TheQ
Regular Member
He had the gun in his hand?...and he wasn't wearing a garbage bag for rain?
Last edited:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Tazered for Open Carry
- Thread starter stainless1911
- Start date
- Status
stainless1911
Banned
Har dee har har.
I suppose he would need a tent.
That wasn't the first or only time I carried in hand.
DetroitBiker
Regular Member
Good find Raggs, I knew there had to be more to the story.
Sounds like this wasn't a case of an inocent Open carrier being Tased for no reason at all.
I agree he was lucky they didnt shoot him.
Last edited:
scot623
Regular Member
So, based on your statement that you WILL BE SHOT if you touch your gun in the presence of a LEO, wouldn't YOU expect to be shot on sight if a LEO see's you carrying your gun in your hand? (as you have done multiple times according to you)
Last edited:
stainless1911
Banned
Me thinks you're a trollin'.
scot623
Regular Member
I'm asking you a legitimate question based on statements you've made. Nobody walks around with their gun in their hand but you, so I'm wondering if you expect to be shot when a LEO see's you.
And it is entirely off topic and makes personal argument beyond the context of the thread.
scot623
Regular Member
How is it off topic? The thread started was about a guy with a gun in his hand in the presence of a LEO. Sounds exactly on topic. Furthermore, the OP stated he carries in hand, and also stated a LEO would shoot if a person touches their firearm. If my question is topic, why didn't you site the OP for being off topic when he made those statements in this thread?
Are we not allowed to discuss issues here? I did not make any personal attacks whatsoever. Threads can't lead themselves in a free flowing direction here? Should I start a new thread to ask my question?
The thread was about a man who apparently/allegedly broke the law, did not follow the LEO's direction and was tazered as a result. Other posts with more information on this incident added to our knowledge.
That person is not known to be anyone from this forum. Turning possibly similar events into a personal opinion contest IS off topic and smacks of a vendetta when made in that manner. You are not talking about the facts of what happened - you are making it personal.
No threads are not encouraged to be "free flowing" here.
TheQ
Regular Member
good to know. That explains why our mods have been a bit heavy handed here lately compared to MGO and Michigan Open Carry's forum.
davidmcbeth
Banned
are we not free to jump to conclusions?
but I do agree, i would never disarm just because a cop asks me to ..
boyscout399
Regular Member
It's a matter of whether the officer can point to facts which make him believe that a crime is, has, or is about to be committed. If the officer can say, "the gun was not in a holster and in his hand, therefore I had a suspicion that he was about to shoot someone, which is a crime" Then the totality of the circumstances would indicate that the officer did in fact have RAS to make a detainment. Remember, RAS does not mean probable cause. You don't need to be 100% sure a crime has been committed. You only need a reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to be committed. The "reasonable officer" test would say that a if a reasonable officer sees a man carrying a gun in his hand after receiving a call of a man threatening people with that gun, then he's gonna suspect that person is about to commit a crime.
Tucker6900
Regular Member
I would take everything read on police one with a grain of salt. Not that the story isnt true, but I find every story there tends to be slanted in favor of the police.
Originally Posted by Grapeshot
No threads are not encouraged to be "free flowing" here.
This raises some valid points Mr.Q. The purpose and function of moderators is to maintain control and the focus of the forum. Recognize too that we can't make everybody happy all of the time.
Threads do evolve and take on a different flavor from those originally intended. Most frequently they are left to seek their own level, particularly if they stay somewhat related to the OP. In some cases, it has been suggested that a new thread be started wherein the tangent subject could be better explored while keeping the original clean and focused.
The biggest threat IMO to good order has been when users divert from talking about the facts of an event/posting and make an issue of the personality or character of another member/user. Such does not have to be an obvious personal attack either - it can be accomplished by repetitive postings of a deeming nature, designed perhaps to embarrass or harass the another. This strains the everybody-is-welcome-here desire of the administration.
The men and women of the Michigan forum have been particularly good at getting the job done - lots of really good people here and the results are something of which you can all be proud.
Trust that this makes good sense and that we can all take and maintain the high road for the betterment of OCDO.
scot623
Regular Member
Grapeshot. We aren't allowed to ask each other what we would do in certain situations? This thread is about being told by a LEO to put your gun down. (the reason why that order is being given is immaterial to the order). So with that being said, we have a poster who says he walks around with his gun in his hand. He has also said he expects a LEO to shoot if a OCer touches his gun. What is the issue with exploring that scenario??
Last edited:
Raggs
Regular Member
I think the mods are concerned that questioning the practices of certain individuals behaving in a questionable manner would end up becoming a personal attack and not simply a questioning of the questionable behavior.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 1,777
I disagree with your last statement. RAS stands for "Reasonable and Articulable Suspicion [that a crime has been or is being committed]" and while OC is perfectly legal, a gun in the hand, depending upon circumstances, will satisfy many state's brandishing statutes.
OC in hand is FAR outside the bounds of how we want to portray open carry.
John
smellslikemichigan
Campaign Veteran
not to mention the fact they seem to have gone rogue (given some of the statements i heard mr pierce make at the LAID dinner about allowing state sub-forums leeway in certain areas).
Perhaps he means to suggest that he IHOCs as long as there isn't a LEO nearby.
Since some may be implying that your question is a personal attack, you can ask it to me. I won't interpret such a question that way. My answer, yes, I expect that it's possible that I can get shot if I have a pistol in my hand, seeing as it would probably be brandishing.
SpringerXDacp
New member
If they didn't perforate him for putting it in his pocket (assumed), why would you think he'd be vaporized for putting it on the ground when ordered to do so?
- Status