TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

wconn33 wrote: From what I have seen several people have refuted what you said with Logic but that is not good enough for you.

Yep for the most part that logic has consisted of I'm wrong because I'm wrong. Circular logic shouldn't be confused with real logic.

EEllis wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

EEllis wrote:How do you know? You can mind read over the internet????? If an officer swears to the accuracy of a report unless there is something to impeach it I would have to go with it.

Well, that's not surprising. Out of curiosity, are you a LEO? Related to a LEO?

Why having trouble shooting down my argument so you want to make a personal attack as to why my argument should be discarded?

EEllis wrote:

SewTexas wrote: but the officer shouldn't have stopped the guy to begin with.

Is it really so bad that the cop stopped someone walking with a rifle in an area where people don't normally carry?

EEllis wrote:

jmra wrote: Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought that the SCOTUS ruling stated that the presence of a firearm (where legal) was not in and of itself reasonable cause.

And you think that is all the officers saw, heard, felt when making contact? I'm not an expert but even someones attitude and facial expressions can make a difference. Were there any public hunting areas near there, anything in season to be hunted? Checking in if there were calls made isn't unreasonable so if as the officers may have approached, him tensing up or his reaction could easily made them suspicious and warrant further investigation.

We are not talking probable cause here but rather reasonable suspicion. Probable cause would be needed if they saw him and decided before approach to arrest. I see no sign that was the case here. Here it would be that a person (not every person or most people just that a person ) in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. There is absolutely no way you could say with certainty that, with as little we know, the officers couldn't have reasonable suspicion on approach. They then can ask questions, secure firearms, require your presence, etc. Now you don't have to answer and after a brief encounter if you don't want to stay they must decide if they feel there is probable cause to arrest to continue to hold you but they can do things like checking to see if a gun has been fired or investigate for other evidence.

SewTexas wrote:neither one of the men handled the situation properly after the officer stopped the guy, but the officer shouldn't have stopped the guy to begin with.

EEllis wrote:

SherwoodForest wrote:The decision in the NRA case ( D'Costa I believe) in Lubbock handed down in January 2012 - recognized that Texas law ALLOWS the open carry of a long gun. This is Texas law. Subjective "discomforts" with the excercise of this right NOT YET INFRINGED UPON by the high powers of State government notwithstanding - this man should not have been molested by the POPO. Also 911 operators needing some tutorials on the law in Texas. We don't trump the LAW with feelings.

If you want TEXAS to turn into another KALIFORNIA - continue this touchy feely nonsense. The LAW is the LAW.

And the law also says that the police are allowed to stop you for reasonable cause. The reason they put reasonable in there is because it changes due to time and place but even if his actions are totally legal that doesn't mean the police are not allowed to stop him. Your behavior can be legal and lawful and still be suspicious enough to justify police stopping you. He was not charged with carrying an illegal firearm or any other crime but with obstructing the police while they were trying to do their jobs. Personally I get that his open carry was an exercise of his 1st amendment rights in support of the 2nd but exercising that right does not mean he can act anyway he wants or that police suddenly stop doing their jobs. I have little doubt the cops did a poor job handling this call but I also believe that he crossed the line and at the very least nged the versation from the legality of open carry to the examination of his actions in response to the police. If he had been calm, allowed them to secure his rifle when the police first arrived, calmly stating his piece then they should of satisfied themselves and he would've continued on his way. If not then I too would be condemning the police.

Dave2 wrote:

jmra wrote:They obviously don't know the laws related to firearms or they don't care.

Actually, they seem to know the laws, but think they're above the laws. At 3:55, what's-his-name says to one of the officers, "You ain't exempt from the law", and the officer replies, "Yes we are".