Texas CHL Holder Arrested for “Rudely Diplaying” a Rifle

[Hush]

Texas CHL Holder Arrested for “Rudely Diplaying” a Rifle
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/0 ... g-a-rifle/

[66427vette]

Fail on both sides . He wanted to be arrested just another open carry moron.He could of been on his way in two min if he wanted to. Being loud and a smartass loudmouth with police will only get you a ticket or a lumping. Right or wrong that is how it works.

[johndoe3]

I disagree 66427. Are you serious in calling the person involved a moron for having a rifle in rural Texas? So in your view, any person out hunting and carrying a rifle or shotgun is a moron and subject to police harrassment and jail? Why are you in the gun business if you think every gunowner is a moron?

I hope there is a serious investigation leading to suspension or firing the 2 city police involved. After all this occurred on a rural country road and not in the city of Temple. The person was breaking no law in having a rifle in rural Texas. The video is a serious indictment on the behavior of the two officers. The policeman never asked the person to temporarily give him the rifle, he just attempted to grab it. I'm sure most law enforcement on this site would agree that the 2 policemen acted irresponsibly, causing the situation.

I listened to an interview on the radio today where the person involved explained everything that happened. The prosecutor already dropped the bogus charge (a non-law of rudely displaying a rifle) and only has remaining "resistance of arrest". I don't think a person can be convicted for resisting arrest when the police have no underlying charge to arrest him in the first place. The person is exploring a massive civil lawsuit against the 2 police and their department.

That said, a fair investigation would also include the dash camera footage for the police cars, since it shows the start of everything. The dash camera may help or further hurt the 2 policeman's side of the story.

[66427vette]

Just another dumb cop and open carry idiot looking to put video on the Internet. Getting loud with cops will get you nowhere fast . I learned at a young age how the cop game works .

[doubloon]

If someone calls the po-po to report "I saw somebody walking down the road with a gun and I'm scared/concerned" then the po-po has an obligation to investigate.

When the po-po rolls up on you you have no idea why, he could be investigating a shooting in the area and you're the first person someone reported with a gun.

In the course of investigation the po-po has the legal right and maybe even the duty to disarm the individual(s) in question in the interest of everyone's safety until the situation is sorted out.

So, yes, if a hunter is carrying a rifle or a shotgun and someone calls the po-po on them then he is subject to police harassment if he is a moron like the guy in the video. That guy bowed up immediately screaming about laws he doesn't understand and then later in the video he's talking about being manhandled when they pluck his hat off his head. He has no clue about manhandling.

For his sake and his family's I hope he gets cut some slack by agreeing to enroll in some education and make a public formal apology for his behavior. If he stops being a jackass maybe he'll get to keep his CHL.

[wolf]

what if nobody made a call ,, whats your verdict then ??

i i remember correct
be polite,, be professional , but always,,,,

is it so hard to kindly ask to see somebodys property
is it so hard to explain

And the sarge’s “we’re exempt from the law” comment is a proff of him being wrong
or are you saying that he is right on that one ??

if a person who supposedly should be a cop , dont know the law , one might think he isnt a cop , in that case its unlawful to give him you weapon

YOU are responsible for what a criminal does with a weapon you give him

[doubloon]

In this particular case there was a phoned in complaint, or so it was said, which I'm sure you know already.

If I were detained I see it going something like this.

If the information for why I am being detained is not offered I'm going to politely ask for what reason I am being detained. If I don't get a reason or the reason doesn't seem like it has any legal grounds (somebody complained, this is a designated gun-free victim zone, you're trespassing, etc.) then I will state that I respectfully protest the detainment and any subsequent search and/or seizure. No, I am not going to say anything about getting a warrant. Not only do I believe the officer(s) already know all the procedures for getting a warrant and whether or not they need one, just the feigned attempt at getting a warrant means I'm stuck there longer while everybody in the chain takes there sweet-ever-lovin-Mary time to go through the motions to even pretend to want to get a warrant.

From the point of my respectful protest it can go a few ways.

1. The officer(s) may decide to honor my respectful protest and let me go about my business.

2. The officer(s) may or may not acknowledge my respectful protest and indicate my cooperation is required whether voluntary or by force. From where I may choose:
a) Cooperate and file a complaint after the fact.
b) Get shoved around a little, get cuffed and i) put in the back of a squad car or ii) let go.
c) Taste pavement, get cuffed and put in the back of a squad car.
d) Overpower the officer(s) attempting to detain me and take my chances at a trial assuming I live to get a trial.

I'm definitely going with the respectful protest and I won't be spouting any penal code or Constitutional references or calling anyone stupid or making any comments about the incompetence of my hosts or even challenging any comment the officer(s) may make about the law not applying to them. The odds of me educating an officer in the field in the middle of a detainment/arrest are about 100% less likely than me being the sole winner of the next powerball drawing without buying a ticket. It would be about like trying to convince Fulmen god exists.

I'm hoping for option 1. after I voice my protest but if we end up at option 2. it will be my preference to go with "a)". If you want to see what "b)i)" looks like go back to the video.

[johndoe3]

So, yes, if a hunter is carrying a rifle or a shotgun and someone calls the po-po on them then he is subject to police harassment if he is a moron like the guy in the video. That guy bowed up immediately screaming about laws he doesn't understand and then later in the video he's talking about being manhandled when they pluck his hat off his head. He has no clue about manhandling.

We don't have both sides of the story yet, but...

Doubloon, it is the job of the dispatcher to handle the call responsibly and ask whether the person is committing a crime or warrants the police investigating. An anti-gun person with an agenda (and there are those nutcases out there) can call and say that a person is shooting at the nice feral pigs. Doesn't the dispatcher need to ask where it is taking place and if a rural area, say that no crime is taking place? What I am saying is that just because a PETA or anti-gun person calls the police on 911, it doesn't necessarily warrant your statement that po-po must respond to the call. And even if the police do respond, it is responsible to not escalate the situation needlessly.

Here's an example today of a senior police detective in GA, who pulled a gun on the driver of the car in front of him in the drive-thru window at McDonalds, because the line was too slow. It is "maybe" symptomatic of the situation above in Texas.

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/288 ... ead-of-him

Think of what would happen if Texas got Constitutional Carry? Why the police would be called on every legal person carrying and wouldn't have time for any other police work. In Constitutional Carry States, the dispatchers work through the calls to stop sending officer responses to the sightings of law abiding citizens with guns.

[doubloon]

i agree, I do not yet have access to all the facts and it may be I never will.

I understand what is the job of the dispatcher and I saw the article about the guy in line at the drive through. Neither of those has anything to do with how a person should handle themselves once the moment is upon them that they are confronted with an officer of the law who is asking for their cooperation. I'm pretty sure the detective at McWaddles wasn't dispatched in line behind the stuttering kid.

If you want to talk about how a dispatcher should or should not go about their job or how officers should conduct themselves in non-emergency situations then by all means we should talk about stuff like that. However, the way this thread started out and what my post attempts to address is an interaction between officers who have been dispatched to investigate a man carrying a gun and how the man carrying the gun handles himself.

[johndoe3]

And the police sergeant's statement that, "we are exempt from the law" doesn't come into play on the discussion? Then the made up charge of "rudely displaying a firearm" (dropped laughably) doesn't come into play? Aren't you concerned that the citizen asked about the charge and wasn't given an answer? These are all valid questions.

[doubloon]

Correct, at the time of the confrontation the comments from the officer do not come into play. I thought I covered that already but I'll cover it again.

The officer does not know you from Adam, he gets lied to ALL THE TIME and as the suspect your chances of convincing him that either of those statements is incorrect is not a likely possibility and the chances are very good it will not only not help you but will only serve to make your situation worse.

The place to argue is in court. <- period

Specifically with regard to "rudely displaying a firearm" the officer may have meant "recklessly" and misspoken, they're not all geniuses like continuity you know. Using the word "recklessly" may not have made him any more correct but at least he would have been closer to quoting an actual statute.

Section 46 of the Texas penal code goes into great detail about what is or is not "reckless" and specifically mentions these sections do not apply to peace officers. So, with regard to the "exempt from the law" comment, if the officer believed the suspect was referencing carrying firearms recklessly then the officer's response was correct that the law, as it applies to reckless carry, does not apply to them. But I really don't presume to know what was rattling around in the officer's head when he made that comment, I only leave room for the possibility that the officer was responding to the remark as honestly as possible.

As far as the detainment and asking to take temporary possession of the weapon goes I know for certain that I cannot casually spot the difference between an automatic weapon or a semi-automatic weapon with a glance. If the weapon was auto capable and the owner did not have the appropriate paperwork then he would be illegally in possession of a prohibited weapon until it could be proven otherwise. For all I know the officer(s) may have wanted to verify whether the weapon was auto capable and if the owner had the appropriate paperwork. It's possible that if he had been carrying a bolt gun or a break barrel shotgun the officers would not have asked to inspect the weapon at all, just guessing. They may also have wanted to check the barrel length to see if it was a SBR.

I believe the situation could have been handled better on both sides but the man carrying the rifle only made it worse by continuing to be a jackass.

[Bone16]

Fixed it for you doubloon:

I believe the situation could have been handled better on both sides but the man carrying as well as the man taking the the rifle only made it worse by continuing to be jackasses.

Presumption works both ways.... same as prejudice.

[doubloon]

Yes it does. And I will agree your fix is more accurate.

[continuity]

Just a comment from the far off Ohio area... All parties acted Stupidly. (stupid is intentionally capitalized)

The SO I work for dispatches (have nothing but appreciation for our dispatchers) to several small jurisdictions within the county, in addition to units of our office. As I understand things (cough), there is at least one jurisdiction that our dispatchers have been directed to obtain specifics (this is not standard practice) when a request for a county unit to assist them is made. The clear understanding is that if we are a unit dispatched to assist this jurisdictions LEO, we are to ONLY provide scene security. We are to be as minimally involved in the incident as practical, and are required to file a written report on scene observation(s). A couple of Deputy's have intervened on the "subjects" behalf in an incident in this local jurisdiction. One filed "unauthorized use of force" charges against a patrolman in that jurisdiction. That bro's, takes BIG balls and clear situational understandings of intent and the law. Believe me.

Having said that. When an authorized LEO shows up, the law requires one to follow that persons directions. Especially if they have been dispatched to a complaint. It is what it is. Hostile behavior will get one... the application of whatever force the contact LEO decides is necessary to control the situation.
The initial charges may be bogus, even go away, but resistance to LEO immediate direction will always place one at risk of the charge of "interfering with official business" or "resisting arrest"... and the the associated physical consequences of resistance.

Just a slice of life...

[wolf]

Is the officer required to tell people why he does what he does (no national secrets thingy here)
is he required to answer the person who dont understand why things are happening, when that person does ask

in the video , the riffle carrier did ask several times if he was committing a crime , no answer to that ??
he did ask why his riffle was forcefully taken from him ,,no answer

if the officer had answered those Q`s , and they where true , i dont think this video would have ended up online

If the carrier had been asked ,sir.. we been phoned by some people who are worried about you going around with that weapon

could you for a moment stop and answer a few questions , please that would make my day easier

and please just to make me feel good , could you unload your weapon , just keep it that way while we talk

would that be so hard
would that be to much to ask for

i can read in the comments that that officer was in Iraq ,

but this was NOT Iraq , different rules

i know it can be hard to come home and have to listen to crazy people , when you was used to have much more free hands

but if you cant handle screaming children , dont be a teacher
if you cant handle screaming grown ups , dont be a cop

and in both cases ,YOU ARE paid to take that heat , and swallow it

some can, some can not

both jobs are jobs where people picking on you many times

i have high respect for both jobs

but i have seen both teachers and cops get out of hand , and it was clear they where not doing what they where paid for
and been giving a great trust , only to miss use that trust

[doubloon]

I'm not saying the officers in question did everything right and nothing wrong.

But specifically regarding your question about whether or not the officer should answer the man's repeated question about whether or not he has committed a crime.

And please don't take this the wrong way.

ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID? It's a rhetorical question because I know for a fact from reading your posts that you are not.

Do you think the officer is Carnac the Magnificent? Maybe a little less rhetorical.

The officer is in the process of attempting, in response to a complaint, to determine if a crime has been committed and decide whether or not to arrest the man or let him go. He can't tell the man if he has or has not committed a crime until he inspects the weapon.

I'm not saying the officers couldn't have handled things better but they could have handled it much worse and still been well within the guidelines of the job.

ETA: If I were an officer responding to a complaint about an armed individual roaming the countryside the absolute last thing I would want to do is encourage the individual to put his hands in close proximity to the firing mechanism of the weapon while I'm standing there talking to him. AKA "please put your hands near the trigger and "unload" the weapon"

[renegade]

Is the officer required to tell people why he does what he does (no national secrets thingy here)
is he required to answer the person who dont understand why things are happening, when that person does ask

in the video , the riffle carrier did ask several times if he was committing a crime , no answer to that ??
he did ask why his riffle was forcefully taken from him ,,no answer

if the officer had answered those Q`s , and they where true , i dont think this video would have ended up online

No. But a good officer wil know how to diffuse a situation, and if answering those questions might help calm the suspect down, he might.

[wolf]

doubloon

i would understand you (justified ) fear of him having the finger near the trigger
BUT the weapon was attached to his chest , pointing to the left
standing on the right side (double meaning in this case )would be all it takes to be clear of the muzzle

now you and i know , that IF the carrier wanted to suddenly shoot , it will go so fast that its in a blink of the eye

talking and look for the hole straight north , would be my first thing to do
IF such hole , i would ask a trick question ,like people thought you had a fully automatic weapon

if he said no its not
Then my alarm would go of
of course no hole dosnt mean it could not be fully auto , it could have a drop in auto sear

grabbing somes weapon , in this case without seeing it was attached to him , might actually bring the grabber in danger

just like the officer has to assume he COULD be a criminal
the carrier has to assume this could be a fake or dirty cop , both do exists

again,, be polite ,be professional , but always ,,,

and this goes for both citizens and officers

AHH,,,, if all just would stick to the first

then there would be no need for either of the two other cases

[doubloon]

...
again,, be polite ,be professional , but always ,,,

and this goes for both citizens and officers
...

We agree on most everything about this situation, it was handled poorly all around.

Yes, if the guy wanted to shoot he could do it pretty quickly but with the heightened emotion he was displaying I would actually be more afraid of an accidental discharge than any intentional shooting. Best just to put the weapon down than manipulate the loading or safety mechanisms.

Back to the questions.

In general I don't believe responding officers are required to answer any questions, especially questions about innocence or guilt. But, with very few exceptions, the law is written such that citizens being investigated are required to cooperate or face the possibility of prosecution. Arguing and name calling with the responding officer(s) is not listed anywhere in the exceptions I've read.

[700PSS]

As "continuity" pretty well summed it up, "attitude is everything".

For example: I haven't been pulled over in a traffic stop in the last 14 years. Not that I don't deserve it maybe from time to time, as I do go a bit over the speed limit, when traffic volume and safety allows. In the past, I was cited for speeding only twice, since 1983 and even then, was written up for less than the actual speed. There are several times I was given a break and sent on my way. I can only attribute that to my policy of: Be the first one to speak. Be polite, cheerful and non-threatening. Either admit to being at fault or acknowledge being wrong. Never lie or argue that you're right. More often than not, that attitude will get you some much needed consideration, even in strict jurisdictions.

[wolf]

Ok , totally of topic
but am i the only one who in a hurry did read this topic to fast ,,missing the CHL

Texas ,,Holder Arrested

but sadly not what (yet ) is true

[doubloon]

Are you saying you were not aware the person carrying the rifle in this article was arrested or that he was a CHL holder?

Or are you saying it is not true that he was arrested?

[casteel308]

Texas Penal code, 42.01 (a) (8), A person commits an offense of he intentionaly or knowinlgy (8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place, in a manner calculated to alarm..... what the hell did he think the Anti-Gun Tree Huggers were gunna say when they called in to the police dispatcher, after seeing him marching down a public road with is AR on a one point sling and his hand probably on the pistol grip to keep it from bouncing around... both were idiots.... He can't shoot from the roadway anyway....and he propably didnt own or have permission to hunt or shoot on adjacent property..... just a thought

[johndoe3]

He can't shoot from the roadway anyway

As I remember, Governor Rick Perry was out jogging with his dog early one morning, ON A ROAD.

A coyote attacked his dog and Gov. Perry shot the coyote with his Ruger LCP, ON THE ROAD.

Should the Governor be arrested?

Isn't the "don't shoot from the road" a hunting rule when hunting game animals?

The above is because in the interview (only his side of the story), Grisham stated that he came from his rural spread that was owned by his family for 4 generations. The only house they had passed was his Aunt's place. It was a rural road with very little traffic, although someone in a car obviously called in to the police. So it is likely that he did have permission to access his land and that of family, etc. He stated in the interview that he carried the AR-15 because there were feral pigs, coyotes and occasional cougars about.

[wolf]

Are you saying you were not aware the person carrying the rifle in this article was arrested or that he was a CHL holder?

Or are you saying it is not true that he was arrested?

No i just read the title as ,,Texas ,, Holder Arrested for “Rudely Diplaying” a Rifle

sadly ,, he is not yet arrested