Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 53

Thread: LEO justified in stopping a man in a suit with a gun in a holster walking toward a building

  1. #1
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    From FourthAmendment.com:

    Officer was justified stopping a man in a suit with a gun in a holster walking toward an "important public building." That man was a criminal defense lawyer. This is what Terry is for. The officer also did not violate the lawyer's rights by pointing a gun at him. Schubert v. City of Springfield, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 28251 (1st Cir. December 23, 2009):
    . . . The fact remains, however, that the officer saw a man carrying a gun in a high-crime area, walking toward an important public building.

    Schubert contends that his clothing, his age, and the fact that he was carrying a briefcase are factors that should undercut the reasonableness of Stern's suspicion. We are not persuaded. A Terry stop is intended for just such a situation, where the officer has a reasonable concern about potential criminal activity based on his "on-the-spot observations," and where immediate action is required to ensure that any criminal activity is stopped or prevented. Terry, 392 U.S. at 20. We need not outline in detail the obvious and potentially horrific events that could have transpired had an officer noted a man walking toward the courthouse with a gun and chosen not to intervene.

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    This is yet another case where a court allows police to treat gun carriers like criminals merely because they must have a license to carry as a matter of state law; the S. Ct. in the Prouse case re driver's licenses took a different view (no stopping cars just to check to see if driver is licensed). yet there i no fundmental right to drive vehicles like there is to carry gun.

    I suspect this issue of Terry stopping gun carriers where a license is required to carry is eventually headed to the S. Ct. to see if they are OK with a firearm exception to the Fourth Amendment (gee, i thought that was made clear in Florida v. J.L., but I guess it needs to be rammed ome again).

  3. #3
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    Repeater wrote:
    From FourthAmendment.com:

    Officer was justified stopping a man in a suit with a gun in a holster walking toward an "important public building." That man was a criminal defense lawyer. This is what Terry is for. The officer also did not violate the lawyer's rights by pointing a gun at him. Schubert v. City of Springfield, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 28251 (1st Cir. December 23, 2009):
    . . . The fact remains, however, that the officer saw a man carrying a gun in a high-crime area, walking toward an important public building.

    Schubert contends that his clothing, his age, and the fact that he was carrying a briefcase are factors that should undercut the reasonableness of Stern's suspicion. We are not persuaded. A Terry stop is intended for just such a situation, where the officer has a reasonable concern about potential criminal activity based on his "on-the-spot observations," and where immediate action is required to ensure that any criminal activity is stopped or prevented. Terry, 392 U.S. at 20. We need not outline in detail the obvious and potentially horrific events that could have transpired had an officer noted a man walking toward the courthouse with a gun and chosen not to intervene.
    What in the @#$% are they talking about?? I've read Terry, and that stop WAS NOT BASED ON ON-THE-SPOT observations.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956

    Post imported post

    It is too bad he didn't make a bigger argument for violation of the second amendment. On it's face this is similar to mine, but I was stopped by one cop who said I could go before the secondjumped me with a gun.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    Kwikrnu,

    This case is JUST like yours, EXCEPT:

    1) The guy was a lawyer, and you are a troublemaker,

    2) This guy was legally carrying concealed, and you carry an illegally disguised firearm,

    3) This guy was a respectable professional dressed in a suit, carrying a briefcase and was on his way to work, and you dress up like a mall ninja in camo and go out creeping about in the woods TRYING to draw attention to yourself from LEOs, and

    4) This guy had his handgun in a holster, discretely covered by his suit jacket, and you carry yours around swinging from a "tacti-cool" sling over your shoulder.


    This case has about as many similarities with you as apple pie has with a dirty diaper...

    Please...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  6. #6
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    Dreamer wrote:
    Kwikrnu,

    This case is JUST like yours, EXCEPT:

    1) The guy was a lawyer, and you are a troublemaker,

    2) This guy was legally carrying concealed, and you carry an illegally disguised firearm,

    3) This guy was a respectable professional dressed in a suit, carrying a briefcase and was on his way to work, and you dress up like a mall ninja in camo and go out creeping about in the woods TRYING to draw attention to yourself from LEOs, and

    4) This guy had his handgun in a holster, discretely covered by his suit jacket, and you carry yours around swinging from a "tacti-cool" sling over your shoulder.


    This case has about as many similarities with you as apple pie has with a dirty diaper...

    Please...
    OHHHH SNAP!
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  7. #7
    Regular Member PaxMentis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Grants Pass, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    53

    Post imported post

    Dreamer wrote:
    Kwikrnu,

    This case is JUST like yours, EXCEPT:

    1) The guy was a lawyer, and you are a troublemaker,

    2) This guy was legally carrying concealed, and you carry an illegally disguised firearm,

    3) This guy was a respectable professional dressed in a suit, carrying a briefcase and was on his way to work, and you dress up like a mall ninja in camo and go out creeping about in the woods TRYING to draw attention to yourself from LEOs, and

    4) This guy had his handgun in a holster, discretely covered by his suit jacket, and you carry yours around swinging from a "tacti-cool" sling over your shoulder.


    This case has about as many similarities with you as apple pie has with a dirty diaper...

    Please...
    Why do you and others have the need to flat out lie about the bolded part? Can't you just say you disagree with the guy without lying about him?

    There is no law anywhere of which I am aware that relates to the color of a gun...and, if there were one in TN, he would have been arrested.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    PaxMentis wrote:
    Dreamer wrote:
    Kwikrnu,

    This case is JUST like yours, EXCEPT:

    1) The guy was a lawyer, and you are a troublemaker,

    2) This guy was legally carrying concealed, and you carry an illegally disguised firearm,

    3) This guy was a respectable professional dressed in a suit, carrying a briefcase and was on his way to work, and you dress up like a mall ninja in camo and go out creeping about in the woods TRYING to draw attention to yourself from LEOs, and

    4) This guy had his handgun in a holster, discretely covered by his suit jacket, and you carry yours around swinging from a "tacti-cool" sling over your shoulder.


    This case has about as many similarities with you as apple pie has with a dirty diaper...

    Please...
    Why do you and others have the need to flat out lie about the bolded part? Can't you just say you disagree with the guy without lying about him?

    There is no law anywhere of which I am aware that relates to the color of a gun...and, if there were one in TN, he would have been arrested.
    Because they are channeling George Costanza, and they manage to get a brief rush of e-power by participating in group character assassination. Thus, they justify lying.

    No real power or control in their actual lives. Sad, really.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    This is yet another case where a court allows police to treat gun carriers like criminals merely because they must have a license to carry as a matter of state law; the S. Ct. in the Prouse case re driver's licenses took a different view (no stopping cars just to check to see if driver is licensed). yet there i no fundmental right to drive vehicles like there is to carry gun.

    I suspect this issue of Terry stopping gun carriers where a license is required to carry is eventually headed to the S. Ct. to see if they are OK with a firearm exception to the Fourth Amendment (gee, i thought that was made clear in Florida v. J.L., but I guess it needs to be rammed ome again).
    An important passage is on page 8:
    The fact remains, however, that the officer saw a man carrying a gun in a high-crime area, walking toward an important public building3.
    Along with footnote 3:
    In addition, [officer] Stern noted that in his experience, most people who carry firearms in Springfield are not licensed to do so.
    Although the state of Massachusetts is a Green State (licensed open carry), evidently handgun carry in either mode is not common enough to warrant a lack of suspicion.

    Yet, in many Gold states, Open Carry is becoming more popular, hence more commonplace. That would be a significant benefit. By normalizing open carry, not only would other citizens become used to seeing handguns without incident around them, so too would law enforcement.

    Thus, another reason to promote Open Carry.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    This is yet another case where a court allows police to treat gun carriers like criminals merely because they must have a license to carry as a matter of state law; the S. Ct. in the Prouse case re driver's licenses took a different view (no stopping cars just to check to see if driver is licensed). yet there i no fundmental right to drive vehicles like there is to carry gun.

    I suspect this issue of Terry stopping gun carriers where a license is required to carry is eventually headed to the S. Ct. to see if they are OK with a firearm exception to the Fourth Amendment (gee, i thought that was made clear in Florida v. J.L., but I guess it needs to be rammed ome again).

    Until 18 USC 241 and 242 are enforced to the fullest extent of the law (both capital offenses), they will never have any reason to stop bending law-abiding citizens over a barrel.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Jacksonville, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    84

    Post imported post

    I dont see any problem with the LEO questioning the man. I carry openly, and I would hope an officer would do his/her job and inquire as to what my intentions are carrying a firearm into a govt. building.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    thinbluelines&w40ve wrote:
    I dont see any problem with the LEO questioning the man. I carry openly, and I would hope an officer would do his/her job and inquire as to what my intentions are carrying a firearm into a govt. building.
    At gunpoint? And then stealing his legally carried gun (a detail in the other thread) before letting him go?

    Anybody know if Mass. has gun safes at the secure checkpoint of its courts? That would be even more damning, if the man was about to disarm at the checkpoint anyway, and they didn't even let him do that and give a pass to these civil rights violations instead.

  13. #13
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164

    Post imported post

    Repeater wrote:
    An important passage is on page 8:
    The fact remains, however, that the officer saw a man carrying a gun in a high-crime area, walking toward an important public building3.
    Along with footnote 3:
    In addition, [officer] Stern noted that in his experience, most people who carry firearms in Springfield are not licensed to do so.
    By normalizing open carry, not only would other citizens become used to seeing handguns without incident around them, so too would law enforcement.
    Again, equating law abiding citizens with the criminal element the LEO has had to deal with on a daily basis ... if you deal with criminals, you start looking at everyone as a criminal.

    This is what needs to be changed, and if the citizen's attorney had been on the ball, suspicion of criminal activity was not supported in the behavior, manner of dress, and location of the citizen (boldly walking up to the building in question.)

    Hysterical response to "Man with a gun" will take time to change, meanwhile, calm, thoughtful, reasonable response by armed citizens will make that change happen.

    Eventually, this case will probably wind up in front of a Supreme Court somewhere and hopefully the court will deny it's applicability based on no RAS ... hopefully.

    And Santa Claus does exist ... somewhere
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    If I knew thatI was not breaking any laws, and ANYBODY starts pointing a gun at me, I'm not sure my response to that would be...calm or coroperative, probably the total opposite of that, I like life and living it is important to me, if some JBT LEO gets over zealous towards me... well it just makes my blood run cold thats all, and then the tunnle vision kicks in, honestly just happy it was not me.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee, United States
    Posts
    592

    Post imported post

    Dreamer wrote:

    2) This guy was legally carrying concealed, and you carry an illegally disguised firearm,
    This is your only point that could have a factual basis. Would you mind posting the USC about disguised firearms and any court ruling that could back up your statement?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    thinbluelines&w40ve wrote:
    I dont see any problem with the LEO questioning the man. I carry openly, and I would hope an officer would do his/her job and inquire as to what my intentions are carrying a firearm into a govt. building.
    Well the man in the posted story does have a problem with it, and he has a right to be upset over it.

    Just because you are happy to have policemen question you at gunpoint while you try to go about your daily business while obeying the law doesn't mean you should expect other people to share your enthusiasm.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Beaverton (Ugh!), Oregon, USA
    Posts
    46

    Post imported post

    What the...

    I am apalled... I think that's all I should say ina respectable forum like this one.

    I am absolutely apalled.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    Pagan wrote:
    If I knew thatI was not breaking any laws, and ANYBODY starts pointing a gun at me, I'm not sure my response to that would be...calm or coroperative, probably the total opposite of that, I like life and living it is important to me, if some JBT LEO gets over zealous towards me... well it just makes my blood run cold thats all, and then the tunnle vision kicks in, honestly just happy it was not me.
    and then if you over react, your potential to die or goto jail for a very long time kicks in as well. There are always two options of what to do.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    This is another affirmation that Federal Courts are indeed an enemy of freedom and a messenger of tyranny.

    Very stupid ruling here:

    “But the entire stop took only ten minutes and when Stern realized that he would not be able to confirm the gun license within a reasonable time, he sensibly opted to terminate the stop and release Schubert, but retain the weapon.”

    ....OK what is sensible aboutconfiscating a person’s private property when there is not even any evidence of wrongdoing, just a non-working gun licensing scheme.



    This screams due process to me, but what do I know.


    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    bohdi wrote:
    Pagan wrote:
    If I knew thatI was not breaking any laws, and ANYBODY starts pointing a gun at me, I'm not sure my response to that would be...calm or coroperative, probably the total opposite of that, I like life and living it is important to me, if some JBT LEO gets over zealous towards me... well it just makes my blood run cold thats all, and then the tunnle vision kicks in, honestly just happy it was not me.
    and then if you over react, your potential to die or goto jail for a very long time kicks in as well. There are always two options of what to do.
    I agree absolutely, just like when the un-uniformed criminal points a gun at me, I can "duck and cover", or I can try to survive the situation. If a LEO draws his weapon at me, whenI have committed no crime, how the hell amI supposed to know this guy is not about to go on a shooting spree for what ever reason, andI just happen to be the closest victim?

    I REFUSE to bow down to tyranny or treasonagainst my country, I simply will not do it. You point your weapon at me, and it's ON. Yes I risk the chance of being killed, for what reason? Trying not to become a victim of a uniformed criminal, it would seem to me thatI am dead either way.This reeks of police state tactics. If LEO's want respect, they need to earn it, just like everybody else on this planet. And no I'm not LEO bashing either, just criminal LEO bashing!

    There is absolutely no justification for that LEO to draw his weapon! The "suspects" weapon was HOLSTERED, not in his hand, not pointed at anyone!

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    Pagan wrote:
    If LEO's want respect, they need to earn it, just like everybody else on this planet.
    A short lecture.

    One does not give respect to LEOs because they are LEOs. One gives respect to LEOs because they are the physical representation of "The majesty of the law." http://www.flickr.com/photos/kimberlyfaye/2871362648/

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...ty-of-law.html

    http://www.answers.com/topic/police

    It is when the individual police officer violates any of the "Nine Principles" of policing http://www.magnacartaplus.org/briefi...principles.htmthat we need to focus on that individual police officer. Focusing on the individual police officer is done through official complaints to the internal affairs/civilian review system, the courts, and the legislature. Drawing down on a cop just changes the dynamic from focusing on the LEOs improper behavior to dealing with your improper behavior.

    In other words, as wrong as the cop might be in drawing and pointing his weapon at you, the moment you draw and point in counter to his action, you are headed for the dual titles of "criminal" and "wounded/deceased". While the LEO had, in this hypothetical scenario (not the subject of the OP), no reason to draw down on you, he obtains every legal reason to shoot you to the ground if you draw on him in response.

    As a personal favor I would ask you to either post or PM me a recent picture of you. Full face and profile would be better. I ask for this because you are a person I want to avoid and until I know what you look like it is difficult to do.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "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"
    ----Allahpundit

  22. #22
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    This is another affirmation that Federal Courts are indeed an enemy of freedom and a messenger of tyranny.

    Very stupid ruling here:

    “But the entire stop took only ten minutes and when Stern realized that he would not be able to confirm the gun license within a reasonable time, he sensibly opted to terminate the stop and release Schubert, but retain the weapon.”

    ....OK what is sensible aboutconfiscating a person’s private property when there is not even any evidence of wrongdoing, just a non-working gun licensing scheme.

    This screams due process to me, but what do I know.
    From David Codrea, Ed Stone has a lot to say about this:

    Open Season on Gun Carriers

    Atlanta Gun Rights Examiner Ed Stone fleshes out the meaning behind a story we touched on here.

    Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier


    Is this the reaction concealed carry should bring from the police?
    It's open season on gun carriers.
    A case out of the First Circuit has some painful lessons for gun carriers in Georgia. A United States Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld the constitutionality of pointing a gun at any citizen daring to carry, lawfully,a concealed weapon in public.

    For most people, this would be enough to conclude that they were being harassed for the exercise of a constitutional right, but the officer went further, seizing the attorney's pistol and leaving with it. Officer Stern reasoned that because he could not confirm the "facially valid" license to carry, he would not permit the attorney to carry. Officer Stern drove away with the license and the firearm, leaving the attorney unarmed, dressed in asuit,and alone in what the officer himself argued was a high crime area.

    Welcome to the new "right" to bear arms.



  23. #23
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,628

    Post imported post

    Pagan wrote:
    snip....
    If a LEO draws his weapon at me, whenI have committed no crime, how the hell amI supposed to know this guy is not about to go on a shooting spree for what ever reason, andI just happen to be the closest victim?
    Aaah, you listen to what he says and respond to other sensory perceptions - it is not a singular input/reaction thing.

    We support the premise that when you draw you need to be right - difficult to impossible - maybe, but that is the crux of the matter.

    To do otherwise is to participate in suicide by cop or to make application for admittance as a ward of the state. Drawing on a LEO in but the most extremely narrow scenarios will cause you to lose your vote on how this proceeds.

    There will be no turning back the clock or hitting replay.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    skidmark wrote:
    Pagan wrote:
    If LEO's want respect, they need to earn it, just like everybody else on this planet.
    A short lecture.

    One does not give respect to LEOs because they are LEOs. One gives respect to LEOs because they are the physical representation of "The majesty of the law." http://www.flickr.com/photos/kimberlyfaye/2871362648/

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...ty-of-law.html

    http://www.answers.com/topic/police

    It is when the individual police officer violates any of the "Nine Principles" of policing http://www.magnacartaplus.org/briefi...principles.htmthat we need to focus on that individual police officer. Focusing on the individual police officer is done through official complaints to the internal affairs/civilian review system, the courts, and the legislature. Drawing down on a cop just changes the dynamic from focusing on the LEOs improper behavior to dealing with your improper behavior.

    In other words, as wrong as the cop might be in drawing and pointing his weapon at you, the moment you draw and point in counter to his action, you are headed for the dual titles of "criminal" and "wounded/deceased". While the LEO had, in this hypothetical scenario (not the subject of the OP), no reason to draw down on you, he obtains every legal reason to shoot you to the ground if you draw on him in response.

    As a personal favor I would ask you to either post or PM me a recent picture of you. Full face and profile would be better. I ask for this because you are a person I want to avoid and until I know what you look like it is difficult to do.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    I'm not some hot headed person to be avoided by any means, but feel free to do as you wish and no offense is taken. But the LEO in this incident was threatening another citizens life with deadly force, for NOT breaking the law.

    If a license is required to carried concealed, then a LEO can certainly request to see that license IF you are in fact carrying concealed, and one should show them this license,if requiredby law. But asking to see somebody's CHP is far different than pointing a weapon at that same person, especially when that citizen is not behaving in some threatening manner. Am I truley that far out of step here?

    I certainly do see the need for LEO's, just not the need to tolerate their threatening to kill me or another person that is not trying to do the same to them or some innocent person.

    This is not about "teaching" bad cops a lesson or anything like that at all! This boils down to another human being wearing a uniform, threatening to kill another human being, AND having the means, and perhaps a motive to do so. Why this is even debatable is a mystery to me.

    Fake LEO's kicking in doors to homes, weapons drawn, people being handcuffed then assaulted or worse, is NOT far fetched or un heard of in this country. I have had guns pointed at me before, some by cops others by gansters, and every time I understood the reason for this, and everybody came out alive. Although somebody just coming up to another person pointing a gun, and expecting the victim to just lie down and accept their fate, is well... just f*cked up.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    Repeater wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    This is yet another case where a court allows police to treat gun carriers like criminals merely because they must have a license to carry as a matter of state law; the S. Ct. in the Prouse case re driver's licenses took a different view (no stopping cars just to check to see if driver is licensed). yet there i no fundmental right to drive vehicles like there is to carry gun.

    I suspect this issue of Terry stopping gun carriers where a license is required to carry is eventually headed to the S. Ct. to see if they are OK with a firearm exception to the Fourth Amendment (gee, i thought that was made clear in Florida v. J.L., but I guess it needs to be rammed ome again).
    An important passage is on page 8:
    The fact remains, however, that the officer saw a man carrying a gun in a high-crime area, walking toward an important public building3.
    Along with footnote 3:
    In addition, [officer] Stern noted that in his experience, most people who carry firearms in Springfield are not licensed to do so.
    Although the state of Massachusetts is a Green State (licensed open carry), evidently handgun carry in either mode is not common enough to warrant a lack of suspicion.

    Yet, in many Gold states, Open Carry is becoming more popular, hence more commonplace. That would be a significant benefit. By normalizing open carry, not only would other citizens become used to seeing handguns without incident around them, so too would law enforcement.

    Thus, another reason to promote Open Carry.
    Well, Virginia is a Gold state, yet this happened:

    Roanoke police actions spark lawsuit

    A Roanoke man is suing city police over an altercation with officers that he said began as an argument about his permit to carry a concealed firearm.

    Aaron A. Stevenson filed a lawsuit Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Roanoke alleging that his constitutional rights were violated during a May 6 traffic stop. He named two officers, Chief Joe Gaskins and the city as defendants.

    The lawsuit gives this account of Stevenson's encounter with police:

    Stevenson was driving along Williamson Road to pick up his daughter from church when Roanoke police Officer Jamie A. Kwiecinski stopped him. Stevenson was given a summons because his registration had expired.

    Kwiecinski learned that Stevenson had a concealed carry permit and asked if he had a gun. Stevenson declined to answer.

    Kwiecinski called for backup, and Officer Dwight W. Ayers arrived on the scene. Stevenson said the officers ignored his repeated invocation of his right to remain silent, and to have an attorney present during questioning.

    The officers pulled Stevenson from his vehicle, the lawsuit said, took the .45-caliber handgun he wore in a belt holster, and put him in handcuffs in the back of a police car. Stevenson said he was threatened with loss of his permit, confiscation of his gun and indefinite detention while police investigated whether he was involved in anything criminal.

    Officers never read Stevenson his Miranda rights, the lawsuit said, and Ayers told Stevenson the questioning would stop if he would admit to some criminal action.

    As the incident continued, some of Stevenson's co-workers drove past and his employer stopped to see what was happening. The officers asked the employer if Stevenson had mental problems.

    Stevenson said the tight handcuffs injured his wrists.

    Eventually, Sgt. Sandy Duffey, a police supervisor, said to release Stevenson.

    In the lawsuit, Stevenson asked for unspecified monetary damages, injunctions to prevent future incidents and a declaration that his civil rights had been violated.

    Online court records indicated that the expired registration charge against Stevenson was dismissed in June.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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