Active Duty Soldier Carrying AR15 Arrested and Disarmed in Texas

[38special]

Yet, he DID do this. ^^^

AFTER the cop illegally subdued him for not committing a crime.

I don't get why people think this is even remotely OK.


1) Walk around, not committing any crimes

2) Get harassed by gestapo cop, not having committed any crime

3) Tell cop you haven't committed a crime

4) You've resisted arrest - now you're under arrest.

 

[actaeon277]

Yet, he DID do this. ^^^

§ 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR
TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he
intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace
officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his
direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of
the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or
another.

But did he do this?
"by using force against the peace officer"

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Sure... let's say I'm called to a bar, because outside in the parking lot, two guys are arguing. The bar owner states that he told the guys to go outside if they wanted to yell, and advises that they may simply have drank too much. One of the men is armed (OC'ing).

Now, not a single crime that I know of, nor indicated by someone else has been committed. I arrived on the scene, and make contact with the men, but do not smell alcohol. Do you expect me NOT to disarm the person who has a gun?

Edit: obviously, you can't go disarming people simply because they have a gun, and there must be a reason "why" if you do. But a person need not have committed, or possibly have committed a crime for it to be justified that they be disarmed.

Ok but IMO that would fall under the RAS for "dangerous" from Terry. You have witnesses that can testify as to their attitude/behaviour and a weapon in plain view.

It would be logical and prudent to disarm them in this situation.

Lets take that one more step farther- would you search them for concealed weapons?

 

[j706]

No one will find many people on here that supports hassling gun owners. The problem I see with this video is how the complainant was acting. He acted almost like a meth head does or someone that has mental issues. Notice how he alternates between ultra hyper, calm and then back being hyper. They call that a clue in my line of work. A clue that the person may very well be not right in the head.


I understand that the guy was torqued off for someone calling in on him and you can't really blame him for that part. But where he goes wrong IMO is where he just plain acts like a nut job. The officer apparently got sent to a MWAG call and therefore has a duty and obligation to investigate it. I think any reasonable officer would have done just what the officer in the video did if they were greeted with a like situation. I would still like to see what happened before the filming started. Maybe the officer came across initially as a jerk thereby getting the gun toter riled up. However I kinda of doubt it given his reasonableness throughout the filmed part. I doubt I would have been as accommodating and as patient as the officer actually was considering how screwy this guy was acting.

The bottom line is when you have an armed person acting like this guy was acting, I think it highly unlikely any court will find fault with disarming him. Not trying to start a big anti LE back and forth session but I watched this a couple of times and that is just the way I see it for what it is worth.

 

[beachhead40]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10200171339344660 is how he should have handled it.

 

[CopperWires]

No one will find many people on here that supports hassling gun owners. The problem I see with this video is how the complainant was acting. He acted almost like a meth head does or someone that has mental issues. Notice how he alternates between ultra hyper, calm and then back being hyper. They call that a clue in my line of work. A clue that the person may very well be not right in the head.


I understand that the guy was torqued off for someone calling in on him and you can't really blame him for that part. But where he goes wrong IMO is where he just plain acts like a nut job. The officer apparently got sent to a MWAG call and therefore has a duty and obligation to investigate it. I think any reasonable officer would have done just what the officer in the video did if they were greeted with a like situation. I would still like to see what happened before the filming started. Maybe the officer came across initially as a jerk thereby getting the gun toter riled up. However I kinda of doubt it given his reasonableness throughout the filmed part. I doubt I would have been as accommodating and as patient as the officer actually was considering how screwy this guy was acting.

The bottom line is when you have an armed person acting like this guy was acting, I think it highly unlikely any court will find fault with disarming him. Not trying to start a big anti LE back and forth session but I watched this a couple of times and that is just the way I see it for what it is worth.

I agree with this 100%. Its obvious that this was a call from a citizen. The officers were doing what any officer would do and investigate. We don't know how he made contact but I'll bet he was just asking questions. The soldier, although not really resisting, is a hot head and that is enough reason for concern. If he would have maintained his composure things might have been different.

What I can't figure out is why they arrested him. After disarming him they could have asked him to sit in the grass uncuffed to cool off. Once he cooled down he could have his gun back and go on his merry way.

 

[j706]

I agree with this 100%. Its obvious that this was a call from a citizen. The officers were doing what any officer would do and investigate. We don't know how he made contact but I'll bet he was just asking questions. The soldier, although not really resisting, is a hot head and that is enough reason for concern. If he would have maintained his composure things might have been different.

What I can't figure out is why they arrested him. After disarming him they could have asked him to sit in the grass uncuffed to cool off. Once he cooled down he could have his gun back and go on his merry way.

I would say he was arrested for resisting anything and everything the officer asked or told him to do. He did NOTHING but give the officer a hard time through out the entire incident. He pulled away and did just about everything he could do to instigate and prolong the stop.

I guess a legitimate question would also be what was the guy doing other than walking with a long gun that caused someone concern. It may have just been a liberal anti gun busy body that don't like people with guns. Or someone may have seen something that raised their own personal suspicion. We are fortunate where I work in that we have the authority to disregard a dispatched call we receive if we reasonable think the call is a BS call...like a man walking down the road with a gun. Get them often. I ask is he doing anything else other than walking with a gun. If not I don't go unless something additional comes up. People often exaggerate calls and make maintains out of mole hills.

 

[Excalibur]

If I have a son who wanted to take a long hike by himself in a potentially dangerous area, I would first try to convince him to see if he can take a much safer route to earn the badge but if he has no choice, I'd still go with him and assess the dangers if I need a rifle. Personally a big cannon is only good if you are effective with it.

If there area is dangerous enough that I'd need to bring a rifle just in case...I'd tell my son to go somewhere else.

And if I do bring my rifle, I'd bring a rifle that can stop a wild animal hard.

If I was stopped by an officer, I'd tell him the reason why I am lugging around a rifle with my kid. I'd make him understand. Yes it's my business and none of theirs but if you don't give proper respects to the cop, they don't respect you or talk to you in any professional manner.

 

[finity]

Sure... let's say I'm called to a bar, because outside in the parking lot, two guys are arguing. The bar owner states that he told the guys to go outside if they wanted to yell, and advises that they may simply have drank too much. One of the men is armed (OC'ing).

Now, not a single crime that I know of, nor indicated by someone else has been committed. I arrived on the scene, and make contact with the men, but do not smell alcohol. Do you expect me NOT to disarm the person who has a gun?

Edit: obviously, you can't go disarming people simply because they have a gun, and there must be a reason "why" if you do. But a person need not have committed, or possibly have committed a crime for it to be justified that they be disarmed.

Isn't the observation that the person is acting angry with a gun enough of a reason to suspect that a crime may be committed? Isn't assault a crime?

However, if the person isn't acting "off" in any way before the cop starts harassing him then it seems that claiming officer safety shouldn't be a valid response to the officers own actions that instigated the persons actions in the first place.

If WE did that we aren't allowed to claim self-defense (which is the equivalent of your "for officer safety" claim). The INSC already stated that "fighting words" negate a claim of self-defense. If the officer used "fighting words", or their equivalent, then he can't then blame the other person if he gets pissed at the cop.

If I was stopped by an officer, I'd tell him the reason why I am lugging around a rifle with my kid. I'd make him understand. Yes it's my business and none of theirs but if you don't give proper respects to the cop, they don't respect you or talk to you in any professional manner.

Isn't that the difference between a true "professional" and just some guy with a badge, though? The ability to maintain the proper demeanor (i.e. professionalism) even in the face of someone being rude to them? Not that i'm saying the guy was rude - refusing to answer questions isn't being rude - it's exercising your Rights.

If you owned a restaurant or other business, wouldn't you expect your employees to maintain their composure when they have to deal with a rude customer? If they didn't then most likely most would be fired (or at least reprimanded for it). How can we expect any less from a cop who has the power to take away our freedoms than we do from a minimum wage worker at McDonalds?

Do cops have the authority to treat us differently in the eyes of the law if we're simply "rude" to them (IOW, not answering their questions) than if we did answer if we're doing nothing illegal in the first place? I hope not.

 

[drillsgt]

I agree with this 100%. Its obvious that this was a call from a citizen. The officers were doing what any officer would do and investigate. We don't know how he made contact but I'll bet he was just asking questions. The soldier, although not really resisting, is a hot head and that is enough reason for concern. If he would have maintained his composure things might have been different.

What I can't figure out is why they arrested him. After disarming him they could have asked him to sit in the grass uncuffed to cool off. Once he cooled down he could have his gun back and go on his merry way.

He was arrested basically for failing the attitude test, police don't like to be challenged and if you do you see what happens.

 

[finity]

He was arrested basically for failing the attitude test, police don't like to be challenged and if you do you see what happens.

In a rule where rule of law still exists, nothing SHOULD happen. Having a bad attitude toward cops isn't a crime.

I hope this post doesn't imply that you condone the cops behavior that would punish someone for simply dissing them.

 

[Excalibur]

Yes having a bad attitude isn't a crime but the problem is most cops can only respond to you if you act in a professional manner.

Try going to a diner and order a burger and keep calling the waitress a ***** or tell her to **** off and comment on how she's she whore because "the customer is always right" and see what kind of service that gets you.

Now this army guy was being loud, and yes, he wasn't breaking the law and it was really both side's fault. I'm just saying I'd just talk to the cop nicely, tell him firmly and in a professional manner that you are not breaking any laws and you are in your right and that's it. You can file a complaint and let the law sues come after the fact. Know your rights, just don't be an ass about how the law is literally a force field against people who don't know the law.

 

[drillsgt]

In a rule where rule of law still exists, nothing SHOULD happen. Having a bad attitude toward cops isn't a crime.

I hope this post doesn't imply that you condone the cops behavior that would punish someone for simply dissing them.

No, I never support JBT behavior and hold cops to a very high standard, I was just pointing out what happened.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Kind of hard to stay calm and collected when someone is reaching for your gun and shoving you into the side of a vehicle isn't it?

 

[actaeon277]

Yes having a bad attitude isn't a crime but the problem is most cops can only respond to you if you act in a professional manner.

Try going to a diner and order a burger and keep calling the waitress a ***** or tell her to **** off and comment on how she's she whore because "the customer is always right" and see what kind of service that gets you.

Now this army guy was being loud, and yes, he wasn't breaking the law and it was really both side's fault. I'm just saying I'd just talk to the cop nicely, tell him firmly and in a professional manner that you are not breaking any laws and you are in your right and that's it. You can file a complaint and let the law sues come after the fact. Know your rights, just don't be an ass about how the law is literally a force field against people who don't know the law.

The waitress is not acting under authority of the State.

 

[j706]

He was arrested basically for failing the attitude test, police don't like to be challenged and if you do you see what happens.

He most assuredly failed the attitude test. Heck he failed the moody little school girl test. He is need of some major remedial training/retraining.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Just watched the first couple of minutes again, the cops were being dicks well before the guy in the hat was. They didnt care about the law or anything else(they even said so) other than seeing if he was legally allowed to carry a gun

 

[finity]

Yes having a bad attitude isn't a crime but the problem is most cops can only respond to you if you act in a professional manner.

No. I don't have to act any way at all. I don't have to say a thing. Or I can tell the cop to F off. That's the benefit of (supposedly) not living in a police state.

Try going to a diner and order a burger and keep calling the waitress a ***** or tell her to **** off and comment on how she's she whore because "the customer is always right" and see what kind of service that gets you.

Does that employee have the authority to refuse service to the person? do they have the authority to jump over the counter & throw the guy up against the counter (no matter how they want to)? Does that person get to start screaming back at the person for being a jerk & causing an additional scene in your restaurant? Wouldn't you want them to hold their tempers & let you handle it?

Would YOU start yelling at the guy or jump over the counter & pin him to the ground (if you did then YOU'D be the one going to jail)? Or would you try to calm the situation or ask the guy politely to leave?

Now if HE gets physical first then all those bets are off, just like it would be if the guy gets physical first with the cops. If the cops start it, they can't turn around & claim "officer safety" when the guy reacts the way anyone would if they were attacked first. They should be the ones going to jail in that case. "Equal protection under the law" & all that.

That's why the ruling on the homeowner resisting entry into their homes was such a travesty & the reason it got the reaction it did. It's the same thing.