TexasCHLforum.com

Wow.... would you want to meet this guy in a dark alley?

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-new ... ck_check=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

wgoforth wrote:Wow.... would you want to meet this guy in a dark alley?

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-new ... ck_check=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah, read this on Drudge yesterday.

So much for his oath to protect and serve... us and the Constitution...

Mando'a wrote:

wgoforth wrote:Wow.... would you want to meet this guy in a dark alley?

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-new ... ck_check=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah, read this on Drudge yesterday.

So much for his oath to protect and serve... us and the Constitution...

Of course the Supreme Court has ruled that police are not required to protect the public anyway!

While residents who carry unloaded, registered guns in plain view aren't breaking any laws, police have said the practice is dangerous because officers can't tell whether a gun is loaded and what an armed person's intentions are.

It also looks like we can't always tell what a police officer's intentions are either.

wgoforth wrote:

Mando'a wrote:

wgoforth wrote:Wow.... would you want to meet this guy in a dark alley?

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-new ... ck_check=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah, read this on Drudge yesterday.

So much for his oath to protect and serve... us and the Constitution...

Of course the Supreme Court has ruled that police are not required to protect the public anyway!

Yep, forgot about that...

I read that article again and there are so many things wrong with this guy and the department. They're worried about infringing upon his 1A rights? What about our rights? He's alraedy admitted to infringing on someone else's. Am I over the top in thinking that he's basically made a terroristic threat by threatening to kill someone if they twitch wrong in his mind? It's his job to uphold the law and he's said he will continue to deny people of their rights. I just don't understand why he's still on the job. Other folks have lost their jobs for much less and this guy's in a position of authority.

Supposedly in another Facebook entry, he says he's a former Marine. I thought, once a Marine, always a Marine. Was this guy kicked out and no longer has the privilege? I can see why.

I'm sorry.

This guy is not the LEO who gigag04 wrote about in his post of yesterday. IOW, it only takes one bad apple to spoil a barrel.

wgoforth wrote:Wow.... would you want to meet this guy in a dark alley?

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-new ... ck_check=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After reading the article carefully, including the report of an apology at the end, it sounds to me more like a "shooting from the lip" remark caused problems by reaching unintended audiences, rather than an expression of an actual intent to deprive open carriers of their rights or their lives. That may or may not be correct, but that's my impression from the information presented.

That being said, the detective has placed both himself and his agency in a needlessly precarious position with his off duty publicly distributed remarks. If he or anyone in his agency is subsequently involved in a questionable shooting, particularly if it involves a legally armed innocent person, the city's lawyers and insurance company will have a real hard time trying to defend the resulting lawsuits when this comes back to haunt them - which it surely will.

From a liability exposure perspective, this might be a good time for the chief to consider reassigning this officer to the records division.

Excaliber wrote:

wgoforth wrote:Wow.... would you want to meet this guy in a dark alley?

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-new ... ck_check=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After reading the article carefully, including the report of an apology at the end, it sounds to me more like a "shooting from the lip" remark caused problems by reaching unintended audiences, rather than an expression of an actual intent to deprive open carriers of their rights or their lives. That may or may not be correct, but that's my impression from the information presented.

That being said, the detective has placed both himself and his agency in a needlessly precarious position with his off duty publicly distributed remarks. If he or anyone in his agency is subsequently involved in a questionable shooting, particularly if it involves a legally armed innocent person, the city's lawyers and insurance company will have a real hard time trying to defend the resulting lawsuits when this comes back to haunt them - which it surely will.

From a liability exposure perspective, this might be a good time for the chief to consider reassigning this officer to the records division.

Oh I assumed that when I read it. I call that type of thing "diarrhea of the pen." The problem is, it still shows an attitude of his heart that cannot help but be displayed in his dealings with others. Like the scripture "as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."

Excaliber wrote:

wgoforth wrote:Wow.... would you want to meet this guy in a dark alley?

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-new ... ck_check=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After reading the article carefully, including the report of an apology at the end, it sounds to me more like a "shooting from the lip" remark caused problems by reaching unintended audiences, rather than an expression of an actual intent to deprive open carriers of their rights or their lives. That may or may not be correct, but that's my impression from the information presented.

That being said, the detective has placed both himself and his agency in a needlessly precarious position with his off duty publicly distributed remarks. If he or anyone in his agency is subsequently involved in a questionable shooting, particularly if it involves a legally armed innocent person, the city's lawyers and insurance company will have a real hard time trying to defend the resulting lawsuits when this comes back to haunt them - which it surely will.

From a liability exposure perspective, this might be a good time for the chief to consider reassigning this officer to the records division.

Well, when most people "shoot from the lip," they are letting their guard down and their true feelings are showing.

I can't read this article for some reason - I get denied. Interesting.

grumble wrote:I can't read this article for some reason - I get denied. Interesting.

I also had a problem using the posted link (Google Chrome beta on Mac). I just went to mercurynew.com and searched for open carry.

Don't make apologies/excuses for this cop. I don't care when/where/why he wrote what he wrote. Because what he wrote shows clear antagonism toward 2A defenders and at best an air of superiority (at worst a God complex).

Just take the last post in Andy's link above, the one after the more threatening post about "pulling the AR out and proning them"

Rod Tuason wrote:... go attend one of their meetings and laugh at them cuz they can only dream to have a ccw

This guy relishes the fact that only cops like him are allowed to carry guns and obviously feels superior because of it.

This idiot should be fired.

And I am a huge supporter of LEOs. Everytime the Austin Statesman railroads an APD cop for what they call a quesitonable shooting (basically if an APD cop ever fires his weapon in line of duty it is automatically quesitonable to the small minds at the Statesman) I write a letter to the editor defending APD.

But this guy is that bad apple that Old Gringo mentions above. He doesn't deserve the privilege and honor of being a police officer.

CA cop wants to shoot open carriers

That headline is somewhat misleading. The detective wants to "prone them out" face down on the ground and only kill them if they so much as even move after that.