Active Duty Soldier Carrying AR15 Arrested and Disarmed in Texas

[traderdan]

I believe I read in an article that he had been a very vocal advocate of the Second Amendment at a city council meeting.I believe these officers knew who he was and were making a point.I hope he wins a judgement against them.

 

[actaeon277]

When you are commiting or suspected of committing a crime.

 

[Kutnupe14]

When you are commiting or suspected of committing a crime.

And.....?

 

[actaeon277]

And.....?

RAS?
PC?

 

[Kutnupe14]

RAS?
PC?

A legitimate concern for officer safety. And one need not have committed, or suspected of a crime for this to apply.

 

[j706]

Almost as bad a an alledged drunk driving murderous cop recieving money for his defense from the FOP huh?

No way worse. FOP legal defense fund is for on duty lawsuits ect.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

A legitimate concern for officer safety. And one need not have committed, or suspected of a crime for this to apply.

Can we expand this thought a little?

Would not a "legitimate" concern for officer safety run congruent with the definition of a Terry Stop for "armed AND dangerous?"

Therefore you would already require an articulable reason to prove the dangerous aspect for disarmament.

Am I missing anything where there would be additional opportunities for disarmament?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Can we expand this thought a little?

Would not a "legitimate" concern for officer safety run congruent with the definition of a Terry Stop for "armed AND dangerous?"

Therefore you would already require an articulable reason to prove the dangerous aspect for disarmament.

Am I missing anything where there would be additional opportunities for disarmament?

Sure... let's say I'm called to a bar, because outside in the parking lot, two guys are arguing. The bar owner states that he told the guys to go outside if they wanted to yell, and advises that they may simply have drank too much. One of the men is armed (OC'ing).

Now, not a single crime that I know of, nor indicated by someone else has been committed. I arrived on the scene, and make contact with the men, but do not smell alcohol. Do you expect me NOT to disarm the person who has a gun?

Edit: obviously, you can't go disarming people simply because they have a gun, and there must be a reason "why" if you do. But a person need not have committed, or possibly have committed a crime for it to be justified that they be disarmed.

 

[Pinchaser]

A lot of sensationalist nonsense in the reporting of this. It looks like the guy was trying to cause an incident and succeeded. +1 to the cops on this one.

 

[Kutnupe14]

A lot of sensationalist nonsense in the reporting of this. It looks like the guy was trying to cause an incident and succeeded. +1 to the cops on this one.

I may be wrong, but I honestly don't think he did.

 

[actaeon277]

Or, he could be angry, because a cop decided to make up rules on the fly.

 

[38special]

I don't give a crap what the guy's intent was or what someone on the internet's opinion of the guy's intent was.

A police officer enforces law - they don't get to read your mind or infer intent.

He broke no law. This is not gestapo Germany. This guy had every right to carry however he wanted without being asked for his papers.

Ugh.

 

[Beowulf]

So our soldier has been reduced to begging for money to pay his legal fund. That is pathetic considering his childish behavior. Whether you agree on how the LEO's handled the interaction or not is beside the point. This clown acted like a little sissy school girl. As a direct result of how he acted he caught a criminal charge. And he should have IMO. He clearly resisted anything and everything the officer did and said making a simple inquiry into a criminal incident. His own video shown in any court proceeding will be his undoing.

I'm not sure how you are able to talk with the cop's... uhm, nightstick in your mouth.

Have we fallen so far into complete and utter ignorance of the law that you really and honestly think what you saw on the video is "resisting"?

Did he try to run away? Did he physically attack the officer? No? Then he didn't resist arrest. What I saw was yet another example of police on a power trip.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't give a crap what the guy's intent was or what someone on the internet's opinion of the guy's intent was.

A police officer enforces law - they don't get to read your mind or infer intent.

He broke no law. This is not gestapo Germany. This guy had every right to carry however he wanted without being asked for his papers.

Ugh.

In Indiana, you'd be right. In Texas, I'm not so sure. I'm pretty sure I could draw up a pretty solid PC based on the event, based on Texas' law and how it is understood by Texans.

Edit: The officer's in the vid may have understood the gist of it, but I'm not clear that they actually understood their position.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm not sure how you are able to talk with the cop's... uhm, nightstick in your mouth.

Have we fallen so far into complete and utter ignorance of the law that you really and honestly think what you saw on the video is "resisting"?

Did he try to run away? Did he physically attack the officer? No? Then he didn't resist arrest. What I saw was yet another example of police on a power trip.

I don't know what Texas code states on the issue, but in Indiana, you'd be dead wrong. "Running away" or "attcking" an officer (besides being 2 different crimes), aren't the only things that qualify as RLE.

 

[Colarmel]

I don't know what Texas code states on the issue, but in Indiana, you'd be dead wrong. "Running away" or "attcking" an officer (besides being 2 different crimes), aren't the only things that qualify as RLE.

As a Texan... you must use force to be resisting arrest.

§ 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR
TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he
intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace
officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his
direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of
the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or
another.

 

[Colarmel]

In Indiana, you'd be right. In Texas, I'm not so sure. I'm pretty sure I could draw up a pretty solid PC based on the event, based on Texas' law and how it is understood by Texans.

Edit: The officer's in the vid may have understood the gist of it, but I'm not clear that they actually understood their position.

The only offense they potentially maybe could have charged him with was disorderly conduct, but they'd have to show intent to alarm.

They didn't and still haven't charged him with that. They charged him with interfering with police officers doing their duties. After bringing him in for resisting arrest.

 

[Zephyr]

At 10:28 in the video:
Cop: You're under arrest!
Guy: What am I under arrest for?
Cop: Resisting arrest!

Doesn't make much sense!

 

[ModernGunner]

As a Texan... you must use force to be resisting arrest.

§ 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR
TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he
intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace
officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his
direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of
the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or
another.

Yet, he DID do this. ^^^

 

[j706]

Yet, he DID do this. ^^^

Yes he sure did.