Brandishing, resisting arrest, and disturbing the peace

[theCan]

Just FWIW: in 1970 or so I got a Nylon 66 for Christmas, at the age of 12 or 13. On the day after Xmas, a friend's father was going to drive out to the Rod-n-Gun. They lived a couple of miles across town.

I didn't own a case or sling. I put a box of shells in my pocket, got the rifle, and headed across town through residential neighborhoods. On the way, there was an elementary school with a large campus - maybe 1/2 mile by 1/3 mile. The shortest route happened to be diagonally across the schoolyard.

As luck would have it, as I crossed the street by the corner of the schoolyard, a police car pulled up. I was carrying the rifle more or less horizontally with one hand around the receiver. As I crossed in front of the police car, I gave him a big smile and wave, and he returned both. It was a regular Norman Rockwell moment - a kid gets his 1st 22 rifle for Xmas.

Reading this thread, I see a lot of people saying that having an unslung or uncased rifle is obviously suspicious. I disagree.

I don't know the kid's demeanor or behavior. Maybe he was doing something that would make a reasonable officer ask questions, or maybe he wasn't. But on that winter's day, that officer earned his pay by correctly inferring 'Kid with a Christmas present'. It doesn't make a better world if he reflexively called for backup and did a felony stop and hauled me off to jail.

Thank you for this powerful anecdote.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Just FWIW: in 1970 or so I got a Nylon 66 for Christmas, at the age of 12 or 13. On the day after Xmas, a friend's father was going to drive out to the Rod-n-Gun. They lived a couple of miles across town.

I didn't own a case or sling. I put a box of shells in my pocket, got the rifle, and headed across town through residential neighborhoods. On the way, there was an elementary school with a large campus - maybe 1/2 mile by 1/3 mile. The shortest route happened to be diagonally across the schoolyard.

As luck would have it, as I crossed the street by the corner of the schoolyard, a police car pulled up. I was carrying the rifle more or less horizontally with one hand around the receiver. As I crossed in front of the police car, I gave him a big smile and wave, and he returned both. It was a regular Norman Rockwell moment - a kid gets his 1st 22 rifle for Xmas.

Reading this thread, I see a lot of people saying that having an unslung or uncased rifle is obviously suspicious. I disagree.

I don't know the kid's demeanor or behavior. Maybe he was doing something that would make a reasonable officer ask questions, or maybe he wasn't. But on that winter's day, that officer earned his pay by correctly inferring 'Kid with a Christmas present'. It doesn't make a better world if he reflexively called for backup and did a felony stop and hauled me off to jail.

For one, it's 42 years later and not the same demographic.

More importantly, it seems like this kid's interactions with the police had a lot more to do with his arrest than the carrying of the rifle. You waved and smiled, this kid got smart with the officers. If there's one thing that should be common knowledge, it's that your demeanor toward a cop can influence tremendously his decision to do or not do something. If you get lippy with them and come accross as arrogant or condescending, I guarantee they'll resond in kind, and they're the ones with a citation booklet and handcuffs. Needlessly agitating cops is like poking a big sleeping dog with a stick. It's just not wise.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Just FWIW: in 1970 or so I got a Nylon 66 for Christmas, at the age of 12 or 13. On the day after Xmas, a friend's father was going to drive out to the Rod-n-Gun. They lived a couple of miles across town.

I didn't own a case or sling. I put a box of shells in my pocket, got the rifle, and headed across town through residential neighborhoods. On the way, there was an elementary school with a large campus - maybe 1/2 mile by 1/3 mile. The shortest route happened to be diagonally across the schoolyard.

In about the same time period I would about once a week or so sling my Mossberg 640KB Chuckster across my back, hop on my motorcycle and proceed out to the town dump to shoot rats. Route to the dump took me right down Main street through the heart of town (and right past the police station I might add) No one as much as much as batted an eyelash (and this was NY State mind you!)

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

and gas was 23 cents a gallon

lots of things have changed

 

[Sam1911]

...lots of things have changed

Many, not for the better. Maybe with a few more brave young folks (and their stalwart community members who march in support of them) we'll manage to change a few things BACK. Wouldn't that be awesome?

 

[zxcvbob]

The main thing that changed IMHO is Nixon's War on Drugs

 

[lionking]

It was bad judgement in my opinion. Yeah, some of you are saying he was a hero and equating him to the forefathers going out on a limb to be rebellious but I don't see it that way.

Franky if I see someone walking down town with a rifle I am going to assume he is out to shoot somebody or go off on a spree. For those saying he might just be innocently going to the range, would it be so hard to carry the rifle in a pouch in that case?

This stunt of his was for shock value. Nobody is threatening his right to have the rifle or to transport it and if his right was being threatened there are better ways to protest , but he didn't care to think about how his actions might come across to others in a negative way.

For those of you saying everybody should feel comfortable seeing a guy walking in town with a rifle in hand or strapped, it may be that way in boon dock small town America but it just isn't that way in other places and given the history of mall shootings and stuff he is going to be looked on with suspicion.

 

[lionking]

MachIVshooter, post #89. I like it, very sensible in my opinion.

By the way I think the charges should be dismissed for that guy but what he did seeking attention for it was bad judgement in my opinion.

 

[Texan Scott]

History books (and law books) are written by the winners. People who do these things are rarely judged on what they MEANT to do, but rather on HOW IT TURNED OUT. Our Founding Fathers are revered as heros, but never forget that when they signed the Dec.Ind., they pledged their lives and their fortunes, not just their sacred honor; they did so knowing full well that if they failed, they'd lose their lives, their fortunes, and -retroactively- their honor, as history would paint them as traitors and criminals. It's easy to bluster and spout rhetoric and start shouting 'If it's time to bury 'em,...' etc., and most of us understand the sentiment even if we disagree with the tone... but we still have the luxury of picking our fights and working through the system. I, for one, am sitting back and waiting to see how the system handles this one.

 

[theCan]

It was bad judgement in my opinion. Yeah, some of you are saying he was a hero and equating him to the forefathers going out on a limb to be rebellious but I don't see it that way.

Franky if I see someone walking down town with a rifle I am going to assume he is out to shoot somebody or go off on a spree. For those saying he might just be innocently going to the range, would it be so hard to carry the rifle in a pouch in that case?

This stunt of his was for shock value. Nobody is threatening his right to have the rifle or to transport it and if his right was being threatened there are better ways to protest , but he didn't care to think about how his actions might come across to others in a negative way.

For those of you saying everybody should feel comfortable seeing a guy walking in town with a rifle in hand or strapped, it may be that way in boon dock small town America but it just isn't that way in other places and given the history of mall shootings and stuff he is going to be looked on with suspicion.

Clearly his rights are being threatened - regardless of whether or not you think his actions were wise.

Some of you guys need start drinking whiskey. Put some hair on your chest. "What if he hurt other peoples feelings?"

So what? You call yourselves men? Did Martin Luther King Jr., Malcom X, Rosa Parks or any of these people give two hoots in hell about what their statements and actions did to other peoples feelings? No. They wanted to be treated like the law said they had right to be.

 

[lionking]

Yes I call myself a man, a man who considers others. No his rights are not being threatened. Why aren't they?, because the open carry law is on his side and he should be found innocent on that account.

However it doesn't take away from the fact he knew this would scare some people, that some people would think maybe that he was en route to commit a crime. You are expecting people to not think that when in a suburban or urban area the fact is anybody carrying a firearm like that is out of place and bringing suspicion upon themselves. It is called profiling and like it or not people do it usually because of past experience and because of good reason sometimes.

People have the right to preach in public, but if they get in your face about it are you going to take kindly to their cause?

The way I see it it is about tact, which this guy did not use in my opinion.

 

[theCan]

You clearly missed the analogy I was making with civil rights leaders. All of them did things that were within their right, but things which were sometimes also subject to criminal prosecution and discrimination. These actions were sometimes strongly looked down upon "anti-social" behaviors.

Today many people take those same actions for granted.

The bottom line is this man, like all persons, has the right to be free from false arrest and unwarranted search and seizure. He did what he did because he knew he was allowed to. Not because you or any other person gave him permission. Rights do not require permission, nor do they have special circumstantial exceptions appended to them. His action requires no tact. He was addressing no one. The police addressed him.

 

[lionking]

I really don't see it as the same level as Rosa Parks or MLK or whoever. There were Jim Crow laws that actively prevented certain people from having the same rights and those people fought to have equal rights.

You say he did it because he has a right to, I say he did it knowing he has a right to but wanted to create a spectacle for himself and what is probably his pet subject the 2nd amendment.

There are many things we can do that are legal but we don't usually out of consideration for others. I smoke cigarettes, it is lawful for me to smoke cigarettes at a bus bench (for now) yet if I were sitting next to someone on the bench I wouldn't smoke out of consideration.

Profiling...

Cosmoline lives in Alaska where it is lawful to carry a rifle openly. Seeing him do it in Alaska I wouldn't think twice because, because where he is. But seeing him do it in a metropolitan area even it was legal where no one does usually I would be suspicious of him.

And while things might have changed or not in two hundred years in some ways the fact is even in a city back in 1800 people saw some things differently than one would in a small rural village circa 1800. I think it has more to do with that than bringing up the forefathers and the revolution as the cause to continue today.

Overwhelming in the U.S.A people support the 2nd amendment, while there are those against it they are in the minority.

 

[theCan]

So you're argument then is that the charges of Brandishing, resisting arrest, and disturbing the peace hold merit in a court of law?

Because the way I see it, Brandishing, resisting arrest, and disturbing the peace are being used to prohibit an innocent civilian (assuming we have all the facts) from exercising their rights in the same way jim crow laws were used against people of color to limit and prohibit their right to equality.

It's not the 'level' which is relevant here. It's the philosophy.

Second hand smoke... as far as I'm aware, un-burnt gunpowder never killed anyone.

 

[lionking]

Not saying I agree with the charges, unless he acted or did something that I don't know about. Then again if he is stopped by the cops for whatever reason and told to disarm and he does in a wrong manner he is potentially setting himself up for being shot by the police. This all seems not needed to me when getting a carry case for the rifle which is not a expensive thing could avoid alarming people as much. The only reason I see that someone would open carry a rifle like in the article in a urban setting is to make a "statement" which if that is the case doesn't impress me.

What I am arguing is why do that to begin with?, and then be surprised that someone calls the cops? I am a pro 2nd amendment supporter and maybe I do have the right to sling my rifle and walk down main street but I won't given the fact that it would draw unwanted attention to myself and would possibly give negative attention to the 2nd amendment.

 

[theCan]

He was meeting with his friends, showing them his new rifle. Sounds fair enough to me. He was not stopped for whatever reason, he was stopped for no reason (under the law, and that's what matters here, not your opinion).

But I digress. The message of liberty appears to be lost on you.