TN state park OC trouble

[Wesley929]

So if a hundred police offices are patrolling the forest, may each of the 100 police offers stop, detain, and investigate this man for over two hours until all 100 individual officers have obtained the facts? Would you find this to acceptable behavior?

Thats an extremely loose analagy considering only 1 officer did what you are stating. The first officer checked his permit and let him go. The second officer stopped him, disarmed him, checked his permit, verified his weapon was legal, and let him go. The other officers did whatever during the 2.5 hours.

This scenario is completely make believe but ok. If the 100th police officer to see this guy thought he was breaking the law, and had no prior knowledge of the actions of previous 99 officers than yeah. I'd find it acceptable for the 100th guy just as much as the first. It be a statistical anomanly to get 100% of them to do so but sure why not. That would be one tired dude though. After being up for a minimum of 200+ hours (thats over 8 days) straight he'd probably lose it and shoot one of the officers. Then the other 99 would hear the shots and we'd have TN State Park WAR I between Embody and his 31 rounds and 99 officers. Bad juju for all involved in this ridiculous scenario you conjured up.

I'll bet if you pose the question to 100 officers with no prior knowledge of the incident, letting the officer that detained him at gunpoint tell his recollection of the encounter only that the majority would agree with his actions.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Your statement means nothing to anyone without sources. Your reputation on this forum is very respectable which is why I'm not flat out disagreeing with you and only asking you to cite the source of your information

Wes, no problem. You can always ask me for stuff, at least here, without imposing. This is Sparta . . . no, wait, this is INGO.

Here are the two biggies under Indiana law that I have in Tante Friede by my elbow:

Williams v. State, 630 N.E.2d 221 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (D stopped in car, and ordered out at gunpoint=arrest).

Taylor v. State, 464 N.E.2d 1333 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (holding D at gun point was an arrest which required probable cause).

However, earlier this year the Indiana CoA decided Willis (don't remember the cite) where the officers were responding to a call of a hostage taking and the court said in that case, as a violent crime was reported, that it was to approach with guns drawn).

 

[Agent 007]

.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What if there are 10,000 police officers patrolling the park, plus the National Guard, Civil Air Patrol and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir? What then? Huh? What then!!!???

Then we are going to need a bigger conference room for the depositions.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

Thanks for the thoughtful response, and yes, the scenario was a bit ridiculous. The point was drive home that our principals that help us make decisions in the gray areas like the actual facts of this case, should help us make good decisions in ridiculous scenarios. I could continue to offer hypothetical situations where the principal you articulate would produce truly ridiculous outcomes, like move this fellow from the woods with an AK pistol, to downtown Broadripple with nice looking 1911.

I think with the logic and principals you employ to justify the officer's actions is my scenario would permit gross abuse by authorities. You qualified your response, that if the other offices had "no prior knowledge of the actions of the other 99 than yeah." What is truly absurd is that there would be information sharing such as a general, "hey, i just questioned a guy in camo openly carrying a pistol that appears to be an AK and he's ok," would be expected and required especially in this forest scenario with limited officers and limited jurisdiction.

Without this expectation of respect for lawful actions, the pretext of investigation could be abused for any action which is not popular among the establishment, such as harrassing those who carry pistols, because as we know here in Indiana, it is illegal to carry a pistol without a permit. Thus, the police should be permitted to stop anybody openly carrying and investigate. Even more absurd would be substituting open carriers with automobile drivers.

Thats an extremely loose analagy considering only 1 officer did what you are stating. The first officer checked his permit and let him go. The second officer stopped him, disarmed him, checked his permit, verified his weapon was legal, and let him go. The other officers did whatever during the 2.5 hours.

This scenario is completely make believe but ok. If the 100th police officer to see this guy thought he was breaking the law, and had no prior knowledge of the actions of previous 99 officers than yeah. I'd find it acceptable for the 100th guy just as much as the first. It be a statistical anomanly to get 100% of them to do so but sure why not. That would be one tired dude though. After being up for a minimum of 200+ hours (thats over 8 days) straight he'd probably lose it and shoot one of the officers. Then the other 99 would hear the shots and we'd have TN State Park WAR I between Embody and his 31 rounds and 99 officers. Bad juju for all involved in this ridiculous scenario you conjured up.

I'll bet if you pose the question to 100 officers with no prior knowledge of the incident, letting the officer that detained him at gunpoint tell his recollection of the encounter only that the majority would agree with his actions.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

The point is that the reasoning and principals used to determine a cause of action when the situation is gray should also make sense when the situation is clear cut and/or rediculous. Simply put, with a report of a dangerous big foot put out to multiple people, once big foot had been found to be in the ok, the authorities shouldn't continue to hunt for and harass poor Rosie O'Donnel, er I mean big foot. I think its easier to say that harassment of innocent people who may appear suspicious should not be permitted. To be clear, I don't know or think the police in the OP's posting were harassing. But, when somebody does something that is within their right, but unpopular I will defend that person and their actions. I may not agree with the action, I may try to persuade the person why I think that action would be poor, but I won't rationalize their possible harassment because their activity is unpopular.

But what if the 100 police officers received a report of a Bigfoot dressed in camo and carrying a gun with an orange tip AND the guy that gets stopped, while not a Bigfoot, is really, really, really hairy and has a gun with an orange tip? What then? And what if a UFO lands and Obama steps off of it and says that the police are acting stupidly? What then? Does everybody sit down and have a beer?

What if there are 10,000 police officers patrolling the park, plus the National Guard, Civil Air Patrol and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir? What then? Huh? What then!!!???

 

[cce1302]

Even if it had been a rifle, what's the cop doing making a huge deal about it?
Policeman: "hey, you know that new law only allows you to carry handguns in the park, not long guns?"
man with rifle: "Oh really? Thanks, I'll put it in my car."
Policeman: "Yeah, It's pretty ridiculous really. The legislators seem to think that writing new laws about tools used in crimes will stop crimes from occurring, though there is no evidence of this ever happening. It simply wastes our time in all the administrative crap dealing with 'is it a pistol? is it a rifle? how long is the barrel? does he have a CCW/LTCH/CPL? does this state recognize a license from his state?' like it makes a difference whether a murder victim was killed using a rifle or a handgun or 3 rounds from a revolver or 17 rounds from a 9mm. I'd rather be invesigating break-ins, stolen cars, domestic disputes, neighbor disputes, graffiti, robberies, and all the other crap that goes on in this city than hassling guys like you who are just exercising your RTKBA."

 

[Agent 007]

.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

Too true, nothing with law is truly every settled or ever cut and dry. My point is that the reasons asserted for supporting the actions of the police in this situation generally would permit similar actions in scenarios where the same outcome would appear absurd (like detaining a driver for over two hours to verify they haven't broken the law.)

Changing the circumstances of an event, no matter how little, may affect whether police conduct is reasonable or not. There is very little that is "cut and dry" in the world of criminal law, and the slightest nuance might change the outcome in determining the reasonableness and legality of police actions. Nothing is black and white in a society of governed by laws that have to be constantly interpreted and re-interpreted by the courts.

 

[samot]

No one that i have seen in this 170 post thread has asked, why couldnt the LEOs just ASK the dude if it was a pistol.... You know, politely talking to him instead of shoving a shotgun in his face....

 

[dross]

Even if it had been a rifle, what's the cop doing making a huge deal about it?
Policeman: "hey, you know that new law only allows you to carry handguns in the park, not long guns?"
man with rifle: "Oh really? Thanks, I'll put it in my car."
Policeman: "Yeah, It's pretty ridiculous really. The legislators seem to think that writing new laws about tools used in crimes will stop crimes from occurring, though there is no evidence of this ever happening. It simply wastes our time in all the administrative crap dealing with 'is it a pistol? is it a rifle? how long is the barrel? does he have a CCW/LTCH/CPL? does this state recognize a license from his state?' like it makes a difference whether a murder victim was killed using a rifle or a handgun or 3 rounds from a revolver or 17 rounds from a 9mm. I'd rather be invesigating break-ins, stolen cars, domestic disputes, neighbor disputes, graffiti, robberies, and all the other crap that goes on in this city than hassling guys like you who are just exercising your RTKBA."

Hush your radical crazy talk!

 

[Indy317]

Another thought on this - a lot of people have been criticizing the 2.5 hours duration of detention. I think to some extent the guy may have brought this on himself.

If his object is to go out and make what amounts to a political demonstration by carrying in a way that is guaranteed to attract attention and test everyone's knowledge of what's legal and what isn't, then fine - that's a legitimate thing to do. But if he's doing this, he should realize that he is engaged in a form of political action and he shouldn't complain that he was inconvenienced while taking a simple everyday walk in the park.

What he did was just toss another gun control measure into the ring. Face it, we are a nation with a people who vote what they want. There are just not enough people to stop a law from banning the carrying of weapons in parks. I don't care how many folks the flag, the simple fact is that I don't know of _anyone_ who has seriously fought strong gun control in place like Chicago, NYC, etc.. It has taken years for the supreme court to finally rule on the right to keep, in your home, a handgun. That is _all_ the ruled on. Pulling stunts like this will not educate most voters, it will only scare the hell out of them. I honestly wonder how many calls the cops would have gotten if he had only OCed a pistol. This guy is an attention seeker, possibly also seeking a financial gain as well. What he will do is just cause more gun control for others.

Given how the court ruled in Heller, I don't see the supreme court ever supporting the idea of semi-auto battle rifles in the possession of the citizens. What we should be doing is keeping these rifles out-of-sight unless at the range, gun shows, etc.. Displaying these weapons will only cause more folks to run to their elected official and scream "DO SOMETHING!!" I just don't see many judges backing citizens owing these weapons. Sure there are a few, but given how the supreme court ruled in Heller, that court just won't back assault weapon freedoms.

Bottom line: police pointed firearms and arrested a man that was obeying the law.

It should at least give one pause and a nice fat federal lawsuit as well.

Yup, and a whole host of laws coming down the pike because some folks just _have_ to pull exteremly unusual stunts to prove a point.

(Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (Ind. Ct. App. 1984)

1994 and 1984. You know more than most here that the law can change year after year, sometimes even quicker than that. Technically, isn't _any_ deprevation of freedom an arrest in the technical sense? Also, you cited Indiana cases when we are discussing an event from another state. Is there any federal ruling on the pointing of guns? The only problem I have is that these OCing assault weapon folks are going to end up causing politicians to "do something." What they do won't help our cause. I don't care how hard you pound your chest about the 2nd Amendenment, I have seen one militia group try to "liberate" the people of Cook County, likely the most restrictive place in this country when it comes to owning weapons. We should be slamming this guy for stiring the pot. I don't care if it was legal or not, this kind of stuff only causes politicians to start working on stuff to "fix" this kind of behavior.

Yes, folks carried rifles back in the day no problem. Guess what, it isn't back in the day anymore. When a person does something to startle others, and that was _exactly_ his plan, usually others get taken down with him. Phsically, he was the only one hurt. However, what he did will affect others: Taxpayers will be on the hook for a payout if a court finds his rights were violated. If police change their tactics, and stop responding to these calls of people with guns (not shooting them, just holding them), they are then going to be sued when the person holding the gun finally starts shooting. Before you folks say that cops should check such a person out, I am going to ask: Why? If the caller calls in and says there is a guy with an AK-47, dressed all tactical, and he is just looking at a school bus full of kids...why should the cops go there? Isn't that a waste of resources, to check out a person doing nothing wrong? See, folks want everything. They want the cops to go and check these people out, but then they want the guys rights respected. So where do we draw the line? The government will eventually make having an assault weapon OCed in public illegal. Too many idiots will pump fear into the citizens by purposely pulling these stunts. The cops will complain because they are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If a cop gets a call, of a person with an AK doing nothing, and they don't go, lawyers will file lawsuit after lawsuit if that guy/girl ends up snapping and then starts shooting. I don't care if the cop did nothing wrong, the cops shouldn't have to face lawsuits for not responding to a call of a "suspicious person with an AK" when the facts given by a witness indicate the person is not doing anything illegal.

No one that i have seen in this 170 post thread has asked, why couldnt the LEOs just ASK the dude if it was a pistol.... You know, politely talking to him instead of shoving a shotgun in his face....

While I do have an issue with the time they had the guy in custody, I don't have an issue with the one cop pointed his gun at the guy. Cops are people too, and some will act differently than others. Officers will react based on many factors. The flip-out factor will raise the issue up a notch. This means so many people are flipped out by the event, that 911 gets multiple calls on the issue. Of course then there is the type of gun, something designed to better put down humans in the course of battle. As such, pulling this type of stunt is going to hurt us gun owners. The vast majority of people out there are going to want this guy checked out. The cops shouldn't have to do that, but too many people out there (and many on this board) will demand the cops do check the person out. Why, I dunno, but there would be plenty on this board filing lawsuits if the cops didn't checkout someone reported to be holding an AK (not firing, not pointing it at someone, just holding it) and that guy ends up killing their loved ones.


My guess is that folks here who were trying to sell their home wouldn't care too much for a neighbor to be out OCing, in their hands, an AK-47. How do you think prospective buyers will feel seeing your "all eyes on me" neighbor walking down the street with the AK in their hands. Folks, there are just things that society, at a given time, doesn't do. When the LA riots were going on, I heard plenty of folks were seen walking around their homes, etc. with rifles. That is not out of the ordinary considering what was happening a few miles away.

Folks should go ahead and strap on their favorite battle rifle and walk around their yards, streets, etc.. I hope everyone here who thinks this is a great thing to do doesn't mind me doing it when your prospective home buyers pull up in the driveway. I won't even wave to them, I might just stop, stare at them from the street, all the while holding my AK-47 in my hands, pointed at the ground. I am sure they won't think a thing of it.

 

[Joe Williams]

snip
I also don't tend to judge what people carry, but I don't see what purpose a person would need to OC an AK type rifle slung over their shoulder in public for whatever reason.

I know an awful lot of people who don't see what purpose anybody has to own, much less carry, an AK or AR type rifle. For whatever reason.

 

[Joe Williams]

The Rosa Park references are weak.

This isn't 1959, and we're not talking about a black woman, where she sits on a bus, and asking her, "What's up?"

I guarantee every member of this site would be asking themselves "what's up?" if this douche nozzle strolled by their house on the sidewalk all kitted up like combat town and rocking his "sawed off AK47."

And if you say you wouldn't, you're a liar.

I would watch him.
But I wouldn't draw down on him for simply walking down the street either. That would be no different than someone drawing down on me for walking around with my gun in the open on my side, which I often do in summertime. Police, or citizens, simply do NOT have the right to attack and kidnap other citizens engaged in lawful activities simply because they don't like those actions, or the way a person chooses to emphasize their rights.

 

[Indy317]

Police, or citizens, simply do NOT have the right to attack and kidnap other citizens engaged in lawful activities simply because they don't like those actions, or the way a person chooses to emphasize their rights.

Correct. However, all those people do have the right to ask their elected officials to pass laws restricting freedoms. This kind of stuff will only harm us, not help us. Think the US Supreme Court is going to back us? They won't, Heller pretty much shows how they think. Not only that, Heller was decided by _one_ vote. Yes, folks here can chest pound all day about how laws forbidding the carrying of battle rifles are unconstitutional. That won't change a thing.

 

[Joe Williams]

Another thought on this - a lot of people have been criticizing the 2.5 hours duration of detention. I think to some extent the guy may have brought this on himself.

It is a bit disingenuous to go out and pull a stunt like this, knowing he is going to attract a lot of attention, and then complain about how he attracted a lot of attention.

If his object is to go have a walk in the park and be able to defend himself, then he's best advised to carry in a way that is widely recognized as legal (or not recognized at all).

If his object is to go out and make what amounts to a political demonstration by carrying in a way that is guaranteed to attract attention and test everyone's knowledge of what's legal and what isn't, then fine - that's a legitimate thing to do. But if he's doing this, he should realize that he is engaged in a form of political action and he shouldn't complain that he was inconvenienced while taking a simple everyday walk in the park.

He has every right to complain about having his rights deliberately violated. Obviously, he was seeking attention and perhaps even hoping for a confrontation to garner it. It was downright stupid, of the cops to give him what he wanted, and attack a US citizen violating no law simply because they disliked what he was doing. Not to mention, of course, the manner in which they spit on the law they were supposed to be servants of, and the Constitution that rules our land.

 

[Indy317]

I would watch him.

Why would you "watch him?" Or do you constantly watch others who are just out exercising their rights?

 

[Joe Williams]

Why would you "watch him?" Or do you constantly watch others who are just out exercising their rights?

Same reason I "watch" the neighbors across the way who seem to have an awful lot of people pull up, knock on the door, hand money to the person who answers, and walk away with something stuffed in their pockets. For all I know, these guests are picking up their Avon order, but prudence and the safety of my son dictates that I watch anyway.

But "watching" does not equate to running over with my gun drawn and holding these folks until I determine whether or not they are selling drugs within sight of my son. Nor would the cops take such action.

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.

 

[dross]

The Rosa Park references are weak.

This isn't 1959, and we're not talking about a black woman, where she sits on a bus, and asking her, "What's up?".

Not so weak at all. Rosa Parks was an activist, her incident was planned and timed, intended to PROVOKE a legal response so as to arouse other like-minded people to the injustice of segregation.

Clearly this guy was doing something similar in tactics, if different in cause.

I guarantee every member of this site would be asking themselves "what's up?" if this douche nozzle strolled by their house on the sidewalk all kitted up like combat town and rocking his "sawed off AK47."

And if you say you wouldn't, you're a liar.

First of all, I wouldn't automatically consider him a "douche." And yes, I would wonder "what's up." I don't blame the cop for wondering, either. I only blame the cop if he detained him after he discovered the guy hadn't broken any laws.

Dressing like "combat town" isn't illegal and shouldn't get you detained. Carrying a legal weapon in a place where carrying weapons is legal shouldn't get you detained.
Being a douche shouldn't get you detained.
Being black in a white neighborhood shouldn't get you detained, but it used to happen, as recently as when I was a child, and the arguments given defending it were very similar to some of the ones I've heard here.

So, I'd have to say that the Rosa Parks analogy was not weak, in fact, it was quite strong.

 

[dross]

Correct. However, all those people do have the right to ask their elected officials to pass laws restricting freedoms. This kind of stuff will only harm us, not help us. Think the US Supreme Court is going to back us? They won't, Heller pretty much shows how they think. Not only that, Heller was decided by _one_ vote. Yes, folks here can chest pound all day about how laws forbidding the carrying of battle rifles are unconstitutional. That won't change a thing.

There is a constant battle between the pragmatism and idealism. If we go too far to the pragmatism side, ideals get trampeled. If we give in so much to pragmatism, rights are lost without a fight. The question is where to draw the line. It seems like this guy was trying to draw attention, which he's done.

Your argument is that that sort of attention is hurting our cause. I reluctantly, and slightly agree, because I think the timing of that kind of activism isn't optimal.

Others here are arguing from the pure ideological viewpoint, and I can't really argue with them. I can't ever argue with someone being absolutist about rights and freedoms. Bottom line - a person has the right to be left alone if he's not breaking any laws.

The real argument, the core of this argument is do you believe that the guy has a RIGHT to do what he did. I think he does. If you agree with that, now we're just discussing whether the tactics he used to acheive his ends are effective.

So, do you think he had a right to do this without being detained for more than a couple of minutes of polite questions?