking the law, proactively, am I being a dick? Do I have the INTENT to fuck with the police? No! I'm going to drive 65, and I probably would be ready to film it. If the cop wants to pull me over, I'm going to be a complete dickhead, and I'm going to post the video online.
I don't know what you don't get about the intention to provoke a confrontation being different from being accosted in an innocuous situation. I open carried yesterday while I was running errands but C Springs is a different city and I don't think anyone even blinked at me. I have a legal right to wear a T-shirt saying "Obama is a Socialist dictator". I will get entirely different reactions wearing it to an NAACP meeting and a Tea Party caucus -- and honestly, I'd say anyone wearing a shirt like that to a NAACP meeting was looking to provoke a confrontation and makes the rest of the non-Obamaniacs look like dicks which is about what Mr. Law Student did for gun owners.
I don't get where you saw anyone was provoking a confrontation, except the police, in both videos. If you're not breaking the law, you're not breaking the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
It's impossible to provoke a confrontation with police, without breaking the law. And since nobody was breaking the law, nobody was provoking confrontation.
You can trick the police into thinking you're violating the law, in which case I'm sure you're violating the law somehow. There was no trickery going on.
The only people who violated the law were the police, therefore the provocation was theirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by generalmeow
Are you just trying to continue this argument, or do you really not get it?Quote:
Originally Posted by generalmeow
In case you actually are dense enough to not grasp what Aloha and I are trying to say, let's put it in terms you'll understand, or at least someone with similar capacity... Guy 1 grabs a camera, straps on his trusty .45, goes out INTO THE CITY where the potential for many anti-gun folk is. He wants to be a YouTube sensation and show that he can flex his mental muscles with the vast knowledge of case law and make a cop look stupid. He does such, uploads the video, and says "lookie here! I was harrassed by a cop that wasn't 100% familiar with 100% of the thousands upon thousands of laws and regulations out there, and man, I sent him to school! HAHAHA"
Guy #2, wants to go hiking with his son, and straps on his AR-15 and trusty .45 in case of any predatory animals that may happen along the way. They're going hiking in a RURAL area, where odds are he won't encounter any people, most certainly cops. But as poor luck would have it, some cops happen upon him and his son and detain him. He has his son record the incident so that he may present to court that he was breaking no law.
Get it? And yes, it is a dick move to not even offer your name, I don't know why you single that one part out... If you were to encounter me on the street and I ask "hey, so I can call you something, what's your name?" If you refuse, then I guess I can assume you'll be okay with me calling you Nancy, or something, right?