Saturday, January 25, 2014

"Undue alarm." Police chief asserts that his officers had to arrest Texas open carrier

“We didn’t know who he was, had no clue but we started getting a mass number of phone calls,” Chief Jones said. “By displaying the weapon, he caused undue alarm.”
Once again, to quote Bob Wright:
 "Our Constitutional rights are not subject to the anti-firearm neuroses of our liberal neighbors."


Longbow said...

Good job, Bud. Declare your support for the rights of the people you serve, while stomping on them. Orwell would be proud.

Arrest anyone who has spiked hair and causes a neurotic woman to call 911. You can call it "disturbing the peace" or "disorderly conduct" or "interfering with a police investigation", anything you want!

You da chief of Poe-Leece. You can't be wrong!

Anonymous said...

I am left to wonder when the accused will demand to know and face the accusers. The CALLERS themselves.
Part of the problem here is that police are empowered to LIE. It's time we see just how many calls are coming in. It's time the callers be exposed so as to teach others that irrational fears do not translate into arrest warrants for others.

Anonymous said...

Ok so the chief confessed that the reason the man was arrested was because he was involved in a constitutionally protected activity. They said it was the gun that caused them the concern. When they went out they felt they had to arrest the man for something so they arrested him for an unrelated matter. This is false arrest.

They did this and cooked it up on their own to punish the man for the lawful right. The entered into a conspiracy when they arrested him for an unrelated charge even though the charge was not supported; mind you that the chief has already confessed to doing this. This is conspiracy.

18 USC Section 241 and 242 make it a federal felony to conspire to deprive a citizen of his civil rights and those secured by the Constitution. In addition the officers at the time of arrest were in the commission of a felony and a citizen may make a citizens arrest upon the perpetrator of a felony.

So this would make for an interesting case. Ignorance of the law is no excuse so the police after having admitted to the conspiracy and false arrest and confessing the same have no damned where to go on this one. Admissions and confessions, evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 803: Anything that tends to prove or disprove a material fact is evidence. 42 USC Section 1983 and this can be used a a Civil RICO, it has already been done and there is ample case law supporting the action on police departments.

Five words here; Burn them to the ground. Quit pussyfooting around and make an example as they are doing this fellow. If you do not you have no reason to complain.

Anonymous said...

On a further note to my comments. The "undue alarm" is a legal definition. It is according to legislation and the supporting case law of the statute. If the person having been a complaintant to the police cannot not articulate the legal definition of "undue alarm" nor their cause for alarm they should be arrested for making a false police report. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." The people calling in and reporting are unduly alarmed or they have no right to make such a report. Again Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 803. Now we have the police educating the public as well as themselves about the law, not making laws and arresting people for unsubstainted appeals to emotion. remember appeals to emotion are logical fallacies and are "unreasonable"; which by the way is the basis for overturning a president.

I am a legal professional who has over the course of 30 odd years have studied the Constitution, its intent and the Marxist approach to law enforcement perpetrated upon the people. Actually the methodology is defined in many manuals published by many federal agencies on terrorism as "State Sponsored terrorism". Using agency clout to cause a psychological force to harass its citizens. Obviously the psychological response of the open carry individual was one of shock and the feeling of intimidation was induced by the approach and subsequent arrest by armed police while pursuing a lawfully protected activity. The fact that the police used another completely different offence to constrain person's behavior unrelated to carrying the gun, even as they confessed they were doing, fits the definitions expressed in terrorism.

You see there is a silver lining in almost every cloud. All you have to do is to inform the jury when you are presenting-juries are usually very uninformed but must be of the peers of the accused, very important bit of information.

You could actually have fun here getting the prosecutor covering all this ground. First terminate the offense charged of and then go on a hunting trip for the information and public display of the laws the prosecutor will not uphold. The jury would love to see the government stumbling over all this. But kill the charge first.

The accusers would have to be called and this could be done with the police reports. The officers testimony alone are not admissible because they already said it was because the reports thay had to do something.

Anonymous said...

"All you have to do is to inform the jury when you are presenting-"

that's some funny shit right there.

the process you see, is the punishment - whether the defendant wins or loses.

Anonymous said...

Process is the punishment but the punitive action comes from the media.

Ask George Zimmerman.