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.
The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
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.

Relax relax relax, eat a doughnut and relaaaaxxxx

Thread starter stealthyeliminator
Start date Apr 5, 2014

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member

Apr 5, 2014

#1

Your opinions on this incident, please...

Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0ou-aTBbXA

Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lltpx44b8i4

Thanks

Primus

Regular Member

Apr 5, 2014

#2

So much for exercising the 5th.

And to put your hands on someone investigating an incident is at least a&b. Also I'd say obstruction too.

I'd say a shots fired complaint with a legate named complainant (if they had it) and then he admits they were shooting on the property would be enough to just look at what they were shooting at. He wasn't trying to go in a house or anywhere else. He was trying to look at something that pertains to the incident. So I'd say that's actively investigating an incident.

He has it on video. So if he really felt they were trespassing then file a complaint and/or request charges against the officer for trespassing. To bump, touch, hinder, push, anything an officer and get arrested is not a good idea.

Good arrest IF he did touch him I didn't see the hand but he also admitted on video multiple times he did touch him.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member

Apr 5, 2014

#3

Primus said:
So much for exercising the 5th.

And to put your hands on someone investigating an incident is at least a&b. Also I'd say obstruction too.

I'd say a shots fired complaint with a legate named complainant (if they had it) and then he admits they were shooting on the property would be enough to just look at what they were shooting at. He wasn't trying to go in a house or anywhere else. He was trying to look at something that pertains to the incident. So I'd say that's actively investigating an incident.

He has it on video. So if he really felt they were trespassing then file a complaint and/or request charges against the officer for trespassing. To bump, touch, hinder, push, anything an officer and get arrested is not a good idea.

Good arrest IF he did touch him I didn't see the hand but he also admitted on video multiple times he did touch him.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Thank you for your opinion, however, the last statement is false.

If you recall, his statement was that the officer touched him, not the other way around. Interpret that in your mind into whatever action you like, but do not quote him as admitting something that he did not.

Again, I did ask for opinions, and I do thank you for yours.

Last edited: Apr 5, 2014

WalkingWolf

Regular Member

Apr 5, 2014

#4

Primus said:
So much for exercising the 5th.

And to put your hands on someone investigating an incident is at least a&b. Also I'd say obstruction too.

I'd say a shots fired complaint with a legate named complainant (if they had it) and then he admits they were shooting on the property would be enough to just look at what they were shooting at. He wasn't trying to go in a house or anywhere else. He was trying to look at something that pertains to the incident. So I'd say that's actively investigating an incident.

He has it on video. So if he really felt they were trespassing then file a complaint and/or request charges against the officer for trespassing. To bump, touch, hinder, push, anything an officer and get arrested is not a good idea.

Good arrest IF he did touch him I didn't see the hand but he also admitted on video multiple times he did touch him.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

The officer was trespassing, had no warrant, no exigent circumstances, he deserved more than being touched. He legally had the right to expel anybody from his property using reasonable force. Shots fired is not a crime, unless it is shot at someone.

Shame he did not own a pack of dogs. If anybody gets close to me on my property, if they sense danger they will attack. Badge or no badge.

Let's not forget that on camera the deputy threatened the property owner with deadly force. He should be arrested charged.

Last edited: Apr 5, 2014

davidmcbeth

Banned

Apr 5, 2014

#5

WalkingWolf said:
The officer was trespassing, had no warrant, no exigent circumstances, he deserved more than being touched. He legally had the right to expel anybody from his property using reasonable force. Shots fired is not a crime, unless it is shot at someone.

Shame he did not own a pack of dogs. If anybody gets close to me on my property, if they sense danger they will attack. Badge or no badge.

Let's not forget that on camera the deputy threatened the property owner with deadly force. He should be arrested charged.

This is an excellent example of why one should file a notice of trespass. As soon as they go onto your land its YOU who starts the questioning...they are the criminals.

That's what happened when a cop came to my door (investigating some graffiti that happened the day before); I did not answer any of his questions ... when I told him that he is trespassing and needs to vacate or I will force him off my land then he was "what what what?". He left. If he would not have then I have an armed trespasser and he would have been treated like any other armed trespasser.

W

willy1094

Regular Member

Apr 5, 2014

#6

It seemed to me that the Sgt. was trying to steer the arresting officer away from making the arrest (cite and release?). IF things happened the way the commentator said, and I couldn't tell from the video, I couldn't see an assault charge for putting his arm out and the officer walking into it. Wouldn't the officer have just as much duty to avoid running into this guy? Personally, I would video the officer walking onto the property after repeatedly advising against it and then run with that. When things are heated, we humans tend to react fist and think second.

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member

Apr 5, 2014

#7

willy1094 said:
It seemed to me that the Sgt. was trying to steer the arresting officer away from making the arrest (cite and release?). IF things happened the way the commentator said, and I couldn't tell from the video, I couldn't see an assault charge for putting his arm out and the officer walking into it. Wouldn't the officer have just as much duty to avoid running into this guy? Personally, I would video the officer walking onto the property after repeatedly advising against it and then run with that. When things are heated, we humans tend to react fist and think second.

Yeah, I don't think there's any way an assault charge will actually be filed. I think if anything, there might be an interfering charge. It was so obvious in the video that the arresting officer was making the arrest as part of a personal vendetta. He wasn't assaulted, he was pissed, or embarrassed, or pissed because he was embarrassed.

A

Augustin

Regular Member

Apr 5, 2014

#8

stealthyeliminator said:
Your opinions on this incident, please...

What a total dipstick. The land owner that is.

Once the pot-bellied supervisor showed up and was asking the other disgrace of an officer if he wanted to arrest the man or not, all the land owner had to do was apologize to the cop and ask if they could handle it between them like men instead of continuing with a pissin' match. But he continued to shoot his mouth off and threaten a lawsuit. He got himself arrested and he had numerous opportunities to diffuse the situation. Why escalate things? Shut the scene down. Use your head not your mouth. Just outright stupid behavior.

papa bear

Regular Member

Apr 5, 2014

#9

hard for me to watch. i hate the abuse of presumed paowers

the LEO was a real dipstick

i thought the statement the LEO made, "you can continue to film". like the guy really needed his permission

F350

Regular Member

Apr 5, 2014

#10

Augustin said:
What a total dipstick. The land owner that is.

Once the pot-bellied supervisor showed up and was asking the other disgrace of an officer if he wanted to arrest the man or not, all the land owner had to do was apologize to the cop and ask if they could handle it between them like men instead of continuing with a pissin' match. But he continued to shoot his mouth off and threaten a lawsuit. He got himself arrested and he had numerous opportunities to diffuse the situation. Why escalate things? Shut the scene down. Use your head not your mouth. Just outright stupid behavior.

You mean 10 paces, turn, draw and fire :lol:

I wonder if any of them could even reach their holster.

J

JoeSparky

Centurion

Apr 5, 2014

#11

F350 said:
You mean 10 paces, turn, draw and fire :lol:

I wonder if any of them could even reach their holster.

Probably, as they were all carrying at about 3 o'clock.--- as long as the pants waist level was about level with their waists and not at the knees where gravity was wanting to take the pants, belts, and firearms.

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member

Apr 5, 2014

#12

Augustin said:
What a total dipstick. The land owner that is.

Once the pot-bellied supervisor showed up and was asking the other disgrace of an officer if he wanted to arrest the man or not, all the land owner had to do was apologize to the cop and ask if they could handle it between them like men instead of continuing with a pissin' match. But he continued to shoot his mouth off and threaten a lawsuit. He got himself arrested and he had numerous opportunities to diffuse the situation. Why escalate things? Shut the scene down. Use your head not your mouth. Just outright stupid behavior.

Yes, I think the property owner could have done things differently/better. Hindsight is 20/20 though. The guy was just trying to assert his rights and the cops were clearly trying to stick their nose in and just didn't like when someone spoke out against it. They didn't really believe those rounds were going anywhere near the highway.

A

Augustin

Regular Member

Apr 7, 2014

#13

stealthyeliminator said:
Yes, I think the property owner could have done things differently/better. Hindsight is 20/20 though. The guy was just trying to assert his rights and the cops were clearly trying to stick their nose in and just didn't like when someone spoke out against it. They didn't really believe those rounds were going anywhere near the highway.

All true. I just hate to see somebody arrested when basically nothing happened. Although, the cops did have the right to be there. They were legitimately investigating a 911 call. How could they have known where the rounds were hitting until they showed up and looked the scene over?

All the gun owner would have had to do was stick out his hand and say, "Look, I meant you no disrespect and I most certainly didn't mean to assault you. We both know that. I apologize to you if I offended you. Can we shake hands like gentlemen and put this unfortunate incident behind us? Next time you are called here I promise not to touch you or interfere in any way. What do you say, officer? Are we good?"

One thing that troubled me that wasn't shown was did the cops confiscate the man's guns? Did he ever get them back? Getting arrested is one thing but messing with our liberty teeth is quite another.

A

Augustin

Regular Member

Apr 7, 2014

#14

F350 said:
You mean 10 paces, turn, draw and fire :lol:

Works for me.

Here in Montana we actually have a law still on the books that says,

"If a person slays or permanently disables another person in a duel in this state, the person shall provide for the maintenance of the spouse and minor children of the person slain..."

So if the cops wife was as fat and ugly as he was perhaps gunning him down might not be the best resolution, at least not here in Big Sky Country.

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member

Apr 11, 2014

#15

The DA has decided not to file charges in this case

Edit: charges against the homeowner that is.

Last edited: Apr 11, 2014

You must log in or register to reply here.

Share:

Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email Link

Top