CA Officer posts interesting Facebook comments about Open Carry

S

Sefner

New member
Link: http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14361484?nclick_check=1

Summary: CA LEO writes in some Facebook messages that CA Open Carriers should do things like carry in Oakland, Richmond and East Palo Alto "and not limit themselves to hoity toity cities."

"Haha, we had one guy last week try to do it!" Tuason replied, referring to a Redwood City man who strolled into the Mi Pueblo Food Center in East Palo Alto on Jan. 27 with a gun on his hip. "He got proned out and reminded where he was at and that turds will jack him for his gun in a heartbeat!"
Click to expand...

Tuason apparently joked that officers should shoot the advocates, who have made recent headlines throughout the Bay Area for sipping coffee at cafes and performing other everyday acts with visible weapons.
Click to expand...

I've seen some threads about the carriers in coffee shops. But shooting them?...

"Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night!" Tuason wrote. "Should've pulled the AR out and prone them all out! And if one of them makes a furtive movement ... 2 weeks off!!!"
Click to expand...

It's really this line here that bothers me. First he mocks the Second Amendment, and then says that if an carrier was killed, hey, that's two weeks of no work for him. Nevermind killing an law-abiding citizen. I sure hope he feels the same animosity towards criminals.

And then the irony starts:

But East Palo Alto police Capt. Carl Estelle said the department's professional standards division is looking into the Facebook remarks to see if they violate any rules or policies.

"We have to be careful because they're on his own personal private Web page," Estelle said. "We have to be careful not to violate his First Amendment rights."
Click to expand...

We see what the officer thinks about his Second Amendment rights, why are we so concerned with what he thinks about the First Amendment rights???

And lastly, as I and others have repeatedly warned, this is a message to people who post *interesting* things on the Internet: Don't do it. Apparently someone involved with the situation posted a messages on a California forum:

Meanwhile, Tuason's Facebook comments had sparked a 45-page thread on the Web site Calguns.net Monday afternoon. A user with the handle .45shooter claiming to be either Tuason or the detective's Facebook friend who posted the original status update — the identity wasn't clear from the post — apologized to site members and said he was a Second Amendment advocate himself.

"Sometimes sacastic or off color humor should be best kept in the confines of those you can confide in, I forgot the golden rule of whos watching and listenting to you! I know i ruffled alot of feathers by making that comment! But as a person i did not mean no harm to anyone.
Click to expand...

Now I actually could believe that it was sarcasm. And if it was sarcasm, it's pretty damn funny and makes a great point. In fact I think sarcasm is just as likely as the vociferous comments being made in seriousness. But remember people, this is the Internet, where we can totally hear your tone of voice and see you roll your eyes, so things are NEVER misunderstood on the Internet :rolleyes:.
 
I have a lot of trouble with believing the joke about 2 weeks off for shooting somebody open carrying. If it is sarcasm, then it is also blatantly irresponsible (making public statements about shooting people who aren't breaking the law)...which in and of itself is quite scary givng the officer's job. If he meant what he said, then that is scary as well.
 
Last edited:
This is why I conceal carry... no one knows... unless being stopped by an officer then it's immediate disclosure. And the LEO's around these parts are pretty good. NEVER have I been hassled or even disarmed for that matter.
Open carry seems like too much hassle.
 
I was wondering if this would show up here. This has gone viral, appearing in such places as the NY Times BLog, and then San Jose Mercury News. It generated 500 posts at CalGuns in two days. The guy's career ought to be toast. How would you like to be the DA, defending an on-duty shoot of Detective Tuason's?

To make things worse, Detective Roderick Tuason was (is?) a member of Calguns, so the feeling of betrayal is much greater.

The current hope at Calguns is that rather than this being an opportunity to vilify any officer or department, is that it can be a teaching moment: an opportunity to use the leverage to force mandatory department training as to the rights of UOCers (unloaded open carriers, in California-speak).

May I suggest that we avoid lumping LE as a whole into the category of Detective Rod Tuason. We know that while a few LE officers may share the Detective's views, that he is an exception to the honor and integrity that is much more prevalent in LE.

Here are the actual comments:

ramrod.gif


I find that last comment about CCWs particularly . . sophomoric.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the screencap maestro, sheds some light into the nature of the comments.

Unmentioned here is the inanity of the law. You can open carry a gun, but no rounds in it? It's almost like legislators WANT people to be attacked and have their guns stolen because criminals will know it's not loaded. That's like saying you can keep a car but no gas in it.

May I suggest that we avoid lumping LE as a whole into the category of Detective Rod Tuason. We know that while a few LE officers may share the Detective's views, that he is an exception to the honor and integrity that is much more prevalent in LE.
Click to expand...

+1 and seconded.
 
We see what the officer thinks about his Second Amendment rights, why are we so concerned with what he thinks about the First Amendment rights???
Click to expand...

Obviously, all rights are important and disagreeing with one's statements on one right doesn't negate another right.

All need to be protected - just a general comment.
 
Some of his statements were troubling, particularly the two week off comment. It is guys like this that give ammo to the cop bashers. While I don't like OC for citizens it is purely my opinion. My opposition isn't rights based it is more practicallity based. You most assuredly have the right to OC by my reading of the Constitution, you also have the right to insult a 6'8" 310# football player just not the easiest way to get through your day
 
I must agree with CelticWolf's earlier post.

I have never understood the utility of open-carry.

Anyone - anyone - can be caught by surprise.

It happens to LEOs, military patrols, special forces, other trained professionals, and it can happen to any of us as well. Plus, a lot of criminals are frankly a lot more experienced at being criminals - violence and attacking people - than most of us are at gunfighting. Gunfights or assaults don't always go down the way you envision them going down in your mind or your planning.

If 2 or 4 serious jackwads decide they want that sleek custom tuned .45 (or whatever) that you're open-carrying, guess what? You'll have a shotgun suddenly pressed against your head in broad daylight and your pistol, wallet, and cellphone will be gone in about 34 seconds. It's not like in the movies.

Open carry simply lets the predators know information that they don't need to know - such as where a gun can be had quickly if they want one.

Discretion remains the better part of valor...
 
This guy is a serious waste of a badge, as is anyone who attempts to defend him.

He also is out of touch with the political realities of California self defense.

The reason these folks OC is to get the public re-accustomed to the idea that it is a responsible choice to be armed as a law abiding citizen.

However... due to asinine laws passed over the last 50 years in CA, it simply is impossible.

So, the OC movement is not a self defense movement at this point. It is a public image campaign. Similar to the empty holster carry movements at colleges. Put a face and a character reference to the concept of "strangers with guns in my community." The unloaded gun in the holster (or the empty holster of someone who would LIKE to carry a gun but can't due to laws or rules) is not going to shoot anyone on its own, and the guy buying the latte isn't going to draw down on you for buying the last scone.

OC in da hood is a bad idea, especially with an unloaded gun. It's asking for trouble. OC advocates know that.

Oh, and the CCW comment? I'm looking forward to this jerk losing his badge and trying to get a CA CCW. Enjoy not carrying a gun just like the rest of us , or getting "proned out" by some overzealous jackboot.
 
"Be happy when someone says a stupid thing-that's how we know who the stupid people are."

And I'd say the good detective's cat is out of the bag....


Larry
 
I've paid attention to this, ever since it started over at CalGuns, last Tuesday.

The story has now been picked up by the Drudge Report which links to a story in the Mercury News.

For what it's worth, this isn't a 1A or a 2A story. It's a story of a mindset that continues the "Us V. Them" divide.

This is also about East Palo Alto, which has had running battle between its PD and its citizens; about the hiring practices of its PD; about who they hire (hint: rejects no other CA PD would hire).

If you know about the make-up of that town, you will realize that the "t u r d" comment is racial. You should also see the explicit confession of violating a persons civil rights: Det. Rod Tuason knows that unloaded open carry is lawful in CA, but he proned a man, anyway. By law, officers are allowed to check that the firearm is unloaded, but proning someone simply because you don't like it?

Then we have the "suggestion" that you can prone these open carriers and if they make a furtive movement... What? Shoot them in the back and get a 2 week paid admin vacation while your dept. clears you? Is there another meaning to that statement that I'm not seeing?

Was this just some sort of "black" humor? If it was, then it would have been best to keep such face-to-face, and out of anyone else's earshot. Certainly not on the internet, where nothing is ever truly lost! - Let this be a lesson to those of you that write things you shouldn't. It will come back to bite you!!
 
Glenn said:
Quote:
We see what the officer thinks about his Second Amendment rights, why are we so concerned with what he thinks about the First Amendment rights???
Obviously, all rights are important and disagreeing with one's statements on one right doesn't negate another right.

All need to be protected - just a general comment.
Click to expand...

I know that, I was more going for the irony that his superior rushes to talk about 1st Amendment rights but the obvious one is ignored.
 
I know that, I was more going for the irony that his superior rushes to talk about 1st Amendment rights but the obvious one is ignored.
Click to expand...
I had the same thought, even laughed to myself about it. Is the first concern that comes to mind really the officer's first amendment rights? He posted it on the internet for god-sakes. I haven't heard anyone say that he didn't have a right to say it. I certainly wouldn't want to prevent anyone from voluntarily revealing such an alarming mindset.
 
I have a new saying:

"When only citizens have guns, citizens won't need the police."

This is a threat to their job security, of course they hate it.
 
This is a threat to their job security, of course they hate it.
Click to expand...
If it is, it shouldn't be. Definitively, their job is to enforce laws. Most of us are aware that they have no duty to protect us, nor the resources if they wanted to.
 
[MTT TL
Senior Member
*
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: The Ozure Isles
Posts: 533
I have a new saying:

"When only citizens have guns, citizens won't need the police."

This is a threat to their job security, of course they hate it.
__________________
Proxima est Mors, Malum Nullum adhibit Misericordiam
Click to expand...

I cannot disagree with this statement more. CCW isn't a threat to Coppers it is an aid to Police.
 
I hope he gets a 2 week unpaid vacation while this is being investigated. Perhaps he needs another psychological evaluation to determine the source of his immaturity and evaluate whether he is fit for duty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top