Active duty soldier illegally disarmed and arrested update

The simple truth is that if the officer really did have probably cause, he would not have simply walked up to the man with a gun, he would have called for backup and started the contact with a drawn weapon. The cop was acting like there was no law being broken. Yet the requirement here is for the police to have objective, rational, reasonable cause to be suspicious. Nothing in the evidence presented so far fulfills that requirement. Really Joe? What seems nuts to me is someone like you who is ok with the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments being violated.

This man was not an escaped felon, and look how he was treated. The same could happen to you. Get off the cops nuts.

If they cannot handle a law abiding armed citizen they need to seek employment somewhere else. This was clearly a power trip. The cops are lucky there are so many submissive weenies like you who roll over and take it. Bryan what makes you think his weapon was an automatic? I highly doubt that it is a automatic. After visiting Texas I would carry a rifle while hiking to protect me from coyotes, hogs, and other dangerous animals.

Cops by law can not arrest you without telling you are being arrested. I belive its called the called the writ of habeas corpus, but I might be wrong there. Cops arenot above the law and they have to fallow the law no matter what. Period there is no gray. Sorry, no, but being a police officer does not give you special rights. Quite literally, the police officer was attacking the very basis of his right to do his job armed.

If carrying a weapon justifies disarming someone and questioning them about their reasons for carrying, where they are going, etc.

The police are not an aristocracy, nor do they have special rights. What they usually have is an exception to laws that restrict gun possession in certain places, or at certain times. This does not give them any additional rights. He should use the excess money for a lock on his refrigerator. What a sorry excuse for a human. He was clearly the only one wetting his panties. What do you say at The Eagle Scout meeting now?

Anyone want to hire a hot head like this? The way this guy was acting especially after the detaining was definitely not how a rational person acts. Dude, you are a pathetic, submissive coward. You tap dance for anyone with authority? This is why these incidence continues to happen. Because weenies like you bow down and watch our rights erode away. By the way, I served this country and fought in Iraq. I too would not have allowed that fat pig of a cop grab my Rifle.

Semper Fi Master Sergeant. Is that officer the same one that was in New Orleans disarming little old ladies defending themselves from looters. If this is the case then what you have is a New World order cop ready to do anything to bully people into submission of the police state. Watch out for these people for they are fringe people and are ready to do anything to look good for the new world order.

Yes, suffice it to say that you do not see a person walking down the road with an AR15 strapped to him every day. Illegal…no, unusual…yes. Any goober driving down the road could call in this situation to the police department, and the police have to respond.

There are a lot of paranoid people out there just waiting for a chance to report someone…for anything! I think most of our police know this…. I think people from Aurora, Co. Just saying… that guy being a prick, I would believe he would shoot the cops as soon as they jump into their patrols, well done cops… well done…. You think he would have shot the police? On that note, do you think that the people in the theater, when that lunatic walked in and started firing, would have wanted the man in this video to be there with his AR to protect them?

Carrying an AR while walking down the road is not illegal! Your entire premis dissolves in the face of that fact! People like you are far more dangerous than a million of these guys on a million different roads. The default assumption under our legal system is that what a free man does is legal until validly and legally defined otherwise, so unless the officer has probable cause, then detaining a citizen is false imprisonment. The officer is quite literally breaking the law.

I will be the first to admit that most people will not object to answering illegal questions, nor will they file charges when illegally detained. This does not, however, mean that those rights are forfeit. No, the exact opposite. Or are you claiming that the people in the Aurora shooting did NOT want a guy s with guns to come save them?

The purpose of gun control laws is to remove the means for good people to rescue themselves or others from the baddies. Liston to all you drones defend the police. Do you have the stockholm syndrone? Moreover, this started as a 2nd amendment issue and quickly became a violation of the 4th and 5th amendments. Wake up America! They are public servants.

Why are people ok with the police violating a law abiding citizens rights? This was not some escaped felon evading capture. To add insult to injury, this was an Active Duty Master Sergeant. I too served my country years in the USMC. I find this appalling and disgraceful.

Hope these police are removed from their positions and charged for their crimes. I also pray that this Master Sergeant is properly reimbursed for his attorneys fees as they were totally unnecessary. Good luck to you Master Sergeant. Semper Fi. And while I think he was being belligerent, he WAS illegally disarmed and searched.

The cops only arrested him to cover there asses. The police carry guns. By your reasoning, then, the police should be stopped, disarmed, and arrested. Another example of the normal bias is: I see a group of young black men dressed in gangsta style clothing hanging out in front of my house. By your reasoning, I should call the police, and by your reasoning the police should come and detain them and question them.

A call by a concerned citizen is not probable cause, nor does a call by a concerned citizen justify stopping and questioning a citizen who has done nothing illegal.

Why would I? If you saw a man with a gun strapped to his person, and both a a shotgun and a rifle in his car, what would you do?

Your entire argument is based on assuming that people who wear uniforms are automatically superior to you in authority, are trustworthy and that they have special rights, but that everybody else has no rights, are guilty until they prove themselves innocent, and that society has the right to extra-legally impose standards of action, dress, demeanor and behavior on them. The cops need to have there ass beat and fired!! They should have said thank you and let them on there way.

There was nothing illegal to report, thus either the citizen was lying, or the police officer made an illegal stop. A call by a concerned citizen is not a legal justification for doing anything but going to look, and even that is not required, unless the citizen has lodged a legal complaint. This is a very puzzling video and incident. It is bizarre for us to think that it appears to be entirely legal to walk in a public place with an assault rifle, a concealed handgun with a partially hidden face sunglasses, hat and scarf and claim you are on a hiking trip with your son.

Did the cops deal with this incident correctly and legally? They claim they reacted to a call from an alarmed resident.

The cops had to deal with a guy carrying an assault rifle in a public place. The police do not know in advance the mental state of any individual they are obliged to stop. Being ex forces as I am — 22 years British Army does not give you the automatic right to be treated in anyway differently. I have a lot of respect for the British police but like any organisation there are good, indifferent and occasionally poor members.

If he had been calm and compliant this would not have been an incident in the first place. The cops have to keep themselves safe too. Was the guy looking for confrontation? The US police have a difficult job to do with so many weapons around concealed and overtly carried. Why did he need these weapons on a hiking trip in the countryside? I appreciate that you have larger and more aggressive wild animals in the US but is an assault rifle and handgun necessary?

Rural police in the UK are rarely armed. British police rarely carry weapons overtly unless at airports and static security at high risk sites. Different countries, different laws and different opinions. What was the legal outcome of this case? Regards, Simon in England. Try to imagine this a different way: suppose someone had been seen walking down the street carrying a a book. What would justify a police officer stopping the citizen carrying the book, and harassing them in this fashion?

You are correct: the fact that the citizen was also a member of the armed forces does not give them special rights or privileges, but that is equally true of the police. By our Constitution, the police have no special rights or powers, and it is only through legislation the carves out exceptions for them that they are legally allowed to carry weapons into places that other people are not quite questionable legislation, by the way.

None the less, those laws are not what grant the police the right to bear arms; it is their simple right, as a citizen, to bear arms. So another way of looking at this is: should a citizen report every person exercising their rights, just because that exercise scares them in some fashion? Should we report every person we see who has tools that can be used to kill? Should we report every person carrying a gun to the police?

Should we report every police officer we see. The UK is a Kingdom. While for many years the Monarch has had very few powers, and very few special ones, your history is one of restricting the right to keep and bear arms to members of your Aristocracy Knights: they existed in part to have someone in who that power could be vested. This suggests that your cultural pattern is still one that is intrinsically class based, so the thought of someone else having rights you do not is normal for you.

The implication is that people only have the right to do what they are allowed to do by their King, or Liege Lord. In the US, each man is his own sovereign and as such, that question is inflammatory to the point of being insulting I know you did not mean it that way, of course as it implies that someone else has the right to dictate to a citizen what they may or may not do absent a clear violation of legally established law.

What this citizen was doing was legal, thus a police officer just another citizen, no different from the citizen being stopped had no right to even stop the man.

A police officer may only interfere with you if you are performing an illegal act, or he has a reasonable suspicion that you are or have done something illegal. Since that is not true in this case, the police are the law breakers here, and should be duly punished, just as any other citizen should be. AGAIN noone knows ur a soldier just by lookin at u! YOU were the one being unreasonable. Your posting is one long screed against human rights, based on your fear. Fear makes people very controlling, and I understand that reaction, but fear does not give anybody any special rights.

And security through control is an illusion. Ask Benito Mussolini if control kept him safe. No, they are not. What you posted is just not true. If it were, we would be living in a dictatorship, a tyrannical system where every right had been stripped away in favor of enforcing homogeneity in thought, word and deed.

The entire point of the Constitution is to protect my God given right to say, think and act in any way I please, no matter how rude, strange or unusual, so long as I break no valid and legally established law. Such was the case here. A man was acting outside the norm, yes, but he was breaking no law, thus the police had no right to harass him. Hey Simon. The jury deadlocked and a mistrial was declared back on October 18th, and the prosecutor announced his intention to retry the case with a new trial date of November 18th.

Army Master Sgt. Grisham, whose first trial back in October ended in a hung jury and a mistrial, was found guilty today of interference with the duties of an officer, a Class-B misdemeanor. According to the constitution that soldier would have been with in his rights to shoot that police officer. Obviously I do not advise this unless absolutely necessary, but what occurred here law a robbery.

Subscribe to the daily email mailing list:. The US constitution clearly grants an individual the right to bear arms. January 13, Facebook Twitter Twitch. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both. Primary Menu. Search for: Search. Some quality taverns would be a plus.

Too many storefronts are vacant. Bars could help to bring in needed revenue. Putting a number of bars downtown is just asking for trouble. Several churches have located downtown.

Putting bars close by would be a bad fit. It would depend on how the law is written and what standards are enacted. Midweek Poll. Most Popular. Follow us on Facebook.