Texas Dad arrested for having a rifle?
- Thread starter truckemup97
- Start date
Doug M.
Member
I have not yet had a chance to watch this video, but on another forum full of military folks, several who are personally aware of the M.Sgt. and his performance have been very harsh in their assessment of him as a person and as a soldier. They used words that would trigger the * in mass quantities. (I am not qualified to assess either; I don't know him and Uncle Sam was not brain dead enough to accept my services.)
I have been dispatched to call from crybabies who got their undies in a bunch because someone had a gun (area code 360 was displayed in the call, and that said all I needed to know), and boy oh boy did they get chapped when I refused to contact the person with the firearm because no crime was even arguably being committed.
I have been dispatched to call from crybabies who got their undies in a bunch because someone had a gun (area code 360 was displayed in the call, and that said all I needed to know), and boy oh boy did they get chapped when I refused to contact the person with the firearm because no crime was even arguably being committed.
Last edited:
Ok, the big question
All through the arrest, the man kept telling his son,
"keep the camera on me." and it was no secret they were being filmed. Were the police that convinced that they were in the right (or that they were invulnerable)? Didn't Rodney King teach these guys something?
All through the arrest, the man kept telling his son,
"keep the camera on me." and it was no secret they were being filmed. Were the police that convinced that they were in the right (or that they were invulnerable)? Didn't Rodney King teach these guys something?
This is just what I thought would happen....
A month later he says he's still confused about why he was arrested. His charges were downgraded from resisting arrest to interfering with a peace officer.
The police won't comment
When there is a screw up like that, the police can't just admit they were wrong and drop the whole thing. They have to have one charge left over that will say the person was doing something wrong.
They have forced this man into a lawsuit, or else he will be accepting that he did something wrong when it was the police in the wrong.
It was the same in the clip where the officer went ballistic at a guy for having a gun with a carry permit. Rather than just let him go, they had him agree to some traffic violation. So it was ok for the officer to threaten to bash his head in, shoot him and kill him over a traffic violation.
A month later he says he's still confused about why he was arrested. His charges were downgraded from resisting arrest to interfering with a peace officer.
The police won't comment
When there is a screw up like that, the police can't just admit they were wrong and drop the whole thing. They have to have one charge left over that will say the person was doing something wrong.
They have forced this man into a lawsuit, or else he will be accepting that he did something wrong when it was the police in the wrong.
It was the same in the clip where the officer went ballistic at a guy for having a gun with a carry permit. Rather than just let him go, they had him agree to some traffic violation. So it was ok for the officer to threaten to bash his head in, shoot him and kill him over a traffic violation.
MK
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2007
- Messages
- 567
- Reaction score
- 150
Dang.. I wish he would have had the camera on the whole time.
But.. I was not expecting him to be arrested at the end.
I think they really messed up here. Even if they perceived him
as being a horses differential, I can see nothing that indicates he
broke any laws, nor resisted arrest. I can not see how anything he
did or said deserves being arrested at the end.
Fairly pathetic I think. To quote "Trading Places", is there a
lawyer in the house?
But.. I was not expecting him to be arrested at the end.
I think they really messed up here. Even if they perceived him
as being a horses differential, I can see nothing that indicates he
broke any laws, nor resisted arrest. I can not see how anything he
did or said deserves being arrested at the end.
Fairly pathetic I think. To quote "Trading Places", is there a
lawyer in the house?
MK
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2007
- Messages
- 567
- Reaction score
- 150
I wouldn't fault the officer for wanting to protect himself.
I wouldn't have a problem with the officer approaching him
with gun drawn, in a felony arrest type scenario.
Actually, I think that is what he should have done, instead
of allegedly trying to grab his rifle. That was kinda ignorant
I think.
But in the end, once it was determined that he was not a
threat, no warrants, etc, they should have handed his rifle
and pistol back, and cut him loose.
They decided to arrest him, basically because they perceived
a negative attitude from him, and he questioned their authority
to do what they were doing. They goofed up. Big time.
I saw him do nothing on the video worth being arrested for,
and it's arresting him at the end, that is going to bite em in the
rear.
I see they have already decided resisting arrest while already
in handcuffs wasn't going to play too well in court.. :|
Delos
Member
Just answer the question for the police?
I could not view the film on my computer. I must support the police based on what I read. I predict the officers were just doing their job.
Officers respond to all kinds of situations and then file a report. Usually the first thing they do is ask a question. In this case he responded with “Does it matter officer”
I would say it does matter. If he had been target shooting on private ranch property or in an area where cattle have previously been shot it is reasonable to begin a conversation by asking what he was doing with the rifle. That is what they were sent out there to do. Find out what is going on.
Then further down the “article claims” the safe way to carry is across chest pointed toward the ground. I may be old fashioned but with an AR15 and M-16 that is the ready position. If his hand was on the pistol grip he was really ready. Not a way to greet policemen.
On his back using a shoulder strap pointed in the air is a relaxed safer way to carry. He is not walking a jungle trail in hostile territory ready to fire in half a second.
Here is the article and a few comments from the article.
Decorated Vet Arrested After ?Rudely Displaying? His Rifle ? and Says Officer Pulled Gun on Him in Front of His Son | Video | TheBlaze.com
(He described how it all happened)
(five sentences down)
He then asked me what I’m doing with the rifle, to which I responded in a calm manner, “Does it matter, officer? Am I breaking the law?”
(Just above picture of him and officers - this disturbing statement from the articles writer)
He would only be in trouble if he had been carrying the rifle in a way “calculated to cause alarm,” like waving it in the air — not strapped to his chest and pointed towards the ground.
I could not view the film on my computer. I must support the police based on what I read. I predict the officers were just doing their job.
Officers respond to all kinds of situations and then file a report. Usually the first thing they do is ask a question. In this case he responded with “Does it matter officer”
I would say it does matter. If he had been target shooting on private ranch property or in an area where cattle have previously been shot it is reasonable to begin a conversation by asking what he was doing with the rifle. That is what they were sent out there to do. Find out what is going on.
Then further down the “article claims” the safe way to carry is across chest pointed toward the ground. I may be old fashioned but with an AR15 and M-16 that is the ready position. If his hand was on the pistol grip he was really ready. Not a way to greet policemen.
On his back using a shoulder strap pointed in the air is a relaxed safer way to carry. He is not walking a jungle trail in hostile territory ready to fire in half a second.
Here is the article and a few comments from the article.
Decorated Vet Arrested After ?Rudely Displaying? His Rifle ? and Says Officer Pulled Gun on Him in Front of His Son | Video | TheBlaze.com
(He described how it all happened)
(five sentences down)
He then asked me what I’m doing with the rifle, to which I responded in a calm manner, “Does it matter, officer? Am I breaking the law?”
(Just above picture of him and officers - this disturbing statement from the articles writer)
He would only be in trouble if he had been carrying the rifle in a way “calculated to cause alarm,” like waving it in the air — not strapped to his chest and pointed towards the ground.
I wasn't there but based on the info in the posted link, my conclusion is I'm not a cop basher but the cop in this matter needs some.
Although I'm not familiar with Texas law, hopefully the officer and the PD gets their azz sued, only way change will come about.
Although I'm not familiar with Texas law, hopefully the officer and the PD gets their azz sued, only way change will come about.
Delos: You need to see the video. You're making assumptions based off of hearsay not evidence.
He was on a country road adjacent to his own private property.
Last edited:
Delos
Member
Police need to do their job.
I remember news reported incidents where police did not do enough to gather information.
One of the guys that the cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer was drugging escaped from him and got to a couple of police officers for help. He was naked and almost incoherent. Dahmer told the police he would help him. He was permitted to lead him away. He was killed and eaten.
The police were criticized for not figuring out the situation better.
So here we have a well armed guy and a kid walking on a road. His rifle strapped across his chest like he is on patrol in Iraq or Afghanistan. He might be an escapee or worse a hitchhiker from (gasp) California.
So when police get obvious resistance to questions are they supposed to apologize for bothering him and leave?
My taxes have partly gone to support police departments in cities where I have lived. If they are called to check something out they are expected to do it. When they get the defensive aggressive statements wanting to know why they are asking that question it is arrest time. Take him downtown and check out who he is, get his picture if necessary.
Filming the tail end of any arrest gives little information. He not only questioned why they were asking him he told his son to keep on filming.
Interesting how the story tried to make it sound like there was more than just one boy involved. It first sounded to me like he was a scoutmaster out on a hike with a scout troop somewhere in some forest?
I would hope he was at least walking facing traffic and he was on the traffic side with kid on outside? Not enough information.
I remember news reported incidents where police did not do enough to gather information.
One of the guys that the cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer was drugging escaped from him and got to a couple of police officers for help. He was naked and almost incoherent. Dahmer told the police he would help him. He was permitted to lead him away. He was killed and eaten.
The police were criticized for not figuring out the situation better.
So here we have a well armed guy and a kid walking on a road. His rifle strapped across his chest like he is on patrol in Iraq or Afghanistan. He might be an escapee or worse a hitchhiker from (gasp) California.
So when police get obvious resistance to questions are they supposed to apologize for bothering him and leave?
My taxes have partly gone to support police departments in cities where I have lived. If they are called to check something out they are expected to do it. When they get the defensive aggressive statements wanting to know why they are asking that question it is arrest time. Take him downtown and check out who he is, get his picture if necessary.
Filming the tail end of any arrest gives little information. He not only questioned why they were asking him he told his son to keep on filming.
Interesting how the story tried to make it sound like there was more than just one boy involved. It first sounded to me like he was a scoutmaster out on a hike with a scout troop somewhere in some forest?
I would hope he was at least walking facing traffic and he was on the traffic side with kid on outside? Not enough information.
cowart
US Veteran
There is *no* legal obligation for you to answer questions from the police, or to help them conduct an investigation. If they have probable cause to arrest you, they *will* arrest you.
See
How to Flex Your Rights During Police Encounters
Doug M.
Member
Lord. That guy needs to be fired. There is no possible excuse for that. Not only do cops hear plenty of strong language all the time and ought to be capable of putting aside their preferences in a professional setting, but the complete lack of compassion for the needs of a person in a medical emergency is appalling. 2 weeks off, especially if he was not demoted to entry level rank, would be utterly unacceptable and would justify discipline on the Chief. 6 months and the demotion would be more like it.
Further, he was, as far as I can tell, dishonest about saying he could not get information from her. As far as I can tell, HE hung up on her. That would be a Brady disclosure from the agency to the prosecutor, and then from the prosecutor to the defense, on every case involving him. This would result in almost certainly never filing a charge where he was a necessary witness. He is not redeemable.
Further, I would probably have made that all moot by charging him with "official misconduct", which under Washington law means forfeiture for life of all government employment. (We have had to do that with several officers in the last couple of years, which we hated being forced to do.) Whether anyone likes it or not, use of such language is not a crime - it is clearly protected speech, and any effort to take action of this type is an intentional civil rights violation (hence the criminal charge referred to, which is the state analogue to a criminal violation of the civil rights laws).
Further, he was, as far as I can tell, dishonest about saying he could not get information from her. As far as I can tell, HE hung up on her. That would be a Brady disclosure from the agency to the prosecutor, and then from the prosecutor to the defense, on every case involving him. This would result in almost certainly never filing a charge where he was a necessary witness. He is not redeemable.
Further, I would probably have made that all moot by charging him with "official misconduct", which under Washington law means forfeiture for life of all government employment. (We have had to do that with several officers in the last couple of years, which we hated being forced to do.) Whether anyone likes it or not, use of such language is not a crime - it is clearly protected speech, and any effort to take action of this type is an intentional civil rights violation (hence the criminal charge referred to, which is the state analogue to a criminal violation of the civil rights laws).
hannstv
Member
If those officers get that nervous around a man with a gun they should NEVER consider a career as a Game Warden. I believe those guys have more nerve than a cliff diver.
Thanks, I thought carrying across the chest meant you were ready for action, too. It's difficult to unsling a rifle off your shoulder and maneuver into the 'ready' position.
Sue the *******s!
Delos
Member
another vet that needs to relax - sad.
I watched the video. His constant motor mouth verbal rant directed toward the police just makes their day more difficult than it needs to ever be. He sounds more that a little unstable. Obviously he was not moving his hands away from the rifle as they directed.
I think the guy needs to be evaluated by a psychiatrist. Walking down the road with his rifle at the ready is bad in my opinion. And every time he turns around the barrel is pointed at his kids legs. Any bullet hitting the pavement from that angle will come up at about the same upward angle being flattened and jagged edges. Not something you would want to hit a kid or anyone else. If it was pointed toward traffic he was endangering everyone who drove past.
To me he appears to have spent too many years on the front. He very much needs to learn to relax, smell the flowers, go catch a fish, try to forget the war.
Maybe lots of people have been attacked by coyotes on that road. I would not know. Long ago, one guy who was possibly the first to bicycle coast to coast on a high wheeler claimed to have been chased by a pack of coyotes for many miles on a dirt horse & wagon road.
I watched the video. His constant motor mouth verbal rant directed toward the police just makes their day more difficult than it needs to ever be. He sounds more that a little unstable. Obviously he was not moving his hands away from the rifle as they directed.
I think the guy needs to be evaluated by a psychiatrist. Walking down the road with his rifle at the ready is bad in my opinion. And every time he turns around the barrel is pointed at his kids legs. Any bullet hitting the pavement from that angle will come up at about the same upward angle being flattened and jagged edges. Not something you would want to hit a kid or anyone else. If it was pointed toward traffic he was endangering everyone who drove past.
To me he appears to have spent too many years on the front. He very much needs to learn to relax, smell the flowers, go catch a fish, try to forget the war.
Maybe lots of people have been attacked by coyotes on that road. I would not know. Long ago, one guy who was possibly the first to bicycle coast to coast on a high wheeler claimed to have been chased by a pack of coyotes for many miles on a dirt horse & wagon road.
Poodle Soup
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2012
- Messages
- 592
- Reaction score
- 292
I think he was upset because a police officer pulls up and violates his rights.... not because he was in the military.
The Last Standing Knight
Member
This whole situation strikes me as more than a little weird.
Temple is a good sized city located smack in the middle of a lot of farm and ranch country...where many farmers and ranchers openly pack long arms, sidearms, and often large knives while working their properties due to both wild hogs, coyotes, and two legged varmits. Local LEO's know this and proceed accordingly.
If I remember the law, you can open carry a long arm most places here as long as it is not done in a threatening manner. You'll get stopped and talked to, perhaps. TYou might even get arrested, but you'll beat the rap.
There is more to this than just what this video shows...and it will be up to the court to decide what is what.
Temple is a good sized city located smack in the middle of a lot of farm and ranch country...where many farmers and ranchers openly pack long arms, sidearms, and often large knives while working their properties due to both wild hogs, coyotes, and two legged varmits. Local LEO's know this and proceed accordingly.
If I remember the law, you can open carry a long arm most places here as long as it is not done in a threatening manner. You'll get stopped and talked to, perhaps. TYou might even get arrested, but you'll beat the rap.
There is more to this than just what this video shows...and it will be up to the court to decide what is what.
Delos
Member
Acting like he is still in a war zone?
So all the police know is that a guy and kid are walking down a road. The guy has a rifle slung if front in the ready position.
Obviously the person that called police did not recognize him. Obviously the police did not recognize him.
So lets assume for a minute he is one of the many in this country who escape from prison outside crews, or honor farms, or half way houses, or mental institutions each day.
So the police approach him and he is verbally uncooperative, claming he has rights and they have no right to ask him questions because he has done nothing wrong.
So then what. Do the police radio in that he refuses to tell them what they ask, so they are returning to the doughnut shop?
Maybe later a family ends up dead and car stolen. All the police have are dash camera photos of the wrong guy? Or next time they have photo’s of the right guy but he also demands his right to be left alone.
If he wants to play the boy scout card he and kid should put on boy scout uniforms.
Most people on rural roads know their neighbors.
We get the kind of policing we ask for. If we just want them to wave at someone with rifle at the ready fine. They could live with that really easy.
A news report said more vets now commit suicide than are killed in our modern police action wars. Perhaps no one wants to know when they are still acting like they are in a war zone?
So all the police know is that a guy and kid are walking down a road. The guy has a rifle slung if front in the ready position.
Obviously the person that called police did not recognize him. Obviously the police did not recognize him.
So lets assume for a minute he is one of the many in this country who escape from prison outside crews, or honor farms, or half way houses, or mental institutions each day.
So the police approach him and he is verbally uncooperative, claming he has rights and they have no right to ask him questions because he has done nothing wrong.
So then what. Do the police radio in that he refuses to tell them what they ask, so they are returning to the doughnut shop?
Maybe later a family ends up dead and car stolen. All the police have are dash camera photos of the wrong guy? Or next time they have photo’s of the right guy but he also demands his right to be left alone.
If he wants to play the boy scout card he and kid should put on boy scout uniforms.
Most people on rural roads know their neighbors.
We get the kind of policing we ask for. If we just want them to wave at someone with rifle at the ready fine. They could live with that really easy.
A news report said more vets now commit suicide than are killed in our modern police action wars. Perhaps no one wants to know when they are still acting like they are in a war zone?
Similar threads
