|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Aug 19, 2013 21:15:43 GMT -6
Evidently the police side with my side of the argument. Himmler agreed with Hitler as well. Your point?
|
|
|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Aug 19, 2013 21:16:40 GMT -6
I really doubt this guy had a FOID card, it happened in Texas not illinois. Northsider is correct, Illinois is either the only one, or at best one of a handful of states that require a FOID.
|
|
|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Aug 19, 2013 21:18:36 GMT -6
Pick your battles more wisely. Yep, you are correct, you are showing me the woodshed virtually on a daily basis.............
|
|
|
Post by Blue Star on Aug 19, 2013 21:38:08 GMT -6
I really doubt this guy had a FOID card, it happened in Texas not illinois. Northsider is correct, Illinois is either the only one, or at best one of a handful of states that require a FOID. I stand corrected a CHC is required for the handgun, but the result was the same. ""The person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." Justice White, Terry v Ohio Absent Reasonable Suspicion of a Crime, a lack of cooperation isn't cause for detainment." BTW, the case isn't over yet, as the city PD is not cooperating with the atty's legal req. for the PO's video. etc....
|
|
|
Post by Lucky1 on Aug 19, 2013 22:38:01 GMT -6
So in Texas you can carry a rifle and if you are stopped by the police you can just refuse to answer questions and go on your merry way? I was a fan of concealed carry but not if this is the type of situations that we will be seeing. How can anyone watching that video think that the man with the gun is in the right and the police are not? He was being a jerk. I am sorry but I don't want attitudes walking around with rifles.
|
|
|
Post by chevypower on Aug 20, 2013 1:44:19 GMT -6
I agree maskedman, that guy thought He was all that lol it's how you go about the situation that counts, and He was just a punk in doing so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2013 4:12:44 GMT -6
Evidently the police side with my side of the argument. Himmler agreed with Hitler as well. Your point? My point is clear and your comparison is....well, stupid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2013 4:14:39 GMT -6
Northsider is correct, Illinois is either the only one, or at best one of a handful of states that require a FOID. I stand corrected a CHC is required for the handgun, but the result was the same. ""The person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." Justice White, Terry v Ohio Absent Reasonable Suspicion of a Crime, a lack of cooperation isn't cause for detainment." BTW, the case isn't over yet, as the city PD is not cooperating with the atty's legal req. for the PO's video. etc.... Give us your source before you crow too loudly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2013 4:15:43 GMT -6
Pick your battles more wisely. Yep, you are correct, you are showing me the woodshed virtually on a daily basis............. True.
|
|
|
Post by dog on Aug 20, 2013 6:13:59 GMT -6
I stand corrected a CHC is required for the handgun, but the result was the same. ""The person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." Justice White, Terry v Ohio Absent Reasonable Suspicion of a Crime, a lack of cooperation isn't cause for detainment." BTW, the case isn't over yet, as the city PD is not cooperating with the atty's legal req. for the PO's video. etc.... Give us your source before you crow too loudly. Your wife is in the field of Law,I would think maybe she has some knowledge of Terry v Ohio. What does she think about this particular case?
|
|
|
Post by 34bears on Aug 20, 2013 7:02:08 GMT -6
We don't know how the beginning of this encounter played out but I imagine if the officer had said something like this nothing would have happened.
"Sir, could you please clear and surrender your weapon for both of our safety so we can talk?"
I have no problem with cops wanting control of their situations. When they try to forcibly take control of a situation and force is not needed is when they seem to abuse their authority.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2013 7:15:47 GMT -6
Give us your source before you crow too loudly. Your wife is in the field of Law,I would think maybe she has some knowledge of Terry v Ohio. What does she think about this particular case? Nah.
|
|
|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Aug 20, 2013 7:46:45 GMT -6
So in Texas you can carry a rifle and if you are stopped by the police you can just refuse to answer questions and go on your merry way? I was a fan of concealed carry but not if this is the type of situations that we will be seeing. How can anyone watching that video think that the man with the gun is in the right and the police are not? He was being a jerk. I am sorry but I don't want attitudes walking around with rifles. Not exactly, the question here is did the LEO have the right to detain. In other words, what code was violated that gave the officer the right to question the man and his kid. We don't see the video from the beginning unfortunately, I think he was not expecting a rouge cop to bother them.
|
|
|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Aug 20, 2013 7:49:09 GMT -6
We don't know how the beginning of this encounter played out but I imagine if the officer had said something like this nothing would have happened. "Sir, could you please clear and surrender your weapon for both of our safety so we can talk?" I have no problem with cops wanting control of their situations. When they try to forcibly take control of a situation and force is not needed is when they seem to abuse their authority. Exactly, but we all see this is not the norm with Law Enforcement today. Every one of these situations further de-ligitimizes an officers authority.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Star on Aug 20, 2013 8:17:15 GMT -6
bb, google it your own self!!
|
|