EEllis wrote:I don't see RS being affected by whatever Grisham is comfortable with.
And I am unaware of any law that dictates whether a rifle can or cannot be carried across one's front or back. Just because an officer doesn't like something doesn't make it illegal. Or does it?
Remember we are not talking about if it was legal but rather if there was RS, two separate subjects. Activities that are completely legal an provide RS.
But, in a manner of speaking it could. If "people" find that manner of carry alarming and courts find that alarm reasonable then ......
I've tried to stay out of this discussion, but it's killing me! A LEO must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, not that someone doesn't like what another is doing. Carrying a rifle is not unlawful, except in certain prohibited areas.
Pretext stops are lawful, but it should not be so. They are nothing but a method of violating the constitution. LEOs argue that it empowers them to prevent certain crimes and while possibly true, it comes at far too high of a price.
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
I've tried to stay out of this discussion, but it's killing me! A LEO must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, not that someone doesn't like what another is doing. Carrying a rifle is not unlawful, except in certain prohibited areas.
Pretext stops are lawful, but it should not be so. They are nothing but a method of violating the constitution. LEOs argue that it empowers them to prevent certain crimes and while possibly true, it comes at far too high of a price.
Chas.
I've been hoping you would chime in…….
Being the general curmudgeon I am, I think Grisham could have handled things better. That does NOT mean I approve of the TPD handling of the contact, the arrest, or the prosecution.
I have had non-firearms-related contacts with the TPD and I have always found them to be overbearing if not treated with what they consider to be due deference. I'm pretty sure the last one was with the same office as Grisham. I was questioned about taking photos of the police station (located across the street from the railroad museum) which made a really bad backdrop to some nice ironwork and garden gazebo at the museum.
Charles, it's good to hear from someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison
NRA Life Member Texas Firearms Coalition member
EEllis wrote:
But, in a manner of speaking it could. If "people" find that manner of carry alarming and courts find that alarm reasonable then ......
I've tried to stay out of this discussion, but it's killing me! A LEO must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, not that someone doesn't like what another is doing. Carrying a rifle is not unlawful, except in certain prohibited areas.
Pretext stops are lawful, but it should not be so. They are nothing but a method of violating the constitution. LEOs argue that it empowers them to prevent certain crimes and while possibly true, it comes at far too high of a price.
Chas.
I wouldn't want to argue with someone who knows so much more about the legal system than I do but I thing it's a bit of a misrepresentation to say that that there is no difference between carrying in a manner that concerns or alarms people and carrying in a way people just don't "like'. While I wouldn't personally assert as fact, except that the court case does make it fact, that the manner in which he carried automatically establishes RS in this case. It's obvious that the manner of carry could establish RS without a doubt.
Say what you will about Pretext stops but they are the law of the land and one of the unanimous judgements by SCOTUS.
After what Chief Justice Roberts did to this country regarding obamacare, I don't have as much faith in them any longer. Also, there are many things in this country that were once legal and thought to be good ideas, but were eventually either overturned or repealed.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016. NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
EEllis wrote:I wouldn't want to argue with someone who knows so much more about the legal system than I do but I will anyway
Fixed it for ya.
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison
NRA Life Member Texas Firearms Coalition member
EEllis wrote:Say what you will about Pretext stops but they are the law of the land and one of the unanimous judgements by SCOTUS.
Dred Scott was the law of the land at one time. There is nothing that sanctifies the nine justices and makes them the arbiters of truth. They have been wrong many times and will be many more, most recently with Obamacare.
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison
NRA Life Member Texas Firearms Coalition member
EEllis wrote:Say what you will about Pretext stops but they are the law of the land and one of the unanimous judgements by SCOTUS.
Dred Scott was the law of the land at one time. There is nothing that sanctifies the nine justices and makes them the arbiters of truth. They have been wrong many times and will be many more, most recently with Obamacare.
We have to have some framework within which we operate. The judicial system we have may be imperfect but it is what we have. If people operate within that system then it's a bit hard to claim they are violating the law when they are following the law. You want to have a discussion about morals then fine, but how the heck do you have a legal discussion and then say SCOTUS means squat? Declare yourself Sovereign and move on already.
C-dub wrote:After what Chief Justice Roberts did to this country regarding obamacare, I don't have as much faith in them any longer. Also, there are many things in this country that were once legal and thought to be good ideas, but were eventually either overturned or repealed.
Well what is the other option then? I mean we are here discussing the legality of a police stop and you what, want to disregard pointed SCOTUS rulings? Or just the one that don't support your view? How does that help understand current law and what may happen to people who chose to engage in certain activities? I may agree 100% that having a rifle in a front sling "patrol" style shouldn't be RS for a stop but if the courts find it is RS then shouldn't that info be out there? Shouldn't people be fully informed of the possible results of activities be? Is it really fair to condemn police officers for not understanding the law when they arrest someone and are are fully able to secure convictions on charges filed from that arrest? Sure the laws may change and even legal interpretations will also but who should cops look to if not SCOTUS?
You may agree with everything or nearly everything I've written and are just arguing to make a point. That would be even more insulting than if you actually believe that it is okay for the police to do whatever they want if they can articulate some bogus RS to continue on some fishing expedition. It may be what we have and it is sickening that some get to choose what they will or won't enforce depending upon their own personal beliefs. This man, as wrong as he may be about his methods to push OC, was railroaded and it was all started by this one officer. IIRC, that prosecutor also has some issues with firearms in the hands of the public?
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016. NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
EEllis wrote:I wouldn't want to argue with someone who knows so much more about the legal system than I do but I will anyway
Fixed it for ya.
Do you have to? Is this about the actual subject of the thread or a passive aggressive insult?
Again
I found it interesting that when the foremost expert on this forum on all matters legal expressed his opinion you felt it necessary to once again disagree and demand that your "facts" be agreed to. So I merely pointed that out by highlighting your "but". I don't understand why you can't simply say thank you, Charles, for providing your expert professional opinion and leave it at that.
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison
NRA Life Member Texas Firearms Coalition member
C-dub wrote:You may agree with everything or nearly everything I've written and are just arguing to make a point. That would be even more insulting than if you actually believe that it is okay for the police to do whatever they want if they can articulate some bogus RS to continue on some fishing expedition. It may be what we have and it is sickening that some get to choose what they will or won't enforce depending upon their own personal beliefs. This man, as wrong as he may be about his methods to push OC, was railroaded and it was all started by this one officer. IIRC, that prosecutor also has some issues with firearms in the hands of the public?
From my viewpoint, and the law, that if they can articulate it well enough for a judge to believe it, then it is not bogus. You believe that this system allows officers to make choices based on personal beliefs but what they should ignore SCOTUS and operate based on what? Maybe their personal beliefs? I'm not getting how that's better? Railroaded implies some lack of process and I don't see that here. Grisham was trying to push the boundaries of what was legal. There is always going to be a grey area where things can go either way and he was in that grey area. That is why we have jury trial. If everything was self evident there would be no need. Here the facts are all there the interpretation was the issue. The court interpreted the law the same way as the officer. That's not railroading thats our legal system.
EEllis wrote:I wouldn't want to argue with someone who knows so much more about the legal system than I do but I will anyway
Fixed it for ya.
Do you have to? Is this about the actual subject of the thread or a passive aggressive insult?
Again
I found it interesting that when the foremost expert on this forum on all matters legal expressed his opinion you felt it necessary to once again disagree and demand that your "facts" be agreed to. So I merely pointed that out by highlighting your "but". I don't understand why you can't simply say thank you, Charles, for providing your expert professional opinion and leave it at that.
and I could tell you the reason but it would violate forum rules.
Seriously though I could see the " in a manner calculated to cause alarm if the weapon was being carried at combat ready, high or low ready but it was none of these, it was capricious and arbitrary on the part of officers and he was arrested simply for contempt of cop. The DA chased all he could find just to support the officers instead of doing the right thing and telling the officers they were in a dark stinky place.
baldeagle wrote:
I found it interesting that when the foremost expert on this forum on all matters legal expressed his opinion you felt it necessary to once again disagree and demand that your "facts" be agreed to. So I merely pointed that out by highlighting your "but". I don't understand why you can't simply say thank you, Charles, for providing your expert professional opinion and leave it at that.
While I respect Mr. Cotten I believe I am allowed to have a differing opinion and say so. I didn't demand anything. I stated that I felt the way in which he referred to one issue was a bit misleading, to me at least, and I made a contextual comment on his view on pretext stops. Mr Cotten, like all of us has, has a viewpoint that color his comments and it's worth noting that he is a fervent gun rights advocate. Now I'm happy that's so and am very grateful for all his work and I honestly attribute much of my ability to have a CHl to him. That doesn't, in my mind, make him some neutral arbiter of all law and morality.
[sarcasm]Why are you trying to suppress my first amendment rights?[/sarcasm]
