• 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.

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

Pagan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
629
Location
Gloucester, Virginia, USA
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!
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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/columnists/philipjohnston/3562511/Judges-dress-should-uphold-the-majesty-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/briefings/nine_police_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
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
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

rem1100_9848.jpg

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.


 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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
 

Pagan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
629
Location
Gloucester, Virginia, USA
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/columnists/philipjohnston/3562511/Judges-dress-should-uphold-the-majesty-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/briefings/nine_police_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.
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
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 building[suP]3[/suP].
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.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
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 building[sup]3[/sup].
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.
Sooo... The courthouse is, or is in, a "high crime area?"

1) If it is a 'high crime' area, all the more reason to see people carrying a gun to protect themselves.

2) If this is a lawyer going to a courthouse, well, the multiple levels of irony that exist in this scenario are too many to count, and are really, really funny.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

Grapeshot wrote:
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
That appears to be the circumstance already.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

ixtow wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
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
That appears to be the circumstance already.
Except that here we do have that luxury and this does not fall within the parameters of being the best choice.

Yata hey
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

Grapeshot wrote:
ixtow wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
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
That appears to be the circumstance already.
Except that here we do have that luxury and this does not fall within the parameters of being the best choice.

Yata hey
Please explain how this is so.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

ixtow wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
ixtow wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
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
That appears to be the circumstance already.
Except that here we do have that luxury and this does not fall within the parameters of being the best choice.

Yata hey
Please explain how this is so.
Explain what? That we do not have the luxury of turning back the clock and responding differently in real life? Whereas here on OCDO we can Monday morning quarterback until the cows come home, but our discussion changes not one iota of what happened.

Didn't mean less or more.

Yata hey
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

Grapeshot wrote:
ixtow wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
ixtow wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
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
That appears to be the circumstance already.
Except that here we do have that luxury and this does not fall within the parameters of being the best choice.

Yata hey
Please explain how this is so.
Explain what? That we do not have the luxury of turning back the clock and responding differently in real life? Whereas here on OCDO we can Monday morning quarterback until the cows come home, but our discussion changes not one iota of what happened.

Didn't mean less or more.

Yata hey
I suppose we had two opposite ends of the meaning.

I was referring how one seeks redress from the courts, and here, got none. A mechanism by which one attempts to roll back a clock, and be failed by it.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

ixtow wrote:
I suppose we had two opposite ends of the meaning.

I was referring how one seeks redress from the courts, and here, got none. A mechanism by which one attempts to roll back a clock, and be failed by it.
Then we get to do the oft impossible - agree to agree :lol:

Yata hey
 

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,661
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
imported post

How in the hell do they justify confiscating his weapon as sensible? This officer's RAS has to do not with the behavior of the individual in question, but in other individuals not present, and in the area he was walking. I just don't see it.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:
How in the hell do they justify confiscating his weapon as sensible? This officer's RAS has to do not with the behavior of the individual in question, but in other individuals not present, and in the area he was walking. I just don't see it.
No one who understands and obeys the law can understand it...
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

Here is a link to the Federal district court ruling:

http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=ponsor/pdf/schubert%20mo.pdf

[align=left]Here is the really grotesque part:
[/align][align=left]Further, the officer acted reasonably when, after he could not obtain confirmation of the validity of the license in a few minutes, he allowed Plaintiff to go, retaining the firearm and ammunition.
[/align] [align=left]The court offers no opinion as to the judgment exercised by the officer in the circumstances, but no Constitutional line was crossed by this behavior. Any right to bear arms Plaintiff may have had does not signify that police are without power to stop and inquire, in these circumstances, or must do so only at peril of being sued for a civil rights violation.
[/align][align=left]This distrit court judge is a slave to tyranny and a herald of the kritocratic empire.
[/align]
 
Top