Anyone been "challenged" yet?
Looks like Tuscaloosa Police Chief Steve Anderson is asking to be sued for Fourth Amendment violations as police cannot detain citizens for mere lawful conduct like open carrying - somthing the law requies unless you have a permit to hide your gun.
There have been dozens of settlements in many states over the past few years - paid for by local taxpayers.
“I don’t agree that people should be allowed to carry a weapon openly,” [Tuscaloosa Police Chief Steve] Anderson said. “I have instructed my officers to ***challenge anyone they see carrying a weapon openly*** to make sure that they have the right to carry a weapon. Some people, like felons, cannot carry a weapon. They (people carrying weapons) will be treated with respect and dignity but they will be challenged.”
Anyone been "challenged" yet?
Or maybe this?Originally Posted by Tuscaloosa Police Chief Steve Anderson
Idiot.Originally Posted by Tuscaloosa Police Chief Steve Anderson
Originally Posted by MLK, JrOriginally Posted by MSG LaigaieOriginally Posted by Proverbs 27:12Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
Yeah because felons OC. Good enough for government work.
“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat
I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.
That's fine as long as it's a "contact" per Terry.“I don’t agree that people should be allowed to carry a weapon openly,” Anderson said. “I have instructed my officers to challenge anyone they see carrying a weapon openly to make sure that they have the right to carry a weapon. Some people, like felons, cannot carry a weapon. They (people carrying weapons) will be treated with respect and dignity but they will be challenged.”
Am I being detained?
Am I free to go?
Have I committed a crime?
I request a lawyer before further questioning. Go away and do not harass me further.
A felon has just as much as right to bear arms in self-defense as anyone else. Even if he's used a pistol in self-defense, the use of deadly force is authorized and charges cannot be brought against him so doing so. Self-defense is a defense.Section 13A-11-70
For the purposes of this division, the following terms shall have the respective meanings ascribed by this section:
(1) PISTOL. Any firearm with a barrel less than 12 inches in length.
(2) CRIME OF VIOLENCE. Any of the following crimes or an attempt to commit any of them, namely, murder, manslaughter, (except manslaughter arising out of the operation of a vehicle), rape, mayhem, assault with intent to rob, assault with intent to ravish, assault with intent to murder, robbery, burglary, kidnapping and larceny.
(3) PERSON. Such term includes any firm, partnership, association or corporation.
(Acts 1936, Ex. Sess., No. 82, p. 51; Code 1940, T. 14, §172; Acts 1947, No. 616, p. 463, §1; Acts 1951, No. 784, p. 1378; Code 1975, §13-6-150.)
Use of force in defense of a person.
(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:
(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.
(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.
(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.
(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:
a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;
c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.
(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:
(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.
(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.
(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.
(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.
(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §610; Acts 1979, No. 79-599, p. 1060, §1; Act 2006-303, p. 638, §1.)
Last edited by Kirbinator; 02-22-2012 at 02:51 PM.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
I really do not see what all the fuss is about. THe cops will be so busy challenging each other that it's doubtful they will get out of the stationhouse before the shift ends.
On the other hand, could you point me to anyone willing to sponsor me for a Tuscaloosa vacation?
"He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man
Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.
"No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
I had intended to ride my Harley up to Tuscaloosa for the A-Day game on April 14th. Anyone want to make an open carry meet prior to kickoff?
It's been a while since the OC meeting in Prattville, and I'm willing to ride up from Pensacola
I hope this email finds you doing well. I wanted to clarify my comments in the Tuscaloosa News to you and I hope you will forward this email on to other individuals who support Open Carry in our community. The Tuscaloosa Police Department will not harass or intimidate individuals in our community who choose to exercise their rights to carry a firearm openly. We will however, respond to any calls or complaints from citizens concerning this issue. In responding we will be respectful as we attempt to investigate the call or complaint. Our response will be consistent with the guidelines of reasonable suspicion and probable cause. I have spoken with the supervisors in my department and conveyed this message to them and told them to convey this message to our officers as well. I ask you to speak with the members of your local organization and let them know we do not wish to nor will we violate their rights. I also ask that you make them aware of the prohibitions imposed on certain members of our community which forbid those individuals from possessing firearms and the prohibitions regarding firearms in certain places in our community. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have questions please contact me.
Steven D. Anderson
Chief of Police
Tuscaloosa Police Department
3801 Mill Creek Av
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
You have no idea how much it pleases me to receive an e-mail from you. I was thinking about sending you something today, but it appears you have beat me to the punch. I have been doing what you asked already and have known your intent all along. I have nothing but respect for the Tuscaloosa Police Dept and have been preaching this all along. I'm quite saddened by the perception some have. I have the utmost respect for you and your office and have never said anything but praises toward the City. I think we have the best leadership of any city in our State bar none.
Chief, I tell the people I come in contact with to comply with an officers requests as best as they can and be respectful and polite as possible. I know, and try to convey to others, what a hard and stressful job an officer has. I did an interview with the NPR yesterday and WVUA radio. I hope you have a chance to listen to it. The guy said he'd send me a copy and if he does I'll forward it to you. I gave nothing but praise for you and the Dept. I can tell you with confidence the group and people I associate with are mad as heck with people who have "taken you to task" on your comments. If I have an opportunity in the future for any TV spots or interviews I'll make double sure I tell folks how proud I am of the City and our Police Dept.
If you would like to come to one of our meetings I'd love to have you, or any other officer. We welcome LEO’s of any dept. We've had several to show up at different meetings and I think they, as well as us, learned from each other. I have had officers come and be undercover and some in uniform. I've also had them want to take questions and we allowed time for that.
Thanks so much for contacting me. I'll pass this along as per your request, sir.
IMO all LEO should take something from this Email this Chief sent and apply it to be upheld by all those they command or work with...."The Tuscaloosa Police Department will not harass or intimidate individuals in our community who choose to exercise their rights to carry a firearm openly.." Well Put Chief Well Put...now please teach these other LEO's so we can all enjoy our rights and live in a safer community where no LEO or OCer's is concerned of one or the other harming them but rather being on the same side of the Law
Personally, I think its a load of B.S. He's treating every open carrier as if they may be a felon?
Its like here down under. Were are randomly stopped by police whilst driving, have our car searched at the officers discreation and be subjected to a brethalizer test because of the minority of drunken drivers. If we refuse for any reasonat all, to be breathalised, we are immediately arrested taken to a police station to be blood tested, and if we refuse to be blood tested we are dragged before a court charged with refusing a brethalizer and blood test and thrown in jail, wether we were drink driving or not? Talk about big brother in action?
When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.
My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Café, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.