Man Ticketed With Open Carry

[Atroxus]

Like I said, when the facts are in, if the police really violated his rights this way, nail them. I open carry once in a while and I wouldn't sit still for any abuse over it, out it public.

If the police wanted to just ask me about it, that wouldn't bother me, but they shouldn't detain me and they sure better not charge me with a crime.

Wow, I can't believe you are still defending the police on this. You keep talking about "innocent until proven guilty", but it doesn't seem to apply to Kirby who had his gun confiscated illegally. At this point it really seems to me like you are just burying your head in the sand.

 

[Gunner3456]

Wow, I can't believe you are still defending the police on this. You keep talking about "innocent until proven guilty", but it doesn't seem to apply to Kirby who had his gun confiscated illegally. At this point it really seems to me like you are just burying your head in the sand.

I agree it doesn't look good, and I agree the police probably screwed up. It doesn't look good at all.

We don't have both sides of the story. Also, I don't trust the media - I've seen too many errors in articles in my life.

For that reason I'm willing to wait until the dust settles here before I proclaim as an "irrefutable fact" that "I know for a fact" that the police screwed up.

I don't have both sides of the story, but it doesn't look good for the police.

We have a prime example of hearsay which is ignored in a court.

I won't convict anyone with just what I now know "for a fact." I won't convict anyone with just one side of a story.

What's wrong with that?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Wow, I can't believe you are still defending the police on this. You keep talking about "innocent until proven guilty", but it doesn't seem to apply to Kirby who had his gun confiscated illegally. At this point it really seems to me like you are just burying your head in the sand.

Cops can do no wrong! :rockon::rockon:

 

[Blitzkrieg]

What is right and wrong? In Washington it is legal to carry a firearm openly. In Washington A Leo gave a ticket to a guy carrying a firearm and took his gun.

That's messed up! Yes you can..No you can't! Eah?

It's legal until you actually try it..

 

[Gunner3456]

Cops can do no wrong! :rockon::rockon:

Wrongaroo. If the cops did what it looks like they did, nail them to the wall.

 

[coloneltim]

Wrongaroo. If the cops did what it looks like they did, nail them to the wall.

Ever get the feeling we are listening to a record stuck in the groove playing pver and over and over and over when Gunner writes on this subject?

 

[Father of four]

Nooooooooooooooo...

 

[SSG]

It's legal until you actually try it..

That's so true, I was at a local gun store, S&M...when the owner talked about open carry...I put down $20 on the counter, and said..' If you walk up and down River Rd for 15 minutes back and forth with that 45 on your hip where everyone can see it...this $20 is yours'

Of course they didn't take me up on it...

...it might be legal to put a 45 on the dash, or walk around with a 44 mag in a drop holster through the mall...but you would be lucky if ALL the cops did was talk to you...

They have a ton of laws to enforce...menacing, improper handling of a firearm, terrorist threats..on and on...

Maybe they would just take you down at gun point, knee on the neck, three guys on top of you...empty your mags, cuff you up, run warrants, then release you sans mags and bullets, say..'have a nice day'

 

[parallax]

That's so true, I was at a local gun store, S&M...when the owner talked about open carry...I put down $20 on the counter, and said..' If you walk up and down River Rd for 15 minutes back and forth with that 45 on your hip where everyone can see it...this $20 is yours'

Of course they didn't take me up on it...

...it might be legal to put a 45 on the dash, or walk around with a 44 mag in a drop holster through the mall...but you would be lucky if ALL the cops did was talk to you...

They have a ton of laws to enforce...menacing, improper handling of a firearm, terrorist threats..on and on...

Maybe they would just take you down at gun point, knee on the neck, three guys on top of you...empty your mags, cuff you up, run warrants, then release you sans mags and bullets, say..'have a nice day'

dont forget the free tazing you would recieve after you were disarmed and cuffed..

 

[Rapid1]

Wrongaroo. If the cops did what it looks like they did, nail them to the wall.

the person(s) that gave the order is the one needing nailed to the wall. I would be willing to bet it was an elected official(s) (politician), that initiated the order to violate this guy. but then again, those guys probably have immunity against prosecution.

the police are out there putting their butts on the line every time they suit up. with a screwup of this magnitude, they had to be just following orders originated by some politician sitting at a desk.

sure, go ahead and sue em. maybe the money will come out of the PERS fund...but not likely, they will probably let more criminals let out of jail or lay off more law enforcement. it will be tax money any way you look at it and we all know how frugal the Oregon legislature is with tax money, unless it's going to rename highways or buff up public retirement accounts.

 

[bcp]

...it will be tax money any way you look at it and we all know how frugal the Oregon legislature is with tax money,

Even if he wins millions from the PD, it won't cost Oregon taxpayers a cent.

Bruce

 

[clearconscience]

They should start making the city/county pay the lawyers fees and retribution for these offenses against law abiding citizens.
Why do we have to pay to have our freedoms?

 

[gunnoob75]

Not sure what all has been posted in the thread.

The guy said they are prosecuting him for "Brandishing". Just talked to him on the phone.

Driving into Vancouver tonight to talk to him.

 

[Atroxus]

Not sure what all has been posted in the thread.

The guy said they are prosecuting him for "Brandishing". Just talked to him on the phone.

Driving into Vancouver tonight to talk to him.

Wow, if the article I posted was accurate as far as the police saying that Kirby was not behaving in a threatening manner, and if he had the handgun holstered then the police need to be disciplined and the prosecutor in this case needs to be fired as soon as the case is dismissed.(assuming the judge isn't just as much of a moron as the prosecutor) It's bad enough that the police don't understand, and/or can't find out about the laws they are meant to enforce. I find it completely ridiculous though for a prosecutor to not understand the laws. The thought that a law abiding citizen could be forced to shell out money for legal defense, and have his property confiscated due to stupid police, and and an even stupider prosecutor makes me sick to my stomach.

 

[Member 5605]

They should start making the city/county pay the lawyers fees and retribution for these offenses against law abiding citizens.
Why do we have to pay to have our freedoms?

I completely agree.

 

[Atroxus]

They should start making the city/county pay the lawyers fees and retribution for these offenses against law abiding citizens.
Why do we have to pay to have our freedoms?

Only problem is that it's still tax money thats paying those lawsuits. If you sue the city, county, state, or federal government, you are essentially suing yourself, and your neighbors because it's tax money that is going to used to pay out the settlement/judgement.

In my opinion the best way to prevent this would be for each police department to have a lawyer on call 24/7 to answer legal questions the officers in the field are unsure of. (such as "Should I arrest or ticket this guy that just has a gun in a holster?") Then make the police personally liable for any willful/negligent violations of peoples rights. If the lawyer gives bad information that results in a violation of a citizens rights then make the lawyer personally liable.

 

[U201491]

In my opinion the best way to prevent this would be for each police department to have a lawyer on call 24/7 to answer legal questions the officers in the field are unsure of. (such as "Should I arrest or ticket this guy that just has a gun in a holster?") Then make the police personally liable for any willful/negligent violations of peoples rights. If the lawyer gives bad information that results in a violation of a citizens rights then make the lawyer personally liable.

Excellent concept. And about a 50 hr class in what the words in the Constitution really mean as it was written.
Also a refresher course about how many millions have given their lives to defend it. It was not so a few could twist it to suit their whim of the moment. That document was written and protected with cold steel and lead and blood.

 

[Partsproduction]

Sgt, Greg Raquer with the Vancouver Police Department Said "Most responsible people don't display their firearm in public."

But of course that excludes police, they're responsible right? Another case of people in power having different standards for themselves, special rights.

The one that currently angers me is congressmen and their special gold plated health insurance plan. I can't use the correct words in a public forum to express my rage, when are we going to wake up and demand that people in power live under the same rules they enforce on us?

 

[spectra]

Wow, I really hope this guy can get a good gun rights attorney.

Well have been keeping up with this in the local paper and am glad to see his attorney is a great fan of the 2nd amendment Hard to say but his attorney might have found him

 

[8ball]

In my opinion the best way to prevent this would be for each police department to have a lawyer on call 24/7 to answer legal questions the officers in the field are unsure of.

They already do. They are called prosecuting attorneys!

I've never understood why they are elected in most states. It seems to lead to these sort of cases where the prosecutor ignores the law by grandstanding on cases like this, as part of a misguided 'get tough on crime' approach. You don't often see this type of behavior where prosecutors are not elected.

One particularly interesting aspect of the model is that under some
circumstances voters may reward policy failure, e.g., by re-electing a
prosecutor who brings a case to trial and fails to obtain a conviction.
The reason for this is that if the voters are extremely aggressive and
the pool of potential prosecutors is not particularly aggressive, the
voters want to re-elect the prosecutor if they believe he is likely to
be aggressive in the future. An unsuccessful prosecution today, though
not necessarily a desirable outcome for either the voters or the
prosecutor, can serve as a signal indicating that the prosecutor is
likely to be aggressive in the future.