Homeowner Is Arrested For Open Carrying An Empty Shotgun

[jjackffrost]

Portland cops point guns at none felons all the time just go to YouTube and type Portland Oregon cops.

One point: the Blaze is selling one point of view. You might want to look at more than just them. They should not have told her to delete the video though but their dash cam should have got it all and in Michigan that's public so long as it's not an open case they will have to give it up for a civil case. Unless like Portland their cameras malfunction when you request the video.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

I've had a gun pointed at me twice.
Once was when me and my girlfriend were walking back to my car after spending some time at Hendricks park after the Eugene Celebration. When we rounded the corner into the parking lot I noticed two cops looking through my car windows with their flashlights. When I asked if I could help them, they both pulled their weapons and made us get on the ground. Turns out, the park had "closed" about 30 minutes prior. Apparently, that's all the reason you need to point a gun at someones face and threaten them.

The second time was when I was pulled over after stopping at an ATM in the early morning. The officer immediately had me stick my hands out the window while he circled around with his Sig pointed at my face. This time they were looking for a male who was reported to be in a silver sedan driving alone. I was driving a blue station wagon... but I guess that's close enough to justify looking down the barrel of a loaded weapon.

Cops seem to point weapons willy-nilly with impunity. Compared to my experiences with police, this man had all sorts of cause detain the vandal.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

It's state by state.. in wa it's legal as far as I know

No, it's not state by state. The US Supreme Court covers all states, and they've ruled you can. Please stop confusing people with incorrect information.

 

[Adam12]

you mean you would rather see the le slanted version!!!!

Yeah. You are very smart.

 

[U201491]

and I assume the same for you...

your bias is evident because you envision yourself to be in the same shoes as the person in the article... you have the same problem and been there done that....

we can have a good discussion or we can call each other names... you call me an ***, and that's fine, I'll call you dumb and uneducated...

you call me something else, I call you something else...

if you wanted to debate the article and the actual story, do so, but nope, you had to act like you and only you know how it really is and I'm just ignorant because I won't accept your version of the story...

guess what, neither of us was there....

so get off your pedestal and talk to us from an equal level, but I can understand your need to feel superior on the internet, so I'll bow out of this topic and leave you be...

seriously dude, learn to respect other's views even if they differ from your own... I went to 10 years of schooling after high school and have more degrees than you probably ever will... want to start a pissing contest? I'm not dumb by any means, I can read and research facts for myself, and I present my opinion as opinion... I wasn't there...

have fun in your little world where you are king...

Good Lord. That is your problem.
There is NO debate until it gets to court and there is an outcome. It is just that simple.
Again read the damned article with a functioning mind.
The wife was violated by being told to erase her video.
The cop was an azz and beyond that the rest will come out in court.
Also you come on and belittled an organization you do not know a damned thing about.
No I have no desire to debate you. Your colors are clear as sunlight.

 

[Adam12]

Oathkeepers generally carries stories reported from other sources very accurately. To criticize them in such a manner shows you don't have a clue what they stand for.
Instead of being a smartazz, why dont you bring forth something that contradicts the article if you are so sure.

Did you read that article? You didnt think it was slanted in any way??? Huh

 

[Adam12]

Portland cops point guns at none felons all the time just go to YouTube and type Portland Oregon cops.

One point: the Blaze is selling one point of view. You might want to look at more than just them. They should not have told her to delete the video though but their dash cam should have got it all and in Michigan that's public so long as it's not an open case they will have to give it up for a civil case. Unless like Portland their cameras malfunction when you request the video.

I am with you on erasing the video... If anything it would seem that you would want the video of what happened. Also, the video starts after the guy is in cuffs.. What happened before that? Id be interested in seeing videos of portland cops indescriminately point firearms at people. Don't get me wrong i'm sure they point weapons but, just look at that hole- there are all sorts of criminals there...

 

[Adam12]

The picture of the cop is all I needed to see. I think we are dealing with probably 'two digits' here.

Dude, you live in LaPine...

 

[Provincial]

I know about citizens arrest, if there was no felony involved you cannot point a gun at somebody. .citizens arrest or not

And for the record the guy was not open carrying a shotgun, he was holding it in his hand and not slung on his shoulder or a holster..

In wa that could be construed as brandishing... although that may not be the case in Michigan

This is an example of how far the case law has gone astray. If you have a shotgun with no sling, how are you to keep it on your person without holding it in your hand(s)? You can't put it in a holster. How can simply holding a firearm without pointing it at/near a person be "brandishing"?

I have had trespassers "brandish" a gun at me. They worked the action of a pump .22 while threatening to shoot me. The perp didn't point the gun at me while he was doing it, but it was clear that it was a threat. The problem was that there were four of them in the Bronco, and only one of me, so there was no point in filing a complaint with the Sheriff. That is what I call "brandishing."

To "brandish" a firearm should require a level of threat not associated with self-defense. To merely have a loaded firearm on your person (not pointed at another) while checking out a trespasser should not[ be construed as threatening or "brandishing."

This isn't just a 2A self-defense issue. It is also a Private Property issue, since these interpretations limit the use, enjoyment, and safety of property owner and his property.

 

[PX4WA]

Oathkeepers generally carries stories reported from other sources very accurately. To criticize them in such a manner shows you don't have a clue what they stand for.
Instead of being a smartazz, why dont you bring forth something that contradicts the article if you are so sure.

wow, just because I criticize an organization I'm a smart azz.... no organization is above criticism... to think that such exists is to become blinded... (just like you claim others are blinded)

I know who they are, I agree with a lot of what they say... but they are not infallible and they definitely are biased... and nothing wrong with that in my book, I just know how to filter the bias out and read the facts for the facts and the opinion/slant for what it is...

it does take some education to achieve that level of understanding/filtering.... I wager you haven't finished college?

At the biker. His one word. Against the Dad, the Son, and the Wife.
I do read on the issue and have sent a link that will give you as many sources as you could possibly read.
You didn't read the article before mouthing off, then you slam an organization that's sole purpose is to get LE and Military to up hold their OATH to uphold the Constitution.
You come off as a left wing nutcase. Simple deduction.

--- your original message is below ---- stop editing and be a man and stick to your original thoughts....

At the biker. His one word. Against the Dad, the Son, and the Wife.
I do read on the issue and have sent a link that will give you as many sources as you could possibly read.
You didn't read the article before mouthing off, then you slam an organization that's sole purpose is to get LE and Military
to up hold their OATH to uphold the Constitution. You come off as a left wing nutcase. Simple deduction.
Probably and LE of LE wannabe.

I'm actually centrist leaning right... you are so far right, i look leftist to you... I don't begrudge you that, it's your right... just pointing out what's obvious to the rest of the people here...

I'm not an LE wannabe... I'm a doctor... wouldn't and haven't ever dreamed of becoming LE.. I have LE friends, but I wouldn't want to do their work for their pay...

it's one persons word against the other, I choose to evaluate the situation and imagine what would reasonably make me stay for the cops to arrive... if I was not being detained with a gun, i would get on my bike and leave...

don't get me wrong if it was my property, i'd detain him with a firearm and call it for what it is... if he caused damage or refused to leave...

you don't have to point a firearm to use it as a threat... brandishing includes the display of a firearm in a manner that suggests it will be used if a person did not comply to another's commands... you don't have to waive it around, just simply make it clear that you have the ability to use it...

but laws are different in each state, I'm not from Michigan so I don't know if that even applies...

I don't know if this really happened, but again based on my own opinion, that is the only reason a person would choose to stay... otherwise I would leave when asked...

and you put a link full of websites talking about the same story from the blaze and you call that multiple sources? that is one source being propagated... by similarly leaning blogs/forums/news outlets...

unfortunately the nature of the piece is we won't get any other source...

and just because it's on the internet it must be true right? 10 wrong answers does not make it correct, no matter how many times you repeat it...

There is a great deal on this story available on the net.
It looks like it's had some wide coverage.

https://www.google.com/search?num=1...-1.1.0....0...1c.2.27.serp..1.0.0.CIdnlWp-nGI

and it looks like most of them are slanted the same direction

and I don't know why you think I didn't read the whole article, I did...

actually the blaze has a complete story with both party's opinions posted, the oathkeepers chose to edit and post the parts that make it sensationalistic...

if you don't think the article is slanted, I don't know what to tell you... you have your blinders on?

Good Lord. That is your problem.
There is NO debate until it gets to court and there is an outcome. It is just that simple.
Again read the damned article with a functioning mind.
The wife was violated by being told to erase her video.
The cop was an azz and beyond that the rest will come out in court.
Also you come on and belittled an organization you do not know a damned thing about.
No I have no desire to debate you. Your colors are clear as sunlight.

I now understand... we were never debating anything here... you just wanted to propagate the same slanted story and make it sound like gospel... I unfortunately got in the way by asking the wrong questions?

I don't disagree that the wife's rights were trampled on... and that the cops over-reacted... I said that from the beginning.. you can look at my unedited posts...

I merely pointed out that there is another side to the story, but it seems you only like to hear what agrees with your point of view...

This is an example of how far the case law has gone astray. If you have a shotgun with no sling, how are you to keep it on your person without holding it in your hand(s)? You can't put it in a holster. How can simply holding a firearm without pointing it at/near a person be "brandishing"?

I have had trespassers "brandish" a gun at me. They worked the action of a pump .22 while threatening to shoot me. The perp didn't point the gun at me while he was doing it, but it was clear that it was a threat. The problem was that there were four of them in the Bronco, and only one of me, so there was no point in filing a complaint with the Sheriff. That is what I call "brandishing."

To "brandish" a firearm should require a level of threat not associated with self-defense. To merely have a loaded firearm on your person (not pointed at another) while checking out a trespasser should not[ be construed as threatening or "brandishing."

This isn't just a 2A self-defense issue. It is also a Private Property issue, since these interpretations limit the use, enjoyment, and safety of property owner and his property.

I agree.. this is a sticky situation with lots of turns best left for a court and judge to decide... I'm not on the side of LEO or the trespasser or owner here, just merely pointing out observations...

did anyone notice the property owner that called the le was on the ground and the guy trespassing was sitting in a chair. treating him better. just another example of the criminal having more rights than the law abiding.

I actually agree with you... but there is likely more to the story than we will ever know... the LEO could have done a better job... secure the firearm and then let the homeowner stand and explain things instead of acting the way they did....

everybody acted poorly in this situation... tempers flared and egos got in the way...

I don't begrudge the homeowner doing what he did... he was probably pissed off and decided to make an example of that guy... unfortunately it didn't work out well for him that day...



I'm going to leave things at this... there is no point in any further discussion as it is obvious we have gone down to the level of name calling and we will agree to disagree.. this is still a free country and I have the right to my opinion and so do you...

I hope I didn't hurt anybody's feelings too much... I'm just glad I never have to meet you Taku... you have some issues... get some professional help... you may have a stroke one day from your blood pressure going too high... would it really be worth it just to win an internet argument?

 

[U201491]

You stated you were going to leave it several times. Bye....
You waste good time.
Yes I finished college. It wasted 4 years. Then I went through a 7 year
apprenticeship in tooling and prototype design. That is irrelevant.

You majored in Alinsky, obviously.
Enjoy arguing with yourself.

 

[RVTECH]

Dude, you live in LaPine...

Yep - where nobody makes a big deal about open carry - including the LE because it's usual and accepted.

 

[Adam12]

Yep - where nobody makes a big deal about open carry - including the LE because it's usual and accepted.

I was speaking to your " two digits" comment

 

[salmonriverjohn]

Heck I have three degrees, easy going, irritated and down right pizz'd off. Oh, I forgot the degree in Bovine scatology, of which I hold a masters

 

[1stIDFMP]

Oh, I forgot the degree in Bovine scatology, of which I hold a masters

Leave it to you, salmonriverjohn.......

 

[RVTECH]

I was speaking to your " two digits" comment

I knew that - and no doubt lots of them around here - maybe even some of the LE!

 

[oknow]

Yeah. You are very smart.

Smart enough to know the leo'e will stretch law because they have the backing of the DA giving them the benefit of the doubt and because of that they get a little overzealous. And the PD seem to be the ones that really overdo it.

 

[Adam12]

Smart enough to know the leo'e will stretch law because they have the backing of the DA giving them the benefit of the doubt and because of that they get a little overzealous. And the PD seem to be the ones that really overdo it.

See there. I knew it.

 

[Provincial]

Does anyone else see the trend in trespassing law: if you leave when requested, the owner can't identify you, and you escape responsibility for any damage you did?

Property damage, in the form of ruts, fires, etc. should allow the property owner more discretion in detaining the perpetrator. When someone trespasses, your property rights are violated. When the trespasser does damage, that violation is much greater.

The problem with a citizen arrest or detaining a suspect is the fear of "vigilantism" inherent in our legal system. As budgets constrain the activities of law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and corrections the official system is less inclined to pursue "non-violent" (and even serious ) crime, leaving the victims exposed.

If you talk to the local DA or Judge "off the record" they will tell you that they come down hard on citizens detaining or arresting people because they fear that things will get out of hand. The fear is that honest people will get so fed up with the inaction of the system meant to protect them that they will bypass it and dispense "justice" on the spot.

Think about it - if those in charge of protecting honest people feel that this is a serious problem, we are closer to the edge of societal breakdown than we realize!

 

[dehamma]

Anybody who watched that video and thinks the actions of the police are okay is part of the problem, not the solution. Yes I' can and will carry any weapon I choose on my own property. Yes I am going to film public servants while they perform their duties or abuse their authority. It's legal for them to film and record us almost anywhere. These abuses are not okay. Wish I could sit on the landowner's jury.