Saturday, August 31, 2013

Uniformed thugs in Texas make up "law" as they please.

Men Behind ‘Open Carry’ Demonstration in Texas Charged with Crimes Even Though What They Did Wasn’t Illegal – Here’s How Police Are Justifying It


FG said...

This foolishness WILL continue

A. Gun owners SERIOUSLY Lawyer-Up, and start financially painful lawsuits against these rogue police departments.

- or -

B: Yeah, THAT topic. (Foot shuffle, downward glance, change the subject, etc...)

Anonymous said...

Alabama law now specifically prohibits what the San Antonio police did by arresting those guys for "disturbing the peace". I think we ought to all call the San Antonio Police Department and give the Chief whatfor about it.

- Old Greybeard

Anonymous said...

I believe in open carry, but San Antonio is a city firmly under the control of liberals. The current "La Raza" connected liberal mayor was elected with 29,000 TOTAL votes in a city of about 800,000 registered voters. Apathetic to say the least.

The way I see it, if you go looking for trouble, don't bitch and moan if you find it, especially if it takes a big crap on yer head.

Anonymous said...

The legislative session, and it's three special sessions, is over. Open carry didn't make it this time. We'll try again in 2015. The reason it failed, Joe Straus, lives right here in San Antonio. These guys putting on bogus demonstrations should get their asses out and push hard to get rid of Joe Straus in the next State election. Not make trouble with the cops.

SWIFT said...

The bullshit charge of Disorderly Conduct has been tried by other Police Departments around the country. If memory serves, they tried it in East Stroudsberg,Pa. The police will lose the case. The courts have recognized that the charge is just a pretext to arrest open carry advocates. Even though the police always lose and are eventually sued, they never get the word. Currently, there is a case in Erie, Pa, that is waiting appeal. About 8 guys were arrested for open carry in a city park, which is legal in Pennsylvania, by state law. They were arrested in violation of a city ordinance and a local judge, who obviously never read the law, fined them $300 apiece. Erie PD must have tons of money that they want to part with. When they win the appeal, they WILL sue. What I enjoy most about this is; it isn't only the money, but the opportunity to give the police a black eye for being stupid in public.

Freedom First 1775 said...

I love the way people worship Texas, like it's some mystical land of freedom. Actually, their gun laws there are in many cases far more restrictive and abusive than those of even The People's Republic of Oregon which lacks state preemption and walking from one city to the next can render you a felon.

billmill said...

What amazes me is these thugs will want our help ans respect in the coming civil disorder. Good luck with that.

Anonymous said...

The police are supposed to follow the same laws as the general public. If a member of the public who is lawfully carrying a firearm is "breaching the peace", then a police office who is lawfully carrying a firearm should be subject to the same criminal charge.

Anonymous said...

Texas Penal Code Title 9, Chapter 42, Section 42.01(8) reads "displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;"

The prosecution is going to have to prove to 6 people beyond a reasonable doubt that those guys INTENDED to cause alarm. Given the rest of the facts (conveniently left out by the Blaze writer), that's liable to be an exceedingly difficult row to hoe.

From the source piece on (the local CBS affiliate): "Police eventually showed up after they received a call from a woman who claimed she was "freaked out" by the display of weapons. Officers approached the men, questioned them about the situation and told the gun holders they needed to leave."

According to the KENS5 write-up, this was a total non-event. People were stopping by, chatting the guys up, taking pictures and having their pictures taken. No hu-hu. The law doesn't say "if someone is alarmed" it says "in a manner calculated to alarm". That means that the prosecution has to prove that the purpose of the display of weapons was to alarm bystanders. Considering that all they did was sit in front of Starbucks sipping java, I'm not sure you could make the charge stick on the north end of the eastern seaboard.

The problem facing those guys at the moment is that merely being CHARGED with disorderly conduct results in an immediate suspension of one's CHL. The license will remain suspended until either the case goes to trial or the charges are dismissed. If they are found guilty then they will most likely lose their CHL permanently as the powers that be consider conviction of disorderly conduct evidence of mental instability The only way they get their licenses back is if they are acquitted or the case is dismissed.

Anonymous said...

Will the gun owners have the right to face those activists who got things rolling with their complaints?

Are those who complained susceptible to having charges of filing false reports placed against them if it's shown their efforts politically motivated?

Anonymous said...

Oh, but the police are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution! I just remembered, the President is also! It would seem that those oaths are null and void and meaningless sometimes, especially with the President. I guess they mean that oath only when it suits their purpose.

- Old Greybeard

Anonymous said...

Being an arrogant bastard is in the gene pool of most LEOs. My point is, if you know that a particular city police force is staffed with a bunch of arrogant bastards, and the city is run by arrogant bastard liberals, then why tempt fate? The lesson is that you need to give arrogant bastards a wide berth or you will suffer undue and unfair consequences. Also, you need to remember the difference between liberals and communists. A liberal is an arrogant bastard with power. A communist is an arrogant bastard with power and an AK-47.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:56 AM - Good question. I believe three things would have to happen:

1) The complainants would have to be identified.

2) The complainants would have to be investigated. Who they work for, groups they belong to, prior history of activism, etc.

3) It would have to be established that the complainants were not truthful when they contacted LE.

Oh, I forgot one - you would then need to have people in the system who would commit to prosecuting these people for making false statements.

This all might look impossible, but it's not (well, maybe the last one). It would be difficult. And only accomplishing the first two could have value. Remember the woman who was waving the racist sign at the Zimmerman event? She was outed as a leftist and lost her job.

Paul X said...

"Gun owners SERIOUSLY Lawyer-Up, and start financially painful lawsuits against these rogue police departments."

This looks a bit like collectivist-speak. Police departments cannot feel pain; only individuals can. The pain is mostly felt by taxpayers. Individual cops experience little disincentive for thuggish behavior which is why they keep doing it.

"... if you know that a particular city police force is staffed with a bunch of arrogant bastards, and the city is run by arrogant bastard liberals, then why tempt fate?"

Liberals, conservatives, what's the difference? They all believe the government religion. But yeah, there is a point to this stuff. There has to be pushback. That's the whole point of demonstrations, which is what this is. It's all a big game, even though the consequences can be harsh.

This country was built on a foundation of disobedience of law. Looks like we are into a new phase now, disobedience of preference, of feelings. Heaven forbid that someone's feelings be hurt! (This assumes, of course, that there actually WAS a call from a woman complaining, rather than the cops just making it up...)

Anonymous said...

the problem here is we keep suing the counties, the governments, and the who's money is this?..its our money people , were fucking suing ourselves when we "sue the city"..thats our tax money we are lottering away to the lucky person who had their rights stomped on by the thugs of the state..
Nothing will ever happen with their behavior or their actions against our rights because it doesn't do a dam thing to "them" personally

Until we put some teeth on OUR laws for THEM..and make those that go against what this country was founded upon, by going after that person for their own actions, not one dam thing is ever going to change, the inability to sue the person ( cop FBI CIA Government representative) there is no incentive for that thug to do whats right

until that happenes were just fucking ourselves