Massad Ayoob on call the cops

Status
Not open for further replies.
Part II

Joining Cole in the fight to protect the current open-carry law and amend the restrictions on concealed-carry is Philip Van Cleave, the president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

"We're the only state in the union that requires that somebody openly carry in a restaurant as opposed to keeping their guns concealed. There are a few states that won't let you carry in a restaurant at all - but the vast majority of them, if you have a permit, you're perfectly free to carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol," Van Cleave told the AFP.

"We're the lone state that says, Well, we trust you to carry virtually everywhere you want concealed, but in a restaurant, even though you don't drink, and you've got no problems with drinking and driving, because you couldn't get a permit if you did, we know all of that about you, but we still don't trust you to carry concealed.

"Many restaurants would love to see that changed. We run into places where the owner will say, We don't like you carrying in here. [That was a slight misquote - I said, "We don't like you carrying OPENLY in here." - PVC] Geez, I wish you could conceal it. And then we have to explain to them why.

"We're constantly looking at the issue - because this is a constitutional right that we're talking about here," Van Cleave said.

'Not happen again'

Yates has heard from Williams and Robertson to get their read on the events of July 15 - and is not satisfied with what they have had to say.

"I don't want the conduct of the officers on the scene personally called into question. I never felt that they were unprofessional or anything like that. But a friend of mine said, Does being polite excuse being a tyrant? I'm not likening them to tyrants, but again, six cars for nothing wrong? Six cars for going to the bathroom?" Yates said.

"I don't think it's responsible of them to not have some kind of policy to deal with a situation like this," Yates said. "To automatically assume criminality violates the entire tenet of our Constitution. The whole presumption of innocence gets thrown out the window when you start sending a six-car response to a bunch of people going to the bathroom.

"I did not ask for an apology. I did not ask for any kind of money compensation or anything like that. I simply want it to not happen again," Yates said.

Williams noted in an Oct. 1 letter to Yates that he plans to address the issues that have been raised in connection with the Casa di Scotto's incident with his department.

"We are always looking to improve our level of service to the citizens whom we serve, but we will meet with all of our officers and dispatch personnel to remind them that there is no law that prohibits individuals from carrying firearms in public places," Williams wrote in the letter. [That is a good idea. But we do want to make sure that it actually happens - hence our going to the Staunton City Council meeting. - PVC]

Aside from that, though, "We have to handle these kinds of things on a case-by-case basis. That's the way that the courts handle these cases," Williams said.

"This is not something that is common - and people are generally worried when they encounter these kinds of things. And they think it's getting worse. They see reports on TV about school shootings and the other things going on, and they get worried when they think that something might happen. And then they call us - and we have to act," Williams said. [Agreed - you have to act, but NOT overreact! - PVC]

***********************************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL).
VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The membership considers the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to be an essential human right.
VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org
***********************************************
 
I have been reading Ayoob over 20 years, and I have seen numerous posts, some in this thread, bashing him for some of his more obscure thoughts on use of force. Yes, he makes statements about scenarios that are unlikely, such as using handloads could paint a justifyable shooter into a bloodthirsty animal. This may be unlikely, but it is also TRUE. SHOOTINGS are unlikely. In a career spent teaching, learning and researching "the unlikely" as much as Ayoob has, detailing these finer points is his job. I take his advice; I carry the load my local PD uses. Hell, I carry the GUN my local PD uses. Jeff Cooper draws a line of distinction between a professional and an expert. A profesional is anyone who gets paid to do something, whether they do it well or not. An expert is skilled in a partcular field, whether or not they get paid. Ayoob is an expert; although his 25+ years of hard work & teaching apparently fails to match the experience & study of some in this thread.
 
Duke of Doubt. I could care less if you're an Esquire.

Have you ever been involved in a SD shooting?

Ever had to call the police, right after firing your gun in SD?

Ever been involved in determine how a report, at the scene of a SD shooting, is written up?

Ever had to determine, based on the available written reports, if charges will be filed against a person who is claiming self defense in a shooting?

Your input and advice on this thread isn't even worth $.02 imho, regardless of what law school you attended. I'll be far more inclined to trust Massad's insights over yours any day of the week.

"I'm a lawyer!"
tmz190.jpg
 
Dave pro2a: "Duke of Doubt. I could care less if you're an Esquire."

Okay.

"Have you ever been involved in a SD shooting?"

Yes.

"Ever had to call the police, right after firing your gun in SD?"

Complicated answer.

"Ever been involved in determine how a report, at the scene of a SD shooting, is written up?"

No, I read them; I don't write them.

"Ever had to determine, based on the available written reports, if charges will be filed against a person who is claiming self defense in a shooting?"

No, I play the other side of the field.

"Your input and advice on this thread isn't even worth $.02 imho, regardless of what law school you attended. I'll be far more inclined to trust Massad's insights over yours any day of the week."

Okay. I like MA, too. But I felt compelled to point out a nagging significant issue. He addressed it.

"I'm a lawyer!"

Okay. Nice cubicle.
 
Last edited:
Attn. All Atty's

Have the deepest respect for both you gentlemen. You both post serious, insightful, intelligent posts.
Go to PM if you want to argue.
Respectfully and without malice.
Doc
 
Hmm okay tons of stuff in this thread. I am a dispatcher and as its been stated before, no we can't just disregard a "firearm involved" call. We can TRY to get all the info possible but as someone already said a lot of calls consist of "SEND EM NOW!!!" and the clicks of a hang up. I'm not 911 but dispatch for a local LEO agency.

What a lot of people don't realize is that the systems used to log calls actually tier them in "importance" and if weapons are involved period at all then that call goes up to top priority. As dispatchers we try to get the information as to rather that weapon just happens to be there or rather it is being used but it's being there does raise the stakes.
 
What it it about MA that gets people's hackles up so much? I never met him up close and personal, so maybe his personality puts people off a bit, but the information and insight he presents is quite valuable, even if you don't happen to agree with 100% of it.

He does tend to focus on the darker side of SD in some of his stuff, but I am not sure that is really all that bad. Life is not like on TV when the SD incident is over when the bad guy falls to the ground and the cute girl falls into your arms.
 
ilbob: "What it it about MA that gets people's hackles up so much? I never met him up close and personal, so maybe his personality puts people off a bit, but the information and insight he presents is quite valuable, even if you don't happen to agree with 100% of it."

His personality is fine. His sense of humor is easy to miss, and so zany it isn't even always intentional. As noted above I actually like the guy, and while I don't believe I've ever met him in person I'd enjoy taking him out to dinner one of these days.

Some people are MA skeptics because while he's trained up the proverbial yin-yang, he's never claimed actually to have participated in or directly observed combat, with or without firearms -- good for him --- though he has described near-misses in his columns. Yet he publishes a lot of combat analysis. He also publishes a lot of legal theories and advice despite not being an attorney. That subject was addressed above and I won't repeat the debate. He isn't trying to take away our business (that would be a serious transgression), but some attorneys feel compelled to point out a few distinctions from time to time.

So anyway, that's what gets some people's hackles up about MA. Frankly, it all can get overblown by his fans, and I've never seen MA go 'over the top' himself with any claims or posturing. In fact, somewhat the reverse, which makes me wonder sometimes about what isn't included in his official bio.

I've read his stuff for over 20 years, and I'll probably be reading it for 20 more. For what it's worth -- no more, and no less.
 
ilbob said:
What it it about MA that gets people's hackles up so much? ...
I think one reason is that he, and many good trainers focus so much on the "software" issues in contrast to the "hardware." The hardware, guns, gear and ammunition, seem to be so much more fun. Folks will spend hours reading an researching to find just the right gun or best holster. People will study ballistics and experiment to find the perfect ammunition. Sure the hardware can help keep you alive; you want a good, reliable gun and good, useful gear; but really any decent gun and gear will work if you can manage it and can use it properly and skillfully.

But it seems that a lot of folks find the software side of things, how to use your gun, if at all, properly and skillfully, the moral and legal issues around when to use it or not and the management of the aftermath, to be a lot less fun.

I may be wrong about that. But on these boards we see a lot of discussion about the hardware side of things, and folks seem to be having a good time when some of those topics come up. But when the other side of things comes up, we get more "training's not important", "this isn't important", "that's not important", and "a good shoot is a good shoot" kind of stuff.

ilbob said:
...He does tend to focus on the darker side of SD in some of his stuff, but I am not sure that is really all that bad. Life is not like on TV when the SD incident is over when the bad guy falls to the ground and the cute girl falls into your arms....
And there's that. That can certainly put a damper on things.

In any case, I enjoyed meeting him and found him to be an engaging gentleman. He has a ready wit and good sense of humor. He's approachable, and he's an energetic and entertaining (as well as educating) lecturer.
 
I have met the gentleman - several times - as well as reading a lot of his work. If I may, I'll offer these observations.

His personality is fine. His sense of humor is easy to miss, and so zany it isn't even always intentional.

Right on!!!

He also publishes a lot of legal theories and advice despite not being an attorney.

True. But he is one of the first people many lawyers go looking for when they need an unquestionably qualified firearms expert in his particular field to testify in a hot-button case. There is a good reason for that. ;)
 
I still read people saying "we cannot ignore a firearms call" why is that? I understand the person would be upset then rally the news and then go on T.V. only to be made to look stupid once a police chief says "no one was sent, because no crime was being committed." then he and the other antis could cry about it and try to change the gun laws, but we all know they would have one hell of a fight on their hands and would lose. Worst case scenario would be the guy with the gun commits a crime with the gun. The station backs down to the lowest common denominators are settles with them for money cause they don't have the energy to fight for what is right. The fact that the man with the gun in a holster was committing no law until he pulled it out. We are not that crappy movie Minority Report we cannot and should not punish someone for having a bad thought in their head.

How bout this for a start in the right direction. 911 is called and the officer still has to show up(for now), when he does he can see that it is open carry (and if open carry is legal in that area) leaves that person alone and then proceeds to inform the caller that open carry is legal and that there is no crime being committed and inform them that 911 is for emergencies only. I don't want my tax dollars to be spent catering to the fearful, but I'm ok with it going to educate them of the law to in turn cut down on these needless calls in the future.
 
SpecialKalltheway said:
...How bout this for a start in the right direction. 911 is called and the officer still has to show up(for now), when he does he can see that it is open carry (and if open carry is legal in that area) leaves that person alone and then proceeds to inform the caller that open carry is legal and that there is no crime being committed and inform them that 911 is for emergencies only....
Swell idea, but posting it here isn't going to do anything. Why not make an appointment with your local Chief of Police, or whoever is in charge, and suggest this. Do some analysis and make some projections about how much money it would save, etc. You'll need to be able to make a case. But he's the one who can change things, not us. So you have to sell this to him and not us. Let us know how it works out.
 
How bout this for a start in the right direction. 911 is called and the officer still has to show up(for now), when he does he can see that it is open carry (and if open carry is legal in that area) leaves that person alone and then proceeds to inform the caller that open carry is legal and that there is no crime being committed

And that s how it should be handled.

In WA the phrase is "warrants" alarm. Causing a soccer mom to have a case of the vapors because someone is legally carrying OC is not enough to warrant alarm. If a person is waving a gun around, then that warrants alarm, as it should. But a holstered pistol with no movement towards it is no different than carrying a cell phone on your belt. Once called, the police can do a drive by, see that there is no "warrants alarm" going on and keep moving. There is not even a need to contact the person who is OC'ing his gun.

I OC a lot, probably 90% of the time. I have two phrases that come in very handy. Am I being detained? and Am I free to go?

For a take on how the court in WA feels about the open carry of firearms in a non-threatening manner here is a quick read:

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gunstuff/legal/State_v_Casad_(unpublished).pdf

bob
 
How bout this for a start in the right direction. 911 is called and the officer still has to show up(for now), when he does he can see that it is open carry (and if open carry is legal in that area) leaves that person alone and then proceeds to inform the caller that open carry is legal and that there is no crime being committed and inform them that 911 is for emergencies only. I don't want my tax dollars to be spent catering to the fearful, but I'm ok with it going to educate them of the law to in turn cut down on these needless calls in the future.
That's generally what is done.
Once called, the police can do a drive by, see that there is no "warrants alarm" going on and keep moving. There is not even a need to contact the person who is OC'ing his gun.
Not going to happen.

Mike
 
I have two points which are not related, so I suppose they should be in separate posts. But they aren't.

1) Here are three reasons why some people become well known like Rush Limbaugh and MA where other people of equal wisdom remain obscure. The first is they work hard at it. The second is they communicate clearly. In some cases, clarity requires simplification, and simplification can draw criticism. Clarity also can require making choices between viable alternatives, which can also draw criticism. A third thing is that they master speaking with a voice of authority as though they are not troubled by doubt. In generally, their private thoughts are much more nuanced than their public pronouncements.

2) Given the comments of the dispatchers, the open carry movement is going nowhere.
 
Not going to happen.

It has happened, and does happen. There has been a concentrated effort on the west side of WA to educated the LEO's on the legalities of OC within the state. There have been several posts on www.opencarry.com that discusses the fact that often times the police will do nothing more than a drive by after a 911 man with a gun call.

There are also discussions about just the opposite, some people being approached by the police for no reason other than the fact they are open carrying. There have been some detainments, arrests and confiscation of firearms by police who do not understand the law.

That is where the "Am I being detained" and "Am I free to go" phrases become very important.

bob
 
"Swell idea, but posting it here isn't going to do anything. Why not make an appointment with your local Chief of Police, or whoever is in charge, and suggest this. Do some analysis and make some projections about how much money it would save, etc. You'll need to be able to make a case. But he's the one who can change things, not us. So you have to sell this to him and not us. Let us know how it works out."

Have been working on this actually and will let you know if I ever get around to finishing it, stupid life keeps getting in the way of my pet projects.

as for the having to sell "him not us" I will have to respectfully disagree. I don't care about those that read my posts and laugh and/or disregard them as "not going to happen" it's the few that read them and think wow that's how it should work and the one out of the few that does their part in their corner of the world that I have to sell it to. I am only one man, but if I keep talking and have one listen to me every once and a while I become more than just one man.
 
Is Massad Ayoob a lawyer?

No.

However, he is an expert in the legal field of self defense.

Anyone who graduates from law school can do a lot of basic stuff. Massad cannot help you write a will.

However, lawyers also tend to specialize. You don't bring your Tax Lawyer with you to your shooting arraignment.

Mas is a 'generalist' in the specialist field of self defense shooting in that he covers pretty much all the states. Your local self defense specializing attourney will be better...but just like any other specialty field, the specialist or his aids will often know a lot more than the generalist.

This holds true in the medical field too. Often when a new medical device first shows up, the non MD field rep/technician is there working with the MD, and actually running the machine, which in some cases is the actual surgery. That's good! I'd rather have the compay field rep/technician use the uberscope lazer blaster to take the palps off my colon or whatever than the doctor who never used it...but I'd rather have that doctor do any other generic medical procedure.

Massad Ayoob is like the factory tech who is an expert in the machine...even if he isn't an MD, or in this case a Lawyer
 
I'm a little surprised he never bothered to pick up a law degree. It's not that hard. But it is time consuming, and the crap law schools charge almost as much as the good ones.

Even without a law degree he could sit for the bar exam in a couple of unfree states -- but then would be subject to their rules, which I wouldn't wish on anyone.
 
TexasRifleman wrote: "Now, Fish may have had lots of other things stacked against him but it's also true that the prosecutor made a big deal out of the "10mm killer" angle."

That case reeks of the smell of "incompetent attorney".
 
Buck Snort: "That case reeks of the smell of "incompetent attorney"."

Not necessarily incompetent, just not a gun nut, well-versed and experienced in this occult realm.

Locally we had a devoted family man get sent away for decades after shooting his estranged spouse in the back of the head (BIG hurdle, there) -- after she called him 57 times that morning and threatened their child, into whose room she was proceeding allegedly with criminal intent.

Defendant had a very, very competent lawyer. Among the best locals. I know the lawyer personally, though not closely, and respect the heck out of him. Still, I sometimes wonder what might have been possible had Ayoob been involved. Money might not have been an obstacle. But the case and the history -- ah, well.
 
Not necessarily incompetent

Guess it's a fine line between incompetent and not being “well-versed and experienced in this occult realm”! I’d hope my attorney would be competent enough to realize he needs to become “well-versed and experienced”, probably by getting hold of a witness that is fer my defense!

If memory serves, didn’t sound to me as if Fish’s lawyer was very competent, but I think he had medical problems that may have contributed to a poor defense?

Anywho…check out http://proarms.podbean.com and scroll down to episode 15-The 10mm Review & The Harold Fish Case for a listen-discussion of the Harold Fish case starts at the 33 minute mark.

While you’re over there, might want to check out the 2 episodes at the top of the page-covers a couple more hot topics that pop up on the ‘Net all the time (Trigger Pull and Ammo Selection). The Defensive Shotgun podcasts ain’t bad either!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top