Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Ready to get pissed off? SA officers tell OCer he is free to go, then taze and arrest

  1. #1
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318

    Ready to get pissed off? SA officers tell OCer he is free to go, then taze and arrest

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...nt-see-coming/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hCONc6Va8I

    Edit: Cops show up, looks like rifles drawn. OCer successfully deescalates the situation and ends up with the original officers talking pretty comfortably. Then "Sarge" shows up and immediately escalates the situation far beyond what it even was originally. Has this person ever been trained? These guys are supposed to be peace officers! What kind of cop shows up on scene and immediately makes things worse? And, a supervisor no less! He needs to be fired, not to mention criminally charged.

    Open Carry Texas now has over 30 chapters across the state and has walks every single weekend.

    The probably-soon-to-be-indicted police chief of San Antonio must believe he is King of San Antonio. Any time he is questioned on the actions of his officers or the illegal arrests that have taken place in his city, he just points to his unconstitutional local ordinance and likes to repeat that "HE made an exception" for us during the Alamo event. Who the hell does he think he is? Who gave him the authority to enforce or choose not to enforce state law or unconstitutional ordinance on his whims?
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 04-02-2014 at 08:14 AM.
    Advocate freedom please

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    So, what did the other cops, the cops who let the citizen go about his business, do?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    stealthyeliminator:

    I have Read Texas Local Government Code 229.011(a) very Carefully, and it is Apt for what is does NOT Contain.

    In as much as 'Keeping' a Firearm is Similar to The 'Possession' of a Firearm, nothing under The Statute Proscribes for The Preemption of 'Carrying' of a Firearm.

    In as much as I am Saddened by This, I Think that San Antonio may have The Ability to Regulate Loaded Carry of a Rifle or Shotgun, Absent Preemptive Language which Definitively Prohibits Them from doing so. In Essence, San Antonio is Regulating The Manner as to how a Rifle or Shotgun should be 'Carried', not Prohibiting its Ownership or its Possession.

    Again..., One would NEVER Think that This would Occur in Texas..., but, most States Specifically State 'Carrying', whereas The Firearms Preemption Statute under Texas Local Government Code 229.001(a) does NOT Include that Term.

    The Legislature should Fix This in 2015, but until then, The San Antonio Ordinance may Legally be able to Stand.
    Last edited by aadvark; 04-02-2014 at 02:04 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    I disagree. First of all:

    (a) Notwithstanding any other law, including Section 43.002 of this code and Chapter 251, Agriculture Code, a municipality may not adopt regulations relating to:

    (1) the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, air guns, ammunition, or firearm or air gun supplies; or

    (2) the discharge of a firearm or air gun at a sport shooting range.

    (b) Subsection (a) does not affect the authority a municipality has under another law to:

    (6) regulate the carrying of a firearm or air gun by a person other than a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, at a:

    (A) public park;

    (B) public meeting of a municipality, county, or other governmental body;

    (C) political rally, parade, or official political meeting; or

    (D) nonfirearms-related school, college, or professional athletic event;

    The exception to (a) indicates that outside of that exception the municipality does not have the authority to regulate the carrying of a firearm. There are only a few specific places where this local government code statutes permits a municipality to regulate the carrying of a firearm.

    Secondly, the Texas Constitution states that only the legislature has the authority to regulate the wearing of arms. The city council is not the legislature, nor is Mr. McManus. IMO the government code permitting municipalities to regulate the wearing of arms at all is unconstitutional per the Texas State Constitution.

    OC for ME, sounds like they stood there and watched. Then told the OCer that he was lucky he didn't get the full ride, because one of the barbs hit his belt. IMO judging by the tone in their voice, they sounded kind of shocked at the escalation of their superior. But, I could be wrong.

    ALSO, regardless of whether or not it is a violation, or the constitutionality of the municipal code, the tazing was unjustified. He did not resist, perhaps not even verbally. He has no obligation to answer the officer's question about whether or not he will resist, and not answering that question does not constitute the statement that he will resist. Moreover, resisting verbally is not a violation of law in Texas, only resisting physically is. SO, tazing=unjustified.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 04-02-2014 at 07:36 PM.
    Advocate freedom please

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    (b) Subsection (a) does not affect the authority a municipality has under another law to:

    (6) regulate the carrying of a firearm or air gun by a person other than a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, at a:
    The part in red is the key to LGC 229.001: in order to regulate carry in those enumerated places, a local government must have authority under another law.

    Other than being able to post valid 30.06 signs at meetings of government entities, there isn't any law authorizing them to restrict or regulate carry.

  6. #6
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    OCer by himself? Taze and arrest. Dozens together? Oh, McManus will conveniently declare an 'exception' for them. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...-loaded-rifle/
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 04-06-2014 at 10:22 PM.
    Advocate freedom please

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    OCer by himself? Taze and arrest. Dozens together? Oh, McManus will conveniently declare an 'exception' for them. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...-loaded-rifle/
    From the Blaze link...

    We are going to take that gun off your shoulder, do you understand that?” one officer is heard asking Vichique on his March 31 video. “Do you understand that?”

    Another officer then asks Vichique if he is going to “fight” if they grab his gun, to which he replies, “I’m not going to grab it, sir. I have not been arrested and the law says unless I’ve been arrested, you can’t take it from me.”


    I think that the law is currently, that cops can steal your gun and leave you defenseless for "officer safety" (ignoring "citizen safety" of course). Now, I think that such a law is wrong and never would make any finding of guilt for any action of a citizen to keep his gun.

    I had a FBI agent ask me once "Is your gun loaded?" to which I replied "Do you really want to find out?". He replied "Not that much". Then I booted them off my land unceremoniously.

    Its my opinion that if a gov't official can just walk up to you and disarm you then the RKBA is meaningless.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 04-07-2014 at 04:20 AM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    From the Blaze link...

    We are going to take that gun off your shoulder, do you understand that?” one officer is heard asking Vichique on his March 31 video. “Do you understand that?”

    Another officer then asks Vichique if he is going to “fight” if they grab his gun, to which he replies, “I’m not going to grab it, sir. I have not been arrested and the law says unless I’ve been arrested, you can’t take it from me.”


    I think that the law is currently, that cops can steal your gun and leave you defenseless for "officer safety" (ignoring "citizen safety" of course). Now, I think that such a law is wrong and never would make any finding of guilt for any action of a citizen to keep his gun.

    I had a FBI agent ask me once "Is your gun loaded?" to which I replied "Do you really want to find out?". He replied "Not that much". Then I booted them off my land unceremoniously.

    Its my opinion that if a gov't official can just walk up to you and disarm you then the RKBA is meaningless.
    If that's what you know, cite it.

    The CHL law has a disarmament section. This guy did not have, nor was he carrying under the authority of a CHL. No disarmament was justified under Texas law.

    Not trying to be an ass, just don't want anyone to get the idea that it's legal for an officer to walk up to an ocer and simply say hand it over or I'm going to take that from you. The only reason Grisham was able to be prosecuted for physically resisting the theft of his gun in his case is because the interfering statute specifically disallows the legality of the officer's actions as a defense, which is insane. This guy didn't resist either way, though. Which only solidifies the fact that the taser was completely unnecessary.

    Last night a group went on an OC walk through the exact area that Henry was arrested in. A 911 call was apparently made to the police, as a message went out over the scanner that there were people walking down the street with guns. Police never showed up. The OC group thinks they couldn't find enough tasers.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 04-07-2014 at 08:44 AM.
    Advocate freedom please

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •