Soldier threatened with gun

amlevin said:

Orphan, don't you know that most learn by "observing and learning from more experienced people" but for some reason there are those in every generation that "Just have to P!$$ ON THE FENCE" for themselves. It's always been that way and probably always will.

Just like a similar post with almost the same type story, I wonder what happened before the story picked up? What happened to provoke the encounter to begin with?

Click to expand...

+1 my bad LOL

Orphan said:

Your opinion is as valid as mine.


No that was just a statement, if I were to personally insult Decklin it would have been a whole lot more interesting trust me.

Real actual occurrences are how we learn what to do and what not to do. We all learn by discussing it and guess what we will all have different opinions and different angles to point out, that is not getting beat up or torn apart. It is simply a lot of folks putting in their .02 worth. I have to disagree with you here

I have to agree with you here, thats why we post and discuss isnt it, or have I been missing something here all this time.

What was uncivil were MadHatter66, Gogodawgs and my comments uncivil, I dont think so, you are free to think differently. My biggest concern is/was that his buddy & Decklin as well as anyone else learn that he/they could end up in a real bad place if he continues the chase people after the fact. All kinds of people read these forums, a lot of the younger less experianced folks might think Decklin's story was pretty cool, I know I would have in my early 20s, and do the same thing and end up hurt or in cuffs or worse.

The "gangsta style" in parenthesis struck me wrong and I expressed my opinion of that, nothing more nothing less.

Click to expand...

+1

I understood his "gangsta" comment though sometimes when you write you do so in order for others to envision what you saw or experienced. And often we don't realize how others see that comment, I am glad Decklin clarified, something he wouldn't have done unless you questioned it so I am also glad you questioned it.

MadHatter66 said:

That is akin to someone following me because I OC because I have my niece with me, and they don't like OC. The look at it as the child is in danger because I have a weapon. If anything it puts the child in danger because now the guy starts driving more erratically or even shooting because of the "guy following him." Now the bullets flying are a DIRECT RESULT of your friend that followed him.

Click to expand...

I agree with Deklin on this that you can't compare a LEGALLY carried holstered weapon on a LAW ABIDING citizen to someone that is so mentally unstable as to pull his weapon and point it at someone. If someone is just going about his buisness with a holstered pistol and their children then I think he loves his family enough to protect them, but if I see someone with a child that is waving a pistol around and foaming at the mouth then I get concerned for the childs safety.

sudden valley gunner said:

+1

I understood his "gangsta" comment though sometimes when you write you do so in order for others to envision what you saw or experienced. And often we don't realize how others see that comment, I am glad Decklin clarified, something he wouldn't have done unless you questioned it so I am also glad you questioned it.

Click to expand...

Very true. As far as something provoking the incident my buddy had said to the best of his knowledge he did not do anything. Who knows. Sometimes people just go off without really needing a reason.

Orphan said:

Your opinion is as valid as mine.


No that was just a statement, if I were to personally insult Decklin it would have been a whole lot more interesting trust me.

Real actual occurrences are how we learn what to do and what not to do. We all learn by discussing it and guess what we will all have different opinions and different angles to point out, that is not getting beat up or torn apart. It is simply a lot of folks putting in their .02 worth. I have to disagree with you here

I have to agree with you here, thats why we post and discuss isnt it, or have I been missing something here all this time.

What was uncivil were MadHatter66, Gogodawgs and my comments uncivil, I dont think so, you are free to think differently. My biggest concern is/was that his buddy & Decklin as well as anyone else learn that he/they could end up in a real bad place if he continues the chase people after the fact. All kinds of people read these forums, a lot of the younger less experianced folks might think Decklin's story was pretty cool, I know I would have in my early 20s, and do the same thing and end up hurt or in cuffs or worse.

The "gangsta style" in parenthesis struck me wrong and I expressed my opinion of that, nothing more nothing less.

Click to expand...

I agree that we should be civil to each other as we are all on the same side of the street when it comes to our right to OC/CC.

I think what Deklins friend did was appropriate as we have to many people closing their eye and saying "it isn't my problem" only to hear on the 10 o'clock new of a childs body being found and later finding out it was the little girl in the car with this mentally unstable gun wielding psyco.

I can also see other view points about the issue and to follow or not but that is up to each individual to decide when they are faced with a situation like this. I know when I was in simulair situations like being shot at I reacted and didn't make a concious decision a few of the times or I would have done something different (maybe).

As for the whole gangsta thing, I think it is stupid to fight over how a word is spelled. Me being older I found gangsta to be right on and immediatly got the picture. Gangster I woud have pictured Al Capone or Buggs Malone....maybe Johnney Dangerously.

What DoD policy says you can't arm yourself with your personal weapon while in uniform?

RCW 9.41.060 specifically states that members of the armed forces of the United States or of the national guard or organized reserves, when on duty, can carry a concealed weapon.

I've been in the military for a while and I know of no law or regulation that says you can't have a weapon on your person OFF POST, OC or CC, while in uniform. Each installation has their own regulations regarding weapons, but generally, you can't carry on post.

Enlighten me.

You can now shoot accuratley "Gangsta" style.

View attachment 7760

amzbrady said:

You can now shoot accuratley "Gangsta" style.

View attachment 7760

Click to expand...

Now THAT'S funny!

JIMMBOB,
Since you are in the military I am assuming you know all the stuff contained here regarding firearms at Ft. Lewis/McChord:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...1.4.17&idno=32

If you read back through Decklins posts I believe his friend has decided to put up with the hassle of arming himself to and from the base by going through the "process" of checking his weapon at the gate when arriving and leaving. My take on it, is that is is a "bit of an ordeal" from what I read in the link above.

ORPHAN,
Appreciate your post.


Cheers.

JIMMBOB said:

What DoD policy says you can't arm yourself with your personal weapon while in uniform?

RCW 9.41.060 specifically states that members of the armed forces of the United States or of the national guard or organized reserves, when on duty, can carry a concealed weapon.

I've been in the military for a while and I know of no law or regulation that says you can't have a weapon on your person OFF POST, OC or CC, while in uniform. Each installation has their own regulations regarding weapons, but generally, you can't carry on post.

Enlighten me.

Click to expand...

I'm still trying to find the regulation. The closest I could find was AR190-11 but that is not the one I have seen in the past.
I know of no military installation where they allow carry to just anyone. Every place I've seen the requiremnt was in the performance of duties. CID for example but even then not all of them are even authorized to carry on or in any Federal property. In order to carry on Ft. Lewis for example you have to get express permission from the installation commander.
OldGutshotWilly, You don't need to check in at the gate. You do need to register the firearm on post, though. You need to make sure the firearm is unloaded and not readily accessible to the driver or any passengers. So lock it in the trunk. Then you are supposed to be going hunting (this excuse only works during hunting season) or to the range. I think Range 11 allows personal weapons. It's just outside of east gate. Or you can check it into the unit armsroom but you have to have the commander's permission to get it back out. It really is a pain to do all this. And you need to hope the gate guards believe you if they end up searching your vehicle.
I know you probably know all this as you posted the regs yourself.

decklin said:

That's crap and you know it. How does pointing a gun at someone equate to being the same as OC? You say he should have gotten the license plate number. When was he supposed to do that? When the guy was behind him in the dark with his highbeams on? Or maybe when he was next to him with a gun pointing at his face? Or maybe it was when the guy whipped around the corner and sped off. He got the license plate doing the only thing he could. He kept his distance and only got as close as he needed to in order to see the plate and then turned around and left.

Click to expand...

DocWalker said:

I agree with Deklin on this that you can't compare a LEGALLY carried holstered weapon on a LAW ABIDING citizen to someone that is so mentally unstable as to pull his weapon and point it at someone. If someone is just going about his buisness with a holstered pistol and their children then I think he loves his family enough to protect them, but if I see someone with a child that is waving a pistol around and foaming at the mouth then I get concerned for the childs safety.

Click to expand...

This is why I used AKIN to... So not exactly like, but similar too... My point is that just because there is a gun and a child involved doesn't necessarily make it something that you need to risk your life for. Someone out there (holophobe) could follow, harass and call 911 because I have my neice with me and I have a firearm. I am aware that OC is legal, and that pointing a gun at someone is not. But lets be honest, how often do people call 911 just because someone is OC? Now they are saying "He has a gun, and there is a CHILD with him! Think of the children!" Someone could use the fact that you have a child with you to try and vilify the fact that you are OC. How many anti's out there do think might try that angle. It gets tried ALL THE TIME. I spent many years taking 911 calls. The most common call for someone legally shooting on their property? "I have kids here, and they are shooting right next door!!!!" The kids have nothing to do with it, but people are trying to use it as an emotional tool.

I am just making a point that the child doesn't, in my opinion make his actions any more excusable, if anything it makes it worse as now there is a gun being waved around again, there is a child that was left in a presumably running car without a driver on the side of the road.

I am being civil here, I am just voicing that I completely disagree with, and even go so far as to point out that your friend possibly committed a crime here. Two wrongs do not make a right, and going after someone that just pointed a gun at you isn't the best idea, in fact I would call it down right stupid and could get you killed, or charged with a crime.

The original encounter at the light, yeah I would totally want to have my sidearm if someone was pointing a gun at me. Being former military, I know how much it sucks leaving work and not being able to have your sidearm because of the regulations. I actually started parking off base in a secure park and ride so that I could lock my weapon in my car safe and have it when I was driving home just because of things like this.

JIMMBOB said:

What DoD policy says you can't arm yourself with your personal weapon while in uniform?

RCW 9.41.060 specifically states that members of the armed forces of the United States or of the national guard or organized reserves, when on duty, can carry a concealed weapon.

I've been in the military for a while and I know of no law or regulation that says you can't have a weapon on your person OFF POST, OC or CC, while in uniform. Each installation has their own regulations regarding weapons, but generally, you can't carry on post.

Enlighten me.

Click to expand...

Every base I've EVER been to does NOT allow you to possess a firearm in your vehicle. So, whenever I am going to or from work, and any stops in between, or if I go out to lunch with my comrades just for a quick break - I am disarmed because I can't have it on base. So sure, you can carry in uniform, but you better not bring it on base. lolwut!?

I'm not sure if this is a DoD policy, but there is federal law covering possessing firearms in federal facilities/ and the base usually has their own rules forbidding firearms in vehicles at the Wing level.

When I brought this up to my group commander he pointed his finger at me and said, "you gave up your rights when you signed on the dotted line."

So, in summation: You sign up to serve your government's interests, but when it really comes down to it they don't give a flying **** about your life. They don't care if your kid grows up with out a father because you were defenseless driving home from work. They. Don't. Care. What's funny is everyone actually believes they're safer on base because of these rules. The people I work with don't understand why I believe we should be able to carry.

The Pentagon was looking at some Firearm rules after the Fort Hood shooting, but I haven't seen a DOD policy. All the bases have local policies. At some you can check your weapon at the gate. It's quite hit and miss and not very consistent from base to base. When I was stationed at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, I used to check my firearm at the security office, at the main gate. Up until 3 weeks ago, I could check my firearm at the base I'm currently assigned, but they have recently had a reduction at the armory, and don't have the manpower to check weapons anymore. But I've never seen a base that allowed firearms in vehicles on the base.

I have to agree with the actions of his friend. The thought that he may have committed a crime in the course of his actions is ridiculous. Following someone to gather information to report them for DEFINITIVELY having committed a crime, IS NOT a crime. If it is, please quote the RCW. I'll give you a headstart at RCW 9A.46 and RCW 46.61. Nothing he did would fulfill any of the legal requirements to charge him with any crime. Legal disclaimer...I am not a lawyer or prosecuting attorney, nor did I ever play one on television.

http://www.lewis.army.mil/des/HJB FORM 816 (30 Nov 11 military).doc
This is the current registration form for soldiers wishing to bring weapons on post.
I live on post and I ALWAYS have my gun with me. If i'm coming on post, I unload and properly store it. When I leave post, I lock and load just outside the gate. If you follow the regs nobody can say anything, even on post. If the guards ask, I show my registration papers and tell them i'm coming home from "an authorized off post location", works every time.

Soldiers that live in barracks still have to register their weapons but are required to store them in their specific unit arms room. Procedures for getting it back out of the arms room is up to their commander and unit SOP.

Back to the original topic. I carry everywhere I go, except on post, so I have been searching hard for a regulation or a policy or anything that forbids me from carrying while in in uniform. I am thoroughly convinced that such a "rule" does not exist. Washington state RCW's specifically permit service members carrying concealed while on duty. "While on duty" can be interpreted differently depending on who you are dealing with so, to play it safe I have a permit.

Now lolwut!?

TRAKATAK said:

I have to agree with the actions of his friend. The thought that he may have committed a crime in the course of his actions is ridiculous. Following someone to gather information to report them for DEFINITIVELY having committed a crime, IS NOT a crime. If it is, please quote the RCW. I'll give you a headstart at RCW 9A.46 and RCW 46.61. Nothing he did would fulfill any of the legal requirements to charge him with any crime. Legal disclaimer...I am not a lawyer or prosecuting attorney, nor did I ever play one on television.

Click to expand...

No one said he commited a crime by following the guy, all several of were pointing out is as soon as the guy stopped threatening Decklin's friend and left the threat ended. By following the guy Decklin's friend now became the aggressor and if the guy had shot Decklin's friend he could have claimed self defence and likely got away with it.Just think Officer my kid was in the car, that guy followed us home, then drove his car at me and I had to defend my kid in that was in the car.

Example if a guy comes over to you in the park and starts a fight you start wupping up on him and he retreats and you persue him across the park to continue the wupping you have now become the aggressor in the eyes of the law and could face prosecution for assault. Or if you are doing enough harm to him he could lawfully use deadly force to defend himself. Same thing if some one breaks into your home and you persue them down the block and shoot/attack them, you are in deep doo doo with the law.

Please understand this.

Orphan,

Yes, someone did say he may have committed a crime. Please read the thread thoroughly before posting. From Madhatter66...

"I am being civil here, I am just voicing that I completely disagree with, and even go so far as to point out that your friend possibly committed a crime here."

I do, in fact, understand the point that is trying to be made in regards to the situation. If we are going to play the hypothetical game however, we will be here all day and I won't partake.

Also...
..."the guy stopped threatening Decklin's friend and left the threat ended."

Do you really believe that?!? A man pulls up next to him, child in car, and waves a gun in a threatening manner for who knows what reason. The threat to Decklin's friend ended when he drove away, however the threat itself did not end as you state. A person of reasonable intelligence would conclude that the individual is likely a threat to others on the roadway, if not also the child. As law abiding citizens, I feel we have an obligation to our fellow citizens to help eliminate (through the use of law enforcement when appropriate, as his friend was doing, and correctly I might add, given the situation at the time) the threat and to get the guy/girl off the street. I stopped posting on this forum approximately 2 years ago because of the attitude I saw running rampant through this forum of "F you Joe Citizen. You are not my problem, so if someone is beating/shooting/stabbing you, UNLESS they attack me, I'm not gonna do **** about it." I decided to drop in and check things out, and it looks like this may still be the case.

TRAKATAK said:

Orphan,

Yes, someone did say he may have committed a crime. Please read the thread thoroughly before posting. From Madhatter66...

"I am being civil here, I am just voicing that I completely disagree with, and even go so far as to point out that your friend possibly committed a crime here."

I do, in fact, understand the point that is trying to be made in regards to the situation. If we are going to play the hypothetical game however, we will be here all day and I won't partake.

Also...
..."the guy stopped threatening Decklin's friend and left the threat ended."

Do you really believe that?!? A man pulls up next to him, child in car, and waves a gun in a threatening manner for who knows what reason. The threat to Decklin's friend ended when he drove away, however the threat itself did not end as you state. A person of reasonable intelligence would conclude that the individual is likely a threat to others on the roadway, if not also the child. As law abiding citizens, I feel we have an obligation to our fellow citizens to help eliminate (through the use of law enforcement when appropriate, as his friend was doing, and correctly I might add, given the situation at the time) the threat and to get the guy/girl off the street. I stopped posting on this forum approximately 2 years ago because of the attitude I saw running rampant through this forum of "F you Joe Citizen. You are not my problem, so if someone is beating/shooting/stabbing you, UNLESS they attack me, I'm not gonna do **** about it." I decided to drop in and check things out, and it looks like this may still be the case.

Click to expand...

I agree with your assessment here, there is a lot of people that don't want to get involved in anything. If I see someone being harmed, you bet I am going to intervene to save them. I think that is my moral commitment as an armed citizen, but I cannot run around like a super hero looking for people in danger or being harmed. I am not going looking for a fight, but if a fight comes to me, you bet I am going to act, no matter who the threat is against, me or someone around me.

But once the car left the area, the direct threat was gone and now it is time to be a good citizen and call the police report the car, direction of travel time frame and then wait for contact or go home and wait for a call. As a citizen, I am not thinking about EVERY possible threat that this guy poses. I am worried about the direct threat that occurred while in my presence. What he does after he drives away is no longer my obligation to follow him. The hypothetical's here are endless, he could go kill the child, his wife, the clerk at the 7-11... But the fact remains that once the car broke contact and left the area the threat ended. At that point I will call 911 and let LE do their job with that. To go after the car, he has now become the aggressor in the eyes of the law. Orphan is right here, if you chase down someone that just broke into your property (car, house etc) you become the aggressor. Is there a crime in that? Its possible, but not likely. If the person felt that you were threatening them, you could potentially be charged with harassment. Right or wrong, you have met the elements of the crime. Do I think this is likely? No... Would a prosecutor follow through? Probably not when the totality of the situation was looked at. But you get a bad combo of over zealous cop and say an anti-carry prosecutor and you might find yourself in trouble. And these elements are not hard to meet, there are a lot of both out there. Then you get the media hype over "MAN CHASES DOWN AND DETAINS HOME INVADER DOWN AND CALLS POLICE" and the court of public opinion starts picking it apart and hailing the guy as a hero when what he did was fairly reckless.

His friend was not the aggressor to anyone. Again, reference the laws I already gave in this thread to see that there is no law they can charge him with violating. No law violated, no charges brought, plain and simple.

TRAKATAK said:

His friend was not the aggressor to anyone. Again, reference the laws I already gave in this thread to see that there is no law they can charge him with violating. No law violated, no charges brought, plain and simple.

Click to expand...

Agreed he was not the 'aggressor', and I would agree that you should report the incident to the police, including the make/model of the car, description, direction traveled, etc. However, if you can not get the license of the car from a safe distance then the move by the friend is a boneheaded idea.

decklin said:

I'm still trying to find the regulation. The closest I could find was AR190-11 but that is not the one I have seen in the past.
I know of no military installation where they allow carry to just anyone. Every place I've seen the requiremnt was in the performance of duties. CID for example but even then not all of them are even authorized to carry on or in any Federal property. In order to carry on Ft. Lewis for example you have to get express permission from the installation commander.
OldGutshotWilly, You don't need to check in at the gate. You do need to register the firearm on post, though. You need to make sure the firearm is unloaded and not readily accessible to the driver or any passengers. So lock it in the trunk. Then you are supposed to be going hunting (this excuse only works during hunting season) or to the range. I think Range 11 allows personal weapons. It's just outside of east gate. Or you can check it into the unit armsroom but you have to have the commander's permission to get it back out. It really is a pain to do all this. And you need to hope the gate guards believe you if they end up searching your vehicle.
I know you probably know all this as you posted the regs yourself.

Click to expand...

If you live off post you do NOT have to register it (memo dated March 11, 2010. And it is range 15 run by MWR to shoot rifle, and/or handgun. Civillians are allowed also, $5.50 for military, $7.00 civillians.
http://www.jblmmwr.com/nw_adv_ranges.html
Guns brought onto base are to be stored in a container seperate from the ammo, and as far apart as possible. For the purpose of bringing to quarters, or range for target/hunting with no stops in between.