TN state park OC trouble

[Indy317]

Cops could have watched this guy... he strikes me as someone a good cop probably SHOULD watch, and perhaps even strike up a conversation with. But that's not what happened.

If these people are doing nothing wrong, then cops shouldn't be watching them. I don't want cops wasting time watching people OCing by carrying their weapons in their hands. If we are also so worried about violating a person's rights, why should someone doing nothing wrong have to get engaged by the police? No one here upset at the cops should be saying the cops should be watching this guy, or striking up a conversation with him. If he is truly doing nothing wrong, there is no reason for the cops to even be involved. This is how it should be, no police involvement at all. If everyone here wants OCing to include carrying guns in the hands, that is something we will all have to put up with. If there is reason for cop(s) to be taken out of service to watch such a person, and even go as far as someone they should engage in conversation, then it sounds like to me we have a problem. If there is no problem, no need for the cops at all.

 

[dburkhead]

If these people are doing nothing wrong, then cops shouldn't be watching them.

Fallacy of insufficient options and straw man.

Nobody is arguing against the police paying more attention to things that might (repeat might) suggest criminal intentions. But there is a whole lot of middle ground between holding ignoring someone and holding them at gunpoint, just as there is a whole lot of middle ground between sitting on one's own porch reading a book and scoping out the route of a Presidential motorcade from a rooftop with a pair of binoculars and a scoped rifle at ones side. It's using the high end response from the first in response to something near the low end from the second to which people are objecting.

 

[Denny347]

Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier

 

[dburkhead]

Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier

Just because you can....

 

[dross]

Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier

Please clarify how this case relates to this thread.

 

[Agent 007]

.

 

[Denny347]

Please clarify how this case relates to this thread.

Not directly. Just food for thought.

 

[dburkhead]

Well....isn't the big stink that the AK pistol toter had a shotgun pointed at him? (Among other things, of course)

Why, yes, that particular court, which, IIUC, does not set precedent for either Indiana or Tennessee, has decided that the police have the power to behave that way.

In much the same way that a different court endorsed "separate but equal" and yet another one endorsed the Dred Scott decision and so on.

Mr. Bumble in Dickens' Oliver Twist had it right, I think. "If the law supposes that...."

And even if the precedent now set in New England is also endorsed here, well, I repeat "just because you can...."

I do find it a bit troubling to see Law Enforcement Officers arguing in justification of the most they can do rather than looking for the least they have to do (when it comes to use or threat of use of force).

 

[cce1302]

Denny 347 and Agent 007, do you approve of the actions of the police officer in the article in post #183? In other words, would you consider it reasonable to jump out and point your weapon at a man who was lawfully carrying a handgun, check his license, disarm him, tell him you are the only one allowed to carry a weapon on your beat, and not return his weapon until you "check" his apparently valid license?

 

[cce1302]

Why, yes, that particular court, which, IIUC, does not set precedent for either Indiana or Tennessee, has decided that the police have the power to behave that way.

I don't know (I'd like to read the case) whether the court authorized police to behave that way, or merely did not allow a [STRIKE]citizen [/STRIKE]subject to sue because of the police action.

 

[samot]

Officer Stern "partially Mirandized Schubert, mentioned the possibility of a criminal charge, and told Schubert that he (Stern) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat."
For most people, this would be enough to conclude that they were being harassed for the exercise of a constitutional right, but the officer went further, seizing the attorney's pistol and leaving with it. Officer Stern reasoned that because he could not confirm the "facially valid" license to carry, he would not permit the attorney to carry. Officer Stern drove away with the license and the firearm, leaving the attorney unarmed, dressed in a suit, and alone in what the officer himself argued was a high crime area.

Ya thats cool, excelent example of proper police work. Lets take the gun away from legal permit holders.
I really like this..... "told Schubert that he (Stern) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat."
so much for rights, sounds like officer STERN is judge & jury

 

[Denny347]

Denny 347 and Agent 007, do you approve of the actions of the police officer in the article in post #183? In other words, would you consider it reasonable to jump out and point your weapon at a man who was lawfully carrying a handgun, check his license, disarm him, tell him you are the only one allowed to carry a weapon on your beat, and not return his weapon until you "check" his apparently valid license?

I would not have done what he did under those circumstances. But depending on how we received the call...YES. The smallest details can make a huge difference. For instance, we just had a run a couple of days a go of a male carrying a pistol while walking down the street. It was in his hand and NOT in a holster. Officers pulled up and got him down at gunpoint. Well, he has been convicted of several felonies and priors of serious violent felon in possession of a firearm. I still don't know why he was walking thru the hood with a pistol in his hand but he is pretty well screwed. Maybe he missed prison and felt like going back.

 

[cce1302]

"Partially mirandized"

Is that a euphemism for "told him to shut up?"

 

[fpdshooter]

But, but, but, he might have had a LTC, how dare you mean guys do such a thing to such an innocent person!

 

[cce1302]

I would not have done what he did under those circumstances. But depending on how we received the call...YES. The smallest details can make a huge difference. For instance, we just had a run a couple of days a go of a male carrying a pistol while walking down the street. It was in his hand and NOT in a holster. Officers pulled up and got him down at gunpoint. Well, he has been convicted of several felonies and priors of serious violent felon in possession of a firearm. I still don't know why he was walking thru the hood with a pistol in his hand but he is pretty well screwed. Maybe he missed prison and felt like going back.

Yeah, I guess if you change the smallest details, like the guy carrying the gun in his hand, then turning out to be a felon without a LTCH instead of a guy in a suit with a holstered handgun and a valid license, then yeah, you can probably justify anything. I really didn't think you could do it. Nice job.

 

[dburkhead]

Depending on how we received the call...YES. The smallest details can make a huge difference. For instance, we just had a run a couple of days a go of a male carrying a pistol while walking down the street. It was in his hand and NOT in a holster. Officers pulled up and got him down at gunpoint. Well, he has been convicted of several felonies and priors of serious violent felon in possession of a firearm. I still don't know why he was walking thru the hood with a pistol in his hand but he is pretty well screwed. Maybe he missed prison and felt like going back.

Unfortunately that does not describe the situation described in either the OP or the article which you yourself linked. Nor does it describe the more general situation that CCE1302 used in his "in other words".

I don't think many people here (I know I wouldn't would disagree with the police drawing their weapon when facing someone with a gun already drawn. And walking down the street with a gun drawn is not "the smallest detail."

 

[Agent 007]

.

 

[remymartin]

just bad manipulative press feeding the masses.

 

[Indy317]

I do find it a bit troubling to see Law Enforcement Officers arguing in justification of the most they can do rather than looking for the least they have to do (when it comes to use or threat of use of force).

Here is the issue: We have folks here demanding that cops basically 'do something!' Why on Earth should cops be watching, even engaging in conversation with someone doing "nothing wrong?" We all know the reason: This is extremely unusual and odd behavior, so much so that even if it is legal, the rabid 2nd Amendment supporters here want the person checked out. Why? Because there might be _danger_!! Why else would Joe Williams and you understand, and maybe even request, that cops watch someone who is doing nothing wrong? Again, we all understand that this type of behavior is extremely unusual. Not only that, the _only_ real difference here is the cop leveled his barrel higher than the guy with the AK. If you want cops to check out these people doing nothing wrong, because there might be _some_ dangerous issue that needs to be addressed, then they are going to take steps to secure their safety. In this case, what is the best way to confront someone _holding_, in a ready to fire manner, and AK-47? If the cop who pointed the gun at him thought this guy was breaking the law, then putting him at gunpoint was the sound thing to do. However, if he wasn't/isn't breaking the law, and I know that, and you folks make it so I can't take pro-active steps to protect myself when either "watching" him, or speaking with him, then I am going to do neither. I will drive by, cautiously, see it is a "pistol," and leave. I would likely not get that close to the person, as who knows if it is a nut case waiting to blast off a few rounds.

I am not a "blue canary" for all of you folks. I didn't sign up for involuntary suicide. That being said, I try my best to be familiar with as many laws as possible. I can deal with possible "quick draw" type situations, where I am dealing with folks with holstered guns. However, if the target of my investigation already has a drawn gun, I don't see why I can't have my gun drawn as well? And if I feel the need to point it at him/her, so be it.

 

[dross]

I am not a "blue canary" for all of you folks. I didn't sign up for involuntary suicide. That being said, I try my best to be familiar with as many laws as possible. I can deal with possible "quick draw" type situations, where I am dealing with folks with holstered guns. However, if the target of my investigation already has a drawn gun, I don't see why I can't have my gun drawn as well? And if I feel the need to point it at him/her, so be it.

I get your point here. It seems like what we have is a disagreement between what the police think is a safe way to approach this situation, and the law.

If it's truly legal to do what the guy did, then he shouldn't expect to face drawn guns and shouted commands and handcuffs. If, however, that's what he can generally expect to face from cops behaving in the interests of their own safety, perhaps Tennessee should change its law.

But let's say that the law doesn't change. With the publicity generated in this incident, as a citizen I can now expect the cops to know the law, so if I dressed in the exact same manner, in the same park, with the same weapon, and I faced drawn guns, I consider that to be a problem. The first time it was an unusual situation, now it's not.

If something is "legal," yet doing it creates a response that calls for you to have guns pointed at you, handcuffs put on you, and two hours of detention, I got news for you - it may be legal on paper, but it ain't legal in practice.