Police and Open Carry

[Quartus]

And personally, if the cops ever assaulted me for doing something that I had the right to do, there would be no "shaking hands" and "promising not to sue". If there were 200 witnesses, and the cops blatantly abused me, I'd sue them.

Hey, Frank! Look at this! We AGREE on something!

The day we hold the public accountable for every little infraction is the day I won't have a problem with people holding the police accountable for every little infraction.

The conduct described was not a "little infraction". It's plenty of reason for this guy to lose his badge, as far as I'm concerned.


As for the other, public servants ARE held to a higher standard than the rest of us, particularly those who carry guns and wear badges. They have power that the rest of us don't have, and with that level of power comes a level of responsibility that the rest of us don't have.


Finally, "understandable" is not the same thing as "excusable".

 

[MicroBalrog]

My point is that in this country, in my opinion, it makes a lot more sense tactically to carry concealed.

It is the general mantra that "if criminals see the gun, they shoot first." Never seen any proof, though. Generally, here, if they see the gun they either a)leave you alone b)try to grab it.

Moreover, there's nothing "suspicious" about being "untactical". What if
I told you I'd just rather carry a rifle in self-defense?

If you were an Islamic Jihad or Hezbollah sniper, and you wanted to kill as many people as possible before being killed yourself, would you shoot the apparently unarmed targets first, or the armed ones?

And your handgun would be of what help against a trained sniper?
(Abandoning the fact this has never happened yet. Most attacks have been by either suicide squads, or people with low skills. The only trained sniper to hit us was a guy with an SKS rifle. 10 soldiers and settlers, all armed, died. He was never caught )

If I were carrying a gun, I'd prefer that you not know. Same goes for the government and criminals and the regular public. I'd really prefer they not know either.

I personally have nothing to be ashamed of when carrying. I try to be nice an polite wherever I go. Let the world know: this is a civil (as much as I can), regular (as much I can) person, and he carries a gun. Not some "gun nut" in a faraway place like Montana, but the neigbour who goes to buy groceries in the shop next door. And when the time comes to vote for a new anti-gun Congressman, they'll think of that man not as the enemy of the weird "militia member" in some faraway place, but as the enemy of the next door neigbour.

 

[Quartus]

Frank, choosing to carry concealed as a tactical consideration is an interesting discussion, and I'm sure many of us would be glad to hash it out. Some of us might even agree with you. You might even be right.


This isn't about tactics. It isn't even about WISDOM. It's about RIGHTS, and the reaction of some police officers to those who exercise those rights.

 

[FrankDrebin]

The conduct described was not a "little infraction". It's plenty of reason for this guy to lose his badge, as far as I'm concerned.

He should be fired because he yelled and possibly didn't know the law on open carry well enough, even though people rarely carry in that college town? We still haven't determined if there was some type of policy on no guns in that particular area. That's like saying a truck driver should be fired for speeding.

I keep getting back to this:

There is a Super Double Secret sidewalk/culdesac on Mill Avenue known as Center Point which is actually public property but the Ctiy of Tempe has leased to a private concern. No guns allowed in this smidge of territory due to private property concerns. The problem is that the City of Tempe defines how the property should be run in the contract. The City Council members are also members of the board that runs the area (DTC or Downtown Tempe Community Corp), and runs several parking complexes which forbid guns (again as private proerty owners).

"The city of Tempe leased this area to a private concern." Were our gun carriers in this area or not?

Who told our gun carriers that this area was leased to a private concern, and how did they know about this "double secret" area? It's posted like it's an accepted fact that guns are not allowed there: "No guns allowed in this smidge of territory due to private property concerns." And how does the City of Tempe define how that area should be run in the contract? No guns? How did you (who posted this) know that guns were forbidden in the parking complexes run by the corporation?

 

[RickD]

Jeeezus.

How did we know about the Double-Secret Probation No Gun Zone?

Because they told us about it after the fact (and I am still not aware of any documentation that it actually exists). How else could it be secret if, as you are implying, that everybody knew about it?

It was asked why my burner is on high. Do I need a sledge-hammer to get the facts into your brain?

I can understand why a cop would yell at someone if they were trying to bait them.

*I* was trying to bait *HIM*? He approached me. He challenged me. He, under color of law demanded my ID and intimated that something bad would happen to me for "failure to comply." It was he who raised his voice. He who began screaming and causing a scene in front of two-hundred people. He how screamed so loud that he couldn't control his spittle, let alone his emotions.

All I did was to assert my rights.

According to you, invoking the 4th amendment is baiting? Such a position is embarassingly ignorant.

I won't have a problem with people holding the police accountable for every little infraction. And the police yelling at you while you're trying to bait them is a little infraction.

Ahhhh, shouldn't that be the other way 'round?

I'm still not convinced that there wasn't some type of policy forbidding guns in an area where the people involved in this may have had guns.

Such a policy is banned under state preemption law. Tempe tried it years before and got slapped around by a judge. The signs went down years prior to 1997.

And personally, if the cops ever assaulted me for doing something that I had the right to do, there would be no "shaking hands" and "promising not to sue".

It was tempting. But imagine the impact of my making that statement in front of dozens upon dozens of witnesses? "Don't worry, I'm not going to sue you..." I think the cop thanked me after that. And then we shook hands and those same throngs got to see and talk to me, armed. Now, who do you think made the better impression? Chalk one up for the gunnies.

Winning hearts and minds, 200 at a time.

You could always post names and dates and let the people on the forum innundate the department with FOIA requests.

http://www.tempe.gov/police/

Have at it. There appears to be a nighttime shot of Mill Avenue, looking north. Brings back memories....

"The city of Tempe leased this area to a private concern." Were our gun carriers in this area or not?

We don't think so. We were sitting on a city bench on what appeared to be a city sidewalk no different from any other sidewalk in Tempe.

If, in fact, the city had leased the area (including the street, mind you), to DTC, which portion of the sidewalk was given as part of a lease? The cop pointed to a crack in the concrete. We think he was making it up, just like the rest of his stories. When we attempted to get a copy of the discription of the lease, both DTC and Tempe essentially said, "Get a lawyer." Alas, we were cash po.

So, at worst, we had stepped two feet into real estate leased to DTC. However, no sign means no trespass. And we offered to leave many minutes before we were asked to leave.

Got that? Or are you still huffing?

And how does the City of Tempe define how that area should be run in the contract?

Well, sir, that stumbles onto the other side of the argument. Can the leftist City of Tempe, knowingly prohibited by a Court Order to post "No Weapons Allowed" signs, then lease the same property (in this case, the parking garages owned by the City), and then say to DTC, (which has the Mayor and City Council as Board members) you can have control of these parking structures but you have to disallow guns in the cars that park there... can they do that, under Arizona's statues and Constitution?

Rick

 

[TheeBadOne]

Proof of Open Carry dangers

Cop was killed for his gun, authorities say
BY ALEXA CAPELOTO AND NANCY A. YOUSSEF
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS

June 10, 2004



The suspect in the fatal shooting of a Sterling Heights police officer killed to get his hands on the cop's service weapon, police said Wednesday, offering the first glimpse at a motive for the seemingly random crime.

Timothy W. Berner, the lone suspect in Friday's slaying of Officer Mark Sawyers is still at large, and considered armed and dangerous. Since the shooting, questions have swirled about a motive, Berner's background, stalking of other police officers and any link between Berner and Sawyers.

Sterling Heights Police Chief Barnett Jones said Wednesday Berner, 33, is a former U.S. Marine and Gulf War veteran who was dishonorably discharged in connection with a robbery and assault in North Carolina. The discharge reportedly dates back to the early 1990s.

Police suspect Berner is responsible for two shotgun robberies in March and April, one in Lansing and one in Brighton. He had crafted a strategy that if he ever got in trouble he "planned to get the hell out of here," Jones said.

That plan, according to Jones, was to get a handgun for future crimes and go into hiding. His military-taught survival skills are helping him elude federal, state and local authorities, Jones said.

"He's a Marine, and we're very good at teaching Marines how to survive," Jones said.

"He made plans to survive this."

The chief said he doesn't know what brought Berner to a Target parking lot at 15 Mile and Van Dyke in Sterling Heights late Friday, but it appears he was stalking police officers for about 20 minutes and settled on Sawyers.

Just before the shooting, police said, Berner's red 1994 Chevrolet Camaro was seen closely trailing a Sterling Heights police car along Brougham Drive, a small road leading into the lot.

Berner once lived on Brougham Drive with his parents.

That patrol car drove past the lot and onto another street, moves that were recorded by a security camera at a nearby bank, Sterling Heights Police Capt. Dave Vinson said.

Soon after, the Camaro is seen on the video following Sawyers' patrol car along the same street, Vinson said. Sawyers pulled into the lot and came to a stop so he could file a report into his car's computer.

He was killed by a shotgun blast to the head about three minutes later. Witnesses said they saw the shooter get out of a red Camaro, lean into the patrol car, take the officer's .40 caliber Glock handgun and drive away.

"He's as cold-blooded as he seems," Vinson said of Berner.

In what police call a coincidence, Sawyers and Berner may have known each other years ago because both worked as busboys at the same local restaurant. The past link has nothing to do with the shooting, they insisted.

Berner "never looked at that officer's face" before firing his shotgun, Jones said.

The Camaro bears Michigan plate YSR 497 and is registered to Berner.

The search for Berner began Friday night and has turned into an all-out manhunt, involving the FBI, the U.S. Marshals Service, and state and local police agencies. He'll also be featured in an episode of "America's Most Wanted," airing at 9 p.m. Saturday on the Fox network.

Court records show he has been in trouble with driving while impaired and child support for his 13-year-old son. He has moved often and has had several short-lived jobs at places such as the Ground Round restaurant in Royal Oak, a Lake Orion roofing company, a Livonia contracting firm and a Clinton Township night club.

His last known address was in Clinton Township.

At Sawyers' funeral Wednesday, officers from other police departments speculated about Berner's whereabouts. So little was known about the fugitive that guesses were all they had.

"They're probably not going to get him now," said Grosse Pointe Park Police Officer Tom Taylor, 25, of Warren. "If he's smart, he's probably killed himself by now."

There is a $25,000 reward for information leading to Berner's capture.

Berner is 6-foot-4 and weighs about 250 pounds, police said. He has blue eyes and brown hair. Anyone with information about the shooting may call the Sterling Heights Police Department at 586-446-2800 anytime.

article

 

[MicroBalrog]

A single isolated incident is not proof of anything. Also, 1 out of 12 American police officers killed dies of his own gun - a thing uncommon with the normal civilian for some reason.

 

[TheeBadOne]

A single isolated incident is not proof of anything. Also, 1 out of 12 American police officers killed dies of his own gun - a thing uncommon with the normal civilian for some reason.

Yes, the average citizen does not carry openly. Good point.

 

[Quartus]

chaff
n.

1. Botany. Thin dry bracts or scales, especially:
1. The dry bracts enclosing mature grains of wheat and some other cereal grasses, removed during threshing.
2. The scales or bracts borne on the receptacle among the small individual flowers of many plants in the composite family.
2. Finely cut straw or hay used as fodder.
3. Trivial or worthless matter: ignored the picky, unimportant criticisms that were just a lot of chaff.
4. Strips of metal, foil, or glass fiber with a metal content, cut into various lengths and having varying frequency responses, that are used to reflect electromagnetic energy as a radar countermeasure. These materials, usually dropped from aircraft, also can be deployed from shells or rockets.


Used as a means of obscuring the actual target.

 

[RickD]

Yes, the average citizen does not carry openly.

Because it was uncommon, yet legal, it was okay for a cop to spittle on me?

How common is a black man in a BMW in Phoenix (3.5 % of pop. is black)? Would it be okay to stope that person because of a subjective higher chance of being a stolen vehicle...and then spittle on him when he refuses to tell the cop where he's been and where he's heading?

As well, the majority of Arizona citizens do not own, let alone carry guns, either openly or concealed. Would this open up increased contact as well as spittle when the cop contacts the person and the person refuses to give up his gun for a "routine" serial number check?

Rick

 

[jimpeel]

Police reports are often completed whether a law was broken or not.

Only if you consider a Field Interview Card a police report.

 

[RickD]

In fact it was for a "Contact Card" for which the fine bike cop wanted my ID so he could properly fill it out. Not only did I not give him my name, I didn't pull my DL out of my wallet.

I did waggle my wallet as I was sitting on the planter/bench and calmly said, "Officer, if you can show me the Arizona Revised Statute which requires me to comply with your request, I'll gladly do so."

That's when the Officer went over to the DTC droids and came back with, "The security staff would like you to leave." As we were walking away, it was then that Officer Spittle just couldn't leave well enough alone.

Heck, I was trying to leave the area and *he* was trying to pick a fight with me.

Rick

 

[FrankDrebin]

Only if you consider a Field Interview Card a police report.

Plenty of police depts., especially small ones, do full reports on seemingly mundane incidents. Some don't even do field interview cards. Most around here don't.

Because it was uncommon, yet legal, it was okay for a cop to spittle on me?

I'm guessing there was no malicious intent in his "spittling". And "malicious spittling" is a specific intent crime.

We don't think so. We were sitting on a city bench on what appeared to be a city sidewalk no different from any other sidewalk in Tempe.

You don't think so? So there could have been a "no gun zone" there whether it was "legal" or not. And the police could have legitimately thought that they were responding to a legitmate call of a person carrying a gun in a no gun zone?

As far as the lawsuit, you couldn't have found a pro-gun lawyer to take your case on a contingency basis? With 200 witnesses supporting you in your case against blatant police abuse?

 

[TheBluesMan]

I feel like I'm watching a carousel go 'round and 'round.

There's that dead horse again.

There's that dead horse again.

There's that dead horse again.

There's that dead horse again.

There's that dead horse again.

Are we making any progress with this discussion?
Are we finding any common ground in this discussion?

If not, I'd like to see it ended.

 

[RickD]

Yeah, he's pretty clueless.

You don't think so? So there could have been a "no gun zone" there whether it was "legal" or not.

There couldn't be a "no gun" zone there because the State Court had just warned the City of Tempe that it was against the state preemption statute to do so. Tempe had previously, under court order, taken down the "No Weapons" signs it had planted up and down Mill Avenue. It was well-publicized. Any cop who was not aware of it was in a coma.

As for whether it was a private property issue, it is not for me to speculate. We asked for the dimensions of the lease. The City of Tempe and DTC refused. Could we have gotten a lawyer? We could have, but our goal was HB 2095 (further strengthening state preemption). That took two more years of activism which would have been drained doing court things.

Don't tell me how to do activism. I *know* how to do activism.

And the police could have legitimately thought that they were responding to a legitmate call of a person carrying a gun in a no gun zone?

Again, the police were not "called" to Center Point. They were already there, and merely saw C. with his open-carried pistol.

Where the police were "called" was 1/3rd of a mile, and thirty minutes after the Center Point spittling. At that place there was never a claim of a "No Gun" zone but a falsified claim by the police that the shop owner, fearing we gunnies, called them. The police later said that the shop owner story was fabricated by the police and that it was actually the DTC security people who radioed it in. (Isn't this about the sixth time I've written this? Is it really that difficult for you to figure it out, Frank?)

However, given the night full of Tempe PD lies, why should I believe the cop when he said DTC radioed the report in when it is just as likely that Tempe PD merely followed us there?

Yeah, Bluesman, if this is the best Frank and TheBadOne can deliver, I can't see any point in continuing this. We'll just leave it to the archive so that people can see how police apologists work.

Rick

 

[TheeBadOne]

RickD:

Because it was uncommon, yet legal, it was okay for a cop to spittle on me?

Now you're saying that the Officer spit on you intentionally?

 

[RickD]

No, I couldn't say that. Can't read his mind, however, if I did that to him, he would have hauled me down to County Hospital to have me cultured for TB and HIV (trust me, this happens).

On the other hand, was it okay for him to spittle on me by accident? For a period of some three minutes?

Set your watch and let it tick off 180 seconds. Now, imagine that you were nose to nose with a cop armed with a gun, badge, and a pad of Contact forms. And he's screaming at you. And he knows he is spittling on you because every time a droplet hits near your eye, you blink. Over and over again.

Can you explain his odd behavior? He didn't do this as I was asking for statory authority. He did this after he and his partner realized their bluff had been called and we were walking away. He went toe-to-toe with me when just a few seconds before he and his partner had said, "DTC Security wants you to leave." Kinda sounds like he had a score to settle, doesn't it? One might speculate that he was trying to bait me. Instead, the best he could do was spittle.

Damn good thing I didn't contract Neisseria menigiticus from all his saliva on my face.

Rick

 

[jimpeel]

You're gettin' a drubbin' Drebin. Your contentions are as masterfully articulated as the "real" Frank Drebin.

It's true what they say: Cops and women don't mix. It's like eating a spoonful of Drano, sure it'll clean you out, but it'll leave you hollow inside.
--Frank Drebin: The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!

 

[FrankDrebin]

Yeah, Bluesman, if this is the best Frank and TheBadOne can deliver, I can't see any point in continuing this. We'll just leave it to the archive so that people can see how police apologists work.

Well, at least we just found out that there used to be "no gun" signs up in the area. That's the first time I've heard that, and I think that's a lot more significant than the "spittling" obscession.

 

[TheBluesMan]

Well, the members most involved in this latest equine flogging have each had a final say so I'm going to put this thread to bed.

I'm disappointed that we never got any closer to finding some common ground.

Maybe on another thread, on another day.

-Dave