War Veteran Arrested for “Rudely Displaying” Rifle in Texas.

[Ronin13]

I am trying to continue this argument, and I really don't get it.

It is impossible to provoke a confrontation with police, without breaking the law. Is that statement accurate, or is it inaccurate? If it is inaccurate, please give me an example.

Either you are crossing the line into breaking the law, or the police are coming over on your side of the line and violating your rights. And if they come over on your side, they have chosen to have a confrontation by harassing someone who they have no right to harass.

I define "provocation" as the party that decides to step over the line. When we're all on the right side of the line, nobody is provoking anyone. One could say that the cops are provoking you if you know you're going to get detained for legally open carrying, so whether or not you decide to open carry is irrelevant. You have already been provoked if you believe the cops are waiting for you on your side of the line.

What if a cop is unknowingly stepping over the line? What if he doesn't know for sure what the law says? Is he still being provocative? I only ask because law student had to edumacate the cops on the law... And it would appear that this guy was breaking the law by OCing a rifle. Know the law of the areas you are going so you don't break them.

[generalmeow]

What if a cop is unknowingly stepping over the line? What if he doesn't know for sure what the law says? Is he still being provocative? I only ask because law student had to edumacate the cops on the law... And it would appear that this guy was breaking the law by OCing a rifle. Know the law of the areas you are going so you don't break them.

If a cop unknowingly steps over the line, you can't say that the other party provoked him intentionally. If the cop doesn't know what the law is, you can't say that the other party provoked him intentionally. There is a line, and it is not gray. You're either breaking the law, or you aren't. One party has to step over the line for there to be a confrontation, and that party is always wrong.

edit - And I acknowledge that it is possible to both be on the right side of the line, and have a conversation with a cop. I understand that they sometimes need to know what's going on if you're suspected of a crime. But seeing an open carry weapon, when it's legal, is not enough to harass someone. Then they're on your side of the line and you should push back, because they're provoking you at that point.

[Gman]

And it would appear that this guy was breaking the law by OCing a rifle. Know the law of the areas you are going so you don't break them.

http://www.uslawshield.com/texas/texas-gun-law/

In Texas, it is generally illegal to carry a handgun outside of a person’s own premises. However, a person may carry, either open or concealed, in a non-threatening or alarming manner, a shotgun or rifle.

I've been shooting at a number of open public areas in TX. There's only one way to carry the rifle to the destination...on your person. It will be very difficult to prove that this vet was carrying it in a threatening manner if it was slung on his person.

This will likely not go well for Temple PD. Temple is also not downtown Dallas, Houston, Austin, or San Antonio. The meeting of urban and rural is a dotted line.

[alxone]

http://www.uslawshield.com/texas/texas-gun-law/

I've been shooting at a number of open public areas in TX. There's only one way to carry the rifle to the destination...on your person. It will be very difficult to prove that this vet was carrying it in a threatening manner if it was slung on his person.

This will likely not go well for Temple PD. Temple is also not downtown Dallas, Houston, Austin, or San Antonio. The meeting of urban and rural is a dotted line.

slung in front, mag in , road side ?that just screams stop me for being a dumb ass .

[Gman]

You guys have fun with this.

Out.

[Jefe's AR]

How about kidnapping and illegally holding his child hostage until he answered his questions?

[buckshotbarlow]

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.

Cats are a pain in the ass...200lbs of pissed off mtn lion! Elk hunting sucks when you come across fresh paw prints...As for the arresting officers, i hope they get canned. Then, I hope the dad makes his paycheck...

[buckshotbarlow]

OBTW, texas is a lost cause also...

[USAFGopherMike]

I'm headed to TX in Sep for training. Incidents like this are not what I want to see.

[spongejosh]

The law student has 2 videos on his youtube profile of him being stopped by police where he immediately becomes defensive and starts questioning the officer and refusing his requests. Also his videos start before the officers speak to him because he is planning on "schooling" them on gun laws.

The military guy has only this video of a police stop on his page that has many more videos than the younger guy. This video starts after the stop by police turns into a confrontation. His account later in the video is that if the officer approached and asked him to hand over the firearm he would have complied but instead the officer just tried to take it from him.

The second account is obviously hearsay but if everything is taken at face value, the military guy was willing to cooperate. The younger guy was not.

When the police are given reports of a person "walking around with a gun" it's usually from someone that doesn't have a clue about local gun laws. The police can't ignore these reports. Simply chatting with the officer for a few minutes and answering some harmless questions lets you walk free with your firearm after they determine the report of suspicious activity is false. Arguing with the officers opens you up to more harassment. The military guy claims the officers didn't approach him to ask some questions. They tried to take his firearm without asking and that's when he started questioning them. I see a clear difference between the 2 stops.

The main point is that people shouldn't be calling the cops on others that are legally carrying a firearm. Unfortunately the country has gone in the shitter and that's the way things are now. It's sad and I don't know if it can ever be changed back. If someone reports someone with a gun and the police just drive by and say he's not a threat then he shoots someone, the police get sued. They just want to talk to the person and see what their mindset is.