There's open carry and then there's wide open carry...

Status
Not open for further replies.
This event is a great example of how & why some people use different thinking methods or can use reasons to justify or validate their statements/actions.
The fact that the female jogger was a sworn LEO(allthough 2 years is very brief & I'm sure there's a story there, ) and had a background in firearms/2A issues should mean that she would use more sense, IMO.



Ditto on the post and great point ClydeFrog. The thing is if this woman had the training she does as a former officer and otherwise in her family you would think if anyone would know these things it would be her. Did the officers go overboard, maybe, maybe not, but the only thing i can think of to say is... come on lady,,,SERIUOSLY.:eek:
Click to expand...
 
The original article states a citizen reported a woman walking with a gun in her hand on a road which intersects that which the school is on which made the response more urgent as that act is illegal under Alaska law
Click to expand...

Which Alaska law is that? I just searched the Alaska statutes and I can't find anything that makes it illegal to carry a gun on a street that intersects with a street that a school is on. Not even California has such an absurd law.
 
The original article states a citizen reported a woman walking with a gun in her hand on a road which intersects that which the school is on which made the response more urgent as that act is illegal under Alaska law.
Click to expand...

It's not illegal to carry a gun a mile away from a school under Alaska state law. It's not even illegal to carry a gun near a school - it's only illegal to carry on school property.

So, they did respond to a citizen complaint - you're right. But, even if they had just responded because they saw it themselves, it's legit to make the contact. I have no issue with that.

It was silly (and illegal) for them to detain the woman, then force her to put the gun in her pocket. It's not unsafe to carry an un-cocked revolver in your hand and they were exceeding their authority since she wasn't breaking the law.

With that said - walking around (in a city) with a gun in your hand is not a good idea. Even in my little town, if I saw a woman walking down the street with gun in hand, I'd be thinking some husband or boyfriend is in a big trouble... It's questionable behavior, even if it isn't illegal behavior.
 
no law violation

Plainly staed, if she wasn't violating any law or acting in a threatening manner the jackoffs should not have pointed their guns at her. I have a serious problem with ANYONE pointing a loaded weapon at me. It seems that way too many LEO are scared spitless of just about anything and way too aggressive with their weapons. Just because they're a cop doesn't give them the right to threaten a citizen acting in a legal manner. A week of unpaid leave would make them more amiable to the public. There is no place in the USA for such treatment of a person legally carrying a firearm.
 
Why? Would that have made her MORE legal?
Click to expand...
No, but let's be honest: if I see a person walking or running down the street with a gun in their hand, I'm going to be a bit alarmed.

It's also legal to run down the street with a newspaper on fire yelling that the Reds are coming, but it's odd enough to warrant suspicion. Walking around with a gun at ready suggests danger, or the possibility thereof.
 
Plainly staed, if she wasn't violating any law or acting in a threatening manner the jackoffs should not have pointed their guns at her.
Click to expand...

Where in the article did it say the cops pointed their guns at her?
 
Where in the article did it say the cops pointed their guns at her?
Click to expand...

She said Enders and Neason approached her with guns drawn as she walked on a dirt road off Auburn Drive. She was upset that the contact stretched on for about 20 minutes and, she said, included an angry exchange with accusations of her acting recklessly and carrying the weapon in an unsafe manner.
 
"guns drawn" is a far cry from "pointed their guns at her" - let's not read more into the story than what's there. After all, she had her gun drawn as well - should we assume she was pointing it at the cops?
 
Most states have restrictions on carry on or near school grounds, Alaska has Title 11 chapter 11.61 dealing with misconduct of weapons which prohibits possession on or adjacent to child care facilities. If that was the initial cause for concern with the call for police assistance than the Troopers had a duty to investigate any potential criminality or threat to public safety. Believe it or not many have injured themselves and others as a result of falling with a gun in hand hence why it is responsible to secure it in a holster, open or concealed.
I fully agree with the original poster, just because an acts legal doesn't make it safe or righteous.
 
Jag-offs with guns, Signal 0...

Why are the AK troopers "jackoffs" if they pointed their sidearms at a woman HOLDING a loaded firearm?
In my area, a "signal zero" call(a person with a weapon) is taken very seriously. A plainclothes sworn LE officer was even shot & killed a few years ago by a uniformed reserved LEO(a retired 28 year veteran with the same PD).
I've worked in uniformed LE and armed security/EP(protection). If I saw an unknown woman holding a loaded firearm, I'd ask her firmly but professionally to put the weapon down. If she didn't comply ASAP or started to get aggressive or uptight then; GAME ON!
Citizens have a right to protect themselves but a CCW or permit does not mean you can wave guns around in public then play Judge Judy when LEOs stop you.

Like the old saying goes; "You can't fix stupid."
 
Also as a LEO I can relate to stops lasting twenty minutes or even longer as dispatch isn't always so quick to get back to you on wants and warrants. Also if it took twenty minutes for her to agree to secure it in her pocket than I'm inclined to believe there's a little more to her behavior than is stated in the article. Either way it ended well and should be taken as a lesson learned and not a point of contention.
 
Most states have restrictions on carry on or near school grounds, Alaska has Title 11 chapter 11.61 dealing with misconduct of weapons which prohibits possession on or adjacent to child care facilities. If that was the initial cause for concern with the call for police assistance than the Troopers had a duty to investigate any potential criminality or threat to public safety.
Click to expand...

They certainly had a duty to respond or investigate. But, she wasn't on or adjacent or anywhere near a child care facility. Around here, we call that "lying". I wouldn't be surprised if that lie didn't result in a civil suit since a police spokesman lying to the press about her carrying near a school might be considered defamation of character. She's a firearms instructor so she could also claim loss of income, etc, resulting from that defamation. And her old man is head of a gun rights group, so I'm sure they'd love to litigate this.

That lie could cost the taxpayers a few bucks.
 
she wouldn't be alive to complain about it
Click to expand...

Say what? So because you're a LEO you've decided your judge, jury and executioner?

Glad you're not in my neighborhood.

Also if it took twenty minutes for her to agree to secure it in her pocket
Click to expand...

The article doesn't say that at all. But it does seem she is upset about being harassed for 20 minutes by police that have the same poor disposition as you.
 
Last edited:
Again the initial call was for a woman walking with a gun on the road in which the school is located. Just because she was stopped at a different location on a adjacent road doesn't mean the police are lying about the initial incident hence the reasonable suspicion for the stop which could determine if she violated the states criminal law. Again it ended well so there's no need to complain.
 
Also the article does state the duration of the stop and that "it ended when she agreed to put the handgun in a small jacket pocket". If she used common sense and stop alarming her neighbors she wouldn't be "harassed" by the evil over protective police.
 
Yeah, right, it stated that the stop took 20 minutes NOT
twenty minutes for her to agree to secure it in her pocket
Click to expand...
.

How many phrases did you twist and manipulate? Sure glad your not a LEO in my neighborhood

Again, she doesn't have a problem with contact. She has a problem with overbear and boorish LEO"s who feel that they have the power to act as they wish independent of the law.

Know anyone like that?
 
It's disturbing to see that you're more concerned with semantics than people walking the streets with guns in their hands which scared at least one person enough to start this debate. I'm glad you don't live in my neighborhood either.
 
Say what?

concerned with semantics
Click to expand...

So you feel that stating you'd killing someone for not doing what you like to be a matter of semantics. Some might consider that murder.

You feel that manipulating the truth and twisting facts to be a matter of semantics. Some people consider that lying.

I don't even want to think about what else you consider just semantics.

Disturbing is thinking about some of the people in this country who we give guns and authority then send out into the masses......have to laugh or else I'd be crying.
 
Again the initial call was for a woman walking with a gun on the road in which the school is located. Just because she was stopped at a different location on a adjacent road doesn't mean the police are lying about the initial incident hence the reasonable suspicion for the stop which could determine if she violated the states criminal law
Click to expand...

In a statement, troopers apologized for any inconvenience to Allard and expressed regret that she felt the contact with troopers was inappropriate. The statement defended the stop, however, saying it was “reasonable” for troopers to demand that Allard secure the firearm while walking in a public area near a school.

She was not asked to secure her firearm near a school. It was "demanded" that she secure her firearm a mile from a school, at the place the police contacted her. The police spokesman is lying, and escalating a simple demand for an apology into something that may well result in a civil action costing a lot of money.

As a cop, I'm sure you know a good way to secure a "not guilty" verdict for your arrest is to lie or exaggerate your case on the witness stand, especially when the lie is easily disproved. The police spokesman is lying to the press and doing so in a manner that affects this woman's livelihood. I'm sure we haven't heard the end of this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top