HankT
State Researcher
imported post
kwikrnu wrote:
Video Part 1--not much happened here until almost the end. I did gather that you were walking along the side of the road with a handgun of some sort of gun in your hand. That strikes me as extremist behavior.
Video Part 2--You were clear about your objections. They apparently knew who you were. You were also a bit nervous, as evidenced by the rather odd argument of whether 1870 was actually "right after the Civil War." Your position was that it "was not right after the Civil War." Weird position. Nervousness. Provided a bit of insight about your mindset. You seemed totally prepared with your law cites. The officers were no match for you. Your objection against their running the s/n was stated clearly.
Video Part 3--An interesting question comes up, can someone legally shoot the gun in the hand carrier if they feel threatened? That doesn't seem to get resolved.
I think you won the encounter decisively on several dimensions. Whatwere your objectives for the encounter, kwik?
Do the next one in the day. It'd be easier to see the video.
Audio Complaints:
first complaint: Seemed like a calm, understanding and informed citizen noticing some odd behavior and calling it in. I don't know that I'd call it a "complaint." It was a requestfor the police to look into some behavior that wasobserved.
griffith complaint part 1: Again, a reasonable calm person (woman) informing the police of a man with a gun. She didn't"complain" in this part.
griffith complaint part 2: (same) woman and kidswere "scared" and wanted to know if the gun guy had been breaking into cars or houses.
griffith complaint part 3: (same) woman, again expressedbeing "scared." wanted to know if the gun guyhad shot somebody. the officer (sameofficerwho stopped kwik) gave explanation/opinion to woman thatkwik was trying to get a federal lawsuit against law enforcement. Woman seems to understand that kwik was trying to prove a point about right to bear arms. Officer prompts woman ("And you felt threatened?") and she agrees. She's an attorney and offers to help to "get him under control."
Whatwere your objectives for the encounter, kwik? Thoseare necessary to properly and fully critique how the detainment was handled.
Be specific.
kwikrnu wrote:
Video Part 1--not much happened here until almost the end. I did gather that you were walking along the side of the road with a handgun of some sort of gun in your hand. That strikes me as extremist behavior.
Video Part 2--You were clear about your objections. They apparently knew who you were. You were also a bit nervous, as evidenced by the rather odd argument of whether 1870 was actually "right after the Civil War." Your position was that it "was not right after the Civil War." Weird position. Nervousness. Provided a bit of insight about your mindset. You seemed totally prepared with your law cites. The officers were no match for you. Your objection against their running the s/n was stated clearly.
Video Part 3--An interesting question comes up, can someone legally shoot the gun in the hand carrier if they feel threatened? That doesn't seem to get resolved.
I think you won the encounter decisively on several dimensions. Whatwere your objectives for the encounter, kwik?
Do the next one in the day. It'd be easier to see the video.
Audio Complaints:
first complaint: Seemed like a calm, understanding and informed citizen noticing some odd behavior and calling it in. I don't know that I'd call it a "complaint." It was a requestfor the police to look into some behavior that wasobserved.
griffith complaint part 1: Again, a reasonable calm person (woman) informing the police of a man with a gun. She didn't"complain" in this part.
griffith complaint part 2: (same) woman and kidswere "scared" and wanted to know if the gun guy had been breaking into cars or houses.
griffith complaint part 3: (same) woman, again expressedbeing "scared." wanted to know if the gun guyhad shot somebody. the officer (sameofficerwho stopped kwik) gave explanation/opinion to woman thatkwik was trying to get a federal lawsuit against law enforcement. Woman seems to understand that kwik was trying to prove a point about right to bear arms. Officer prompts woman ("And you felt threatened?") and she agrees. She's an attorney and offers to help to "get him under control."
Whatwere your objectives for the encounter, kwik? Thoseare necessary to properly and fully critique how the detainment was handled.
Be specific.
