The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
Not wearing a uniform.MeMelYup wrote:What is the deffinition of "in a manner calculated to alarm?"
Hmmm...I cannot quite put my finger on it but the panthers tactics seem familiar somehow.WildBill wrote:Check out a piece of history about open carry laws in California and see what can happen with when the public gets alarmed.
http://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/actions/ ... march.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It is obvious from your statement that you are not a lawyer.The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't know if this is a legal standard or not, but a good guide would be something like this:
BAD:
I displayed my gun to someone who was not assaulting me, and it caused them alarm.
GOOD:
I displayed my gun to someone who WAS assaulting me, and it caused him enough alarm to stop before I had to shoot him.
jmra wrote:I can't tell you what it is but I know it when I see it.
I might go just a bit further and suggest that if you do it, you will know it. In the above linked article, what is the point of the following text placed AFTER the seeming end of the analysis of 42.01(a)(8) disorderly conduct displaying weapon?LSUTiger wrote:IMHO, "Calculated to Alarm" needs to be defined by some specific act, beyond mere possesion of a firearm, accidental display or making the presence of a firearm known with intent to protect your self or other from a reasonable fear of bodily harm. This would leave nothing open to interpretation.
Whether you agree with open carry or not, I included the link below because it discussed "calculated to alarm" and is relavent to this discussion:
http://opencarrytexas.wordpress.com/tag ... y-conduct/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
“If the officer use excessive force and violence upon such person, such person being where he has a right to be, he may repel force by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of self defense, he kills such officer, he is justifiable.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.”Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all … it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.
As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197).
I would make a horrible lawyer. I have a conscience.WildBill wrote:It is obvious from your statement that you are not a lawyer.The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't know if this is a legal standard or not, but a good guide would be something like this:
BAD:
I displayed my gun to someone who was not assaulting me, and it caused them alarm.
GOOD:
I displayed my gun to someone who WAS assaulting me, and it caused him enough alarm to stop before I had to shoot him.
Or if you are, you are not a very good lawyer.
The Annoyed Man wrote:I would make a horrible lawyer. I have a conscience.WildBill wrote:It is obvious from your statement that you are not a lawyer.The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't know if this is a legal standard or not, but a good guide would be something like this:
BAD:
I displayed my gun to someone who was not assaulting me, and it caused them alarm.
GOOD:
I displayed my gun to someone who WAS assaulting me, and it caused him enough alarm to stop before I had to shoot him.
Or if you are, you are not a very good lawyer.
..... Maybe we need to get hysterical when we go anywhere that firearms are prohibited or we do not see any lawful individual with a firearm. This would make as much if not more sense.VMI77 wrote:The problem with the law is that is confers a hecklers veto on the right of someone to bear arms and "weaponizes" the antis. Some liberals are prone to immediate fits of hysteria at the mere sight of a gun --some even get hysterical seeing a cop with a gun. And the hysteria threshold has gotten much lower since I was a teenager and open carried long guns all over the place.
A-R wrote:In the above linked article, what is the point of the following text placed AFTER the seeming end of the analysis of 42.01(a)(8) disorderly conduct displaying weapon?LSUTiger wrote:IMHO, "Calculated to Alarm" needs to be defined by some specific act, beyond mere possesion of a firearm, accidental display or making the presence of a firearm known with intent to protect your self or other from a reasonable fear of bodily harm. This would leave nothing open to interpretation.
Whether you agree with open carry or not, I included the link below because it discussed "calculated to alarm" and is relavent to this discussion:
http://opencarrytexas.wordpress.com/tag ... y-conduct/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'm asking you because you posted the link to this information that, while murky, could be construed as encouraging or condoning physical resistance to an arrest under 42.01(a)(8) for open carry.
I'm trying to be very careful in my wording to merely ASK for explanation (and not accuse). But, frankly, if what I loosely construed from this IS correct then I want NOTHING to do with this link or anyone who agrees with it.
“If the officer use excessive force and violence upon such person, such person being where he has a right to be, he may repel force by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of self defense, he kills such officer, he is justifiable.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.”Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all … it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.
As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197).