Quote from: Wolfie on March 02 2015 06:57:00 PM MST
The LEO fondled the gun and let go, the man re adjusted it.

If you are allowed to open carry you should be able to do so anywhere, otherwise ban it.

Once the cop determined he was no threat he should have let him go, but these cops have thin skins and their egos took over.

The guy grabbed the gun and said "Don't disarm me." Watch the video again wolfie.

The cop walked up, there was basic conversation, the cop starting fondling the gun, then tried to take possession of the gun.  That is when the guy said, " hey, don't try to disarm me".  Then the cop pulled his gun....

Should we chalk it up to poor training (which is an excuse I hear quite a bit), the cop was deliberately abusive, or both and the cop escalated the situation with his behaviour?

The cop handled it totally wrong.

He should have came out in a defensive position right off the bat, ordered him to lay the rifle down and ask him if he had any other weapons. If so lay that it on the ground also. Then he should have asked for ID and determine if something was wrong.

If the man was a threat he would have easily killed the cop and his boss rolling in as backup.

The cops were lucky.

Wolfie, what you are describing is called a "felony stop".  In order to legally conduct such a stop the officer has to have a strong reason to suspect the detainee has ALREADY committed serious violent crime.  A man with a gun does not meet that criteria.

In order to justify taking this individuals gun, this needed to be a terry stop.  I don't know who represented Mr. Grisham, but if there were a question as to the elements of Terry being met, I would presume it was challenged and the challenge lost. 

Which brings up the big issue.  Thanks in no small part to a societal culture of fear regarding guns, we seem to think a terry stop of an armed person is a given, and that a felony stop is not unreasonable.  This cultural fear is reinforced by legislation such as the 94 AWB, another reason I think it was reprehensible legislation.

The reason this should bother us?  Officers are hired to protect citizens rights.  Public safety protocols are in place to ensure we can all go about our business secure in our lives, liberties and properties.  That is the reason police officers are paid.

And yet, in the name of officer safety, we trample the very rights these officers are sworn to protect.

I am not cop hater.  I wore the badge, graduated top of my class from the academy.  I have lots of friends that are still in law enforcement.  But, I think the current state of affairs doesn't add up to a free country.  And I think this case illustrates that very well.

In a free country, the cop would have not even felt he had the prerogative to question a man walking about in public with a gun, anymore than a man walking home from the store with a gallon of bleach and a gallon of ammonia.  The potential death toll, used with evil intent, is far higher for the bleach and ammonia.

I would call it more a "Probable Cause" stop as a call from a civilian was made. I consider a "Felony Stop" something you know a crime was committed. Most of my probable cause stops resulted in interview and release. All of my felony stops resulted in arrest. Otherwise I concur.

I worked at a Police department 35+ years ago. After two years I quit because the officers were no better than the average criminal. My experience with police today (the past 10 years) is that they are worse than they were 35 years ago.

So...

The police officer didn't look like he was doing anything wrong. He was acting a little jerky, but that would have to be accepted considering the type of people he has to deal with every day, and he doesn't know anything about the guy with the gun.

The guy with the AR was carrying it on a public street, in front of him, and in the ready position (left handed shooter?) with a 30 round magazine in the mag-well. The cop didn't know if the gun and magazine were loaded.

He said he was carrying it because "he can." It sounds to me like he was carrying it looking for a possible confrontation so he could assert his "rights."

The cop still had his hands on the gun when the guy touched the stock: One of the cops hands was on the magazine and the other one was on the shoulder strap.

Conclusion: Two egos collide. The cops ego won.




.

^^^^Thats the bottom line

probable cause = Terry stop.

What was the probably cause?  Man with gun?  That is not a crime in this part of Texas.

SqlBullet, a Terry Stop is a reasonable suspicion stop.

Normally out in the country this most likely would not apply, especially in Texas. But...the police received a call on this guy, so they have to stop and at least check him out.

As I stated earlier this stop could have been handled better...ON BOTH SIDES.

I will leave it at that.

Quote from: 4949shooter on March 03 2015 07:37:51 PM MST
But...the police received a call on this guy, so they have to stop and at least check him out.

No, they didn't.  Far too often a caller needs to be told that an activity isn't breaking a law and they CAN'T do anything.

In fact, they shouldn't unless there was cause, and someone doing a lawful activity shouldn't be bothered.

If he was threatening people, or aiming the weapon at things or people, different story.


Greg

Quote from: Geeman on March 03 2015 07:45:11 PM MST

Quote from: 4949shooter on March 03 2015 07:37:51 PM MST
But...the police received a call on this guy, so they have to stop and at least check him out.

No, they didn't.  Far too often a caller needs to be told that an activity isn't breaking a law and they CAN'T do anything.

In fact, they shouldn't unless there was cause, and someone doing a lawful activity shouldn't be bothered.

Greg

I am going to have to disagree here, Greg.  They have a job to protect the community. If people are calling about this guy (which they did according to the video) the LEO's have a duty to at least stop and talk to the guy.

What if he was some kind of mentally unstable individual, and the police did nothing, and the guy later went on to kill some people?

The police have an obligation to protect the public.

I believe Texas law even states that carrying a gun is not cause stop or detain someone.

Greg

That;s fine if this is the case. But, there is also something called a "mere encounter" where the police can stop and talk to someone. In this case the guy was detained when he started to lose his cool. It isn't a crime to lose your cool, but he put the officer in fear when he grabbed the weapon.

Don't forget, this guy was found GUILTY in a Texas court of law.


Again, it could have been handled better on both sides.

I've been stopped with weapons.  I keep my head on a swivel, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to now you've drawn the attention of law enforcement.  Well before their final approach, I handle the gun by the barrel place it against a tree or fence, or on the ground and take several steps toward the place where I can meet with officer.  Its just not smart to have that weapon that ready for use with LEOs.

I would then let them know I wasn't a harm to any one, but I really don't want to chat with them either.  That's (talking to LEO's) is not smart either!!!  I would ask if I'm detained, what the reason for the detention if they said "yes" and request that I'd be allowed to be on my way if they said "no". 

They DO need cause, and in this case it just didn't exist.  It just didn't exist. Not probable, not reasonable, it just wasn't there.

Greg

Quote from: Geeman on March 03 2015 08:21:41 PM MST
They DO need cause, and in this case it just didn't exist.  It just didn't exist. Not probable, not reasonable, it just wasn't there.

Greg, I agree with you completely. This stop was untenable. It was exceedingly weak. There simply wasn't sufficient information for the officers to determine, as a reasonable and prudent man, that there was evidence a crime had been or was being committed by the guy just walking around with a gun. He shouldn't have touched the citizen or his weapon until he had developed probable cause sufficient to affect an arrest. He should have asked what the guy was doing, why he needed the gun, if he was lawfully allowed to possess the weapon, and then let the guy go on his way. Clearly this was another instance of a police officer becoming uncomfortable with a situation that they typically have little training in and he reacted rashly, to the point of over-reaching in his authority to the detriment of the citizen with the rifle.

The stop should have merely been an encounter, which the citizen should have been freely able to break off at any point, because there was no reasonable suspicion sufficient to conduct a stop (a detainment) for the purpose of investigation. Unless the citizen had pointed the weapon at someone (or "brandished" in some jurisdictions) or done something else to lead the officers to have probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion, they had no business fully detaining him in the first place. He should have been allowed to walk free, unmolested, whenever he wanted and the instant he wasn't able to he was being detained unlawfully.