Interesting

[txmatt]

http://youtu.be/A8r4MK3R4PI

According to his own account, the police approached him, grabbed at his rifle without warning, and then he jumped back and told them they were not taking his rifle. He then proceeds to complain for 10 minutes, insulting the police threatening to sue and so forth.

I'd say this could have been handled much better on both sides.

[SF18C]

Chief Gary Smith on 254-298-5500

[Originalist]

What changes with numerous citizen complaints? If multiple people are calling in, they have to investigate, no?
Brian

Hypothetical. 911 calls come in reporting a man walking down the street with a rifle. The 911 operator has a choice. They can ask more questions (is he shooting? Is he doing anything threatening?) Or they can simply dispatch officers.

If they ask more questions, they might determine that the man's actions appear to be lawful and there's no cause to dispatch officers to the scene.

If they dispatch officers, the officers will investigate. (That's their job.) When they arrive in the vicinity they should observe the man. If they don't see him do anything threatening, they can approach, ask his name and what he's doing. So long as his answers and behavior aren't cause for alarm, the officers should then call in to dispatch and tell them the many is acting lawfully. There was a beautiful example of that posted here not that long ago. These officers acted as though they could do anything they want regardless of the law (they even stated that) and they acted as though the man had no rights at all. That's what happens in totalitarian countries. It's not supposed to happen in America.

I've noticed a conspicuous absence of any comments from our LEO's on this forum with regard to this. I find that interesting.

I am in the LE Community (USAF) and I chimed in.... lol

[baldeagle]

I've noticed a conspicuous absence of any comments from our LEO's on this forum with regard to this. I find that interesting.

I am in the LE Community (USAF) and I chimed in.... lol

My apologies. I wasn't aware of that.

[ralewis]

One of the accounts I read said he tried to grab his gun back from the cop. That was probably a bad move. It reminded me of what my first CHL instructor told me (who was a LEO from Horseshoe Bay)... "The Police are the most well organized street gang in the country." His advice was to be respectful with dissent when interacting, but ultimately comply and deal with the situation administratively/legally after the fact.

I also do wonder if this was an individual looking to make a point. Certainly he's within his rights to carry as he was, but a good attitude goes a long way. The language used (as reported) seemed to be pre-mediated. While this situation really angers me, I sense that there is more to this story. Curious to see how it all plays out.

[Beiruty]

His legal fund donation, collected so far $24K. The settlement of the civil law suit would be in $100,000+.

[EEllis]

but the officer shouldn't have stopped the guy to begin with.

Is it really so bad that the cop stopped someone walking with a rifle in an area where people don't normally carry?

Yes, if you value the constitution in the very least.
Are you ready for your cavity search?

It's not the same thing anymore than me stopping to talk with you equals me walking up and hitting you with a club. And if it happened the way I believe it doesn't violate the constitution, not even close.

[EEllis]

As I understand your post it is really completely irrelevant that a Peace Officer needs to respect any particular right as they can simply decide that they have an overriding concern and can follow-up with questions from there. Am I reading this wrong?
I am one of those persons that has to think twice before I would say 'No' to a Peace Officer. It has been ingrained in me since childhood. But too far is too far.

Look it's not freedom from any search or seizure it's freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. What they did, if following normal guidelines, has been declared reasonable time and time again by the courts. There are many behaviors that are totally legal but in the right circumstances make a person look suspicious. The police don't have the right to make you stop those behaviors or arrest you for it, but come on they can stop you for a sec to check in.

[EEllis]

Again, SCOTUS disagrees with you. There never should have been an opportunity for the officer to gauge attitude because there never should have been a stop.
Or maybe you don't have have a problem with "let me see your papers".

No, wrong, massively wrong. First the cop is free to walk up and make contact with anyone so they easily could of gauge many things. Second they don't need probably cause they need reasonable suspicion to investigate and SCOTUS has said , and I repeat myself, that the cops need to be able to articulate a reason that a reasonable person could believe. That's it. And when stopped he could of told them that he refused to give ID, except for his CHL, refused to say squat, let them check his gun out and if they didn't quickly let him leave then I would say the cops were totally wrong.

[cbunt1]

I won't comment on some of the particulars...but here's what I see, knowing I don't have the whole story (the video starts once things are in progress.)

1) CJ appears to be doing nothing illegal; although openly carrying a rifle might raise an eyebrow depending on where it's being done. While I generally agree that we shouldn't "scare the horses," That's a courtesy, not a requirement. If I'm a scary-looking dude, I can't really help that, and if you are frightened by my mere presence when I haven't approached or threatened you, that's your problem, not mine.

2) CJ appears to have been a bit "rattled" throughout the incident, and accordingly, maybe wasn't as articulate as he could have been -- some of the language was probably not helpful to getting his point across, and probably served to further incense the two officers. That said, there was clearly nothing he could have said or done to improve the situation. It looks like the police had already made up their minds that they were "right" even if they were wrong. This is further evidenced by the comment that they are indeed exempt from the law.

3) CJ's ultimate arrest was nothing to do with carrying firearms, brandishing, or any other pre-exisiting behavior (e.g. the alleged reason for the stop. It was allegedly for "obstruction." This fact, in and of itself, should be more frightening than any other aspect of this whole incident. Arrested for "obstructing" what, the investigation underway to figure out what criminal charge they can trump up on the spot? They say obstruction, I say exercise of 4th and 5th amendment protections...tomato, to-mah-to. There's no statute for "Contempt of Cop" so he's arrested for obstructing an investigation with the scope of charging him with a crime. That is the "papers please" and "guilty until proven innocent" part of this whole thing.

Let's focus on the truly significant portion of this encounter. The gun and disarming has just become incidental to me in the whole context. Being arrested and charged with failure to cooperate with the investigation whose sole intent is to charge a citizen with a crime is not a road I want to see us going down.

Am I missing something here?

[EEllis]

Probable cause is the legal definition of sufficiency to affect an arrest. Reasonable Suspicion that a crime has been, is being or will be committed is what LEOs need in order to lawfully detain someone (Terry v. Ohio), also known as a Terry Stop. Absent RS and a lawful detention, I can ask you if I am free to go and leave, I don't have to answer any questions and because you lack RS, you do not (as a LEO) have the right to unlawfully detain me, seize my property or conduct any search of my person or property (to include running SNs).

Could this guy handled things better, sure... Especially since he was recording... I personally am a big fan of "Am I being detained"... If they say yes, I ask "what crime am I suspected of committing," if they say no, I ask "am I free to leave" if they say yes.. I leave, if they say no, we restart the process. I always stress that I do not consent to any consensual encounter and I do not consent to any search or seizure.

Here Here!! Cops can make a quick stop and are allowed a brief time to investigate. Honestly they must to do their jobs but knowing how to react is important if you are going to be pulling stunts like this.

[texanjoker]

And the law also says that the police are allowed to stop you for reasonable cause.

And the reasonable cause was? It can't be that he was carrying a rifle. That's lawful. Since he had it slung across his chest it can't be brandishing. So what was it? Or do you think police can simply make up reasonable cause and arrest/harass any one?

I'd like to see more video. The officer responded to a call vs. just showing up on his own and stopping the guy. The start of the incident would be on the officer's dash cam if he had one, and I haven't seen that. The parts I have seen start when the guy is already at the hood of the police car so there is a lot more we are missing. The time to argue about your rights is NOT when you are being disarmed. Nobody wins when arguing with guns involved and once the officer made the decision to disarm him he should have complied. If he didn't like it go down to the station and file a formal complaint, air the video, file a law suit, ect.

[EEllis]

And the law also says that the police are allowed to stop you for reasonable cause. The reason they put reasonable in there is because it changes due to time and place but even if his actions are totally legal that doesn't mean the police are not allowed to stop him. Your behavior can be legal and lawful and still be suspicious enough to justify police stopping you. He was not charged with carrying an illegal firearm or any other crime but with obstructing the police while they were trying to do their jobs.

I have no clue where you went to law school, but I hope to god you are not a practicing criminal attorney. NO, the police cannot stop you if your actions are total legal and they just think you look suspicious. That is the point of needing reasonable cause, and walking down the road with a firearm in compliance with the law is not reasonable cause any more than walking down the street black is reasonable cause. Maybe you should re read your crim law book.

I'm not going to argue with you but yes they can. Running down a city street a 2am in street clothes is totally legal but if the cop can articulate why he felt it was suspicious then he is allowed to briefly stop the person to investigate. Can't arrest, can't make him stop, but can investigate.

[EEllis]

So an ostensibly law-abiding citizen walking through an area open to the public simply carrying an object that it is lawful for citizens to possess is not one of them. If you have so little regard for the Constitution, then you deserve what you get.

Bend over, here comes the TSA.

Because you say so? Well why go to SCOTUS bdickens is here to lay down the law! Guess what I'll give you one. Walking around in the sumer with a ski mask. Legal, can't stop you from wearing, and will get you legally stopped.

[Originalist]

Again, SCOTUS disagrees with you. There never should have been an opportunity for the officer to gauge attitude because there never should have been a stop.
Or maybe you don't have have a problem with "let me see your papers".

No, wrong, massively wrong. First the cop is free to walk up and make contact with anyone so they easily could of gauge many things. Second they don't need probably cause they need reasonable suspicion to investigate and SCOTUS has said , and I repeat myself, that the cops need to be able to articulate a reason that a reasonable person could believe. That's it. And when stopped he could of told them that he refused to give ID, except for his CHL, refused to say squat, let them check his gun out and if they didn't quickly let him leave then I would say the cops were totally wrong.

Therein lies the problem.. In Terry v. Ohio, in order for the cops to lawfully detain you, they must have RS. RS of a crime that has occurred, is occurring or will occur. In this case, rudely displaying a gun in not a crime therefore the detention is unlawful. Someone calling to report a man with a gun, when it is lawful activity, without some other information, does not give RS to a cop to make a detention. We dont surrender our rights because someone feels icky or uncomfortable. If the detention is unlawful then so is the search (running of numbers, looking the gun over) as well as the seizure of property (disarming) however, Texas does allow a cop to disarm a CHLer given some broad, easily manipulated circumstances (I say that because what judge isn't going to err on the side of officer safety, regardless). Now, since it doesnt appear they asked for ID, there was no duty to show CHL even if the lawful demand is in question. Traffic stop = lawful detention, this situation does not appear to be, IMHO.

Now, had the cop been a tad smarter, here is what I would have said... Some called and reported a man with a gun, I drove by to check you out and I noticed that the gun is an AR style rifle and if it was select fire, would be subject to the NFA. I am lawfully detaining you until I determine that the rifle you are carrying is semi auto only or that you have the required paperwork if it is select fire. BAM! RS explained and disarming to determine ok... I will say, the 2A proponent that I am, I would never pursue a course such as this. That is also why I will most likely never OC a AR like that because I dont want any cop to have any reason to come talk to me. I do OC a handgun in Virginia and Pennsylvania (where it is legal to do so) because then that NFA bug cant bite me.