Tasered for openly carrying rifle in Texas

[GoZoner]

Taze him again, just to make sure he understands that The State is the boss.

Or, thinking rationally for a bit, perhaps they should have tazed the general public scared of people exercising rights or the out-of-control, right-denying LEO.

[Jimmybacon43]

Everyone who's been commenting that the police were violating this kids right to open carry, or that exercising your 2nd amendment rights shouldn't get you tasered....

Why don't you open carry a rifle in a place where it is legal to do so, and see what happens? Would you feel comfortable doing that?

The bottom line is that people in today's society DO NOT feel comfortable with people walking around with guns, even if it is legal.
Walking around with your gun is not making a political statement, guns are not political tools.
Idk what the goal of open carry is, to make it acceptable to walk around with an exposed weapon again? Why is that a big deal? What's wrong with concealed carry? Even if open carry of rifles was perfectly culturally and legally permissible, people would still be concealing handguns, because it makes more sense. As a civilian, we don't need to walk around with a rifle all the time. It would become more of a burden if anything. Walking around with any type of exposed gun makes you a target for robbery from somebody concealing illegally. It serves no self defense purpose better than a concealed handgun, and it makes people afraid.

As far as the way the police handled this kid, we have no idea what kind of experiences they've had, what type of people they've been in contact with, and what kind of altercations they've had with people carrying guns before.
It's not unreasonable to assume, that these cops receive a call about a man walking around with a rifle, and they think something bad is going to happen. When he refuses to comply with them, to even tell them his name, or give them his ID, they have no way to check his criminal history and find out if he's somebody they need to be worried about or not.

Maybe the taser was unnecessary. But I really can't blame the police for escalating force when they're called out at night to deal with a "man with a gun" call, and the kid doesn't cooperate.
To everyone who's going to respond and say "Just because it's dark/just because the kid wasn't cooperating doesn't excuse the police for tasering him"

Well...you go out and deal with violent and deranged individuals on a daily basis and see how you would react to this same call. I'm not a cop, never been LEO but these guys deal with scary people on a regular basis and I can't blame them for reacting the way they did in the video.

[LoneYote]

You are confronted by several armed and well trained men.

I thought he was confronted by the police...

[Artema]

Wow, that's some bull right there.

[Roering]

But I really can't blame the police for escalating force when they're called out at night to deal with a "man with a gun" call, and the kid doesn't cooperate.

I doubt they received a call. Most likely this was a lie to justify stopping him. A squad car was probably driving by and the driver noticed a rifle strapped to the pedestrians back.

[Jimmybacon43]

I doubt they received a call. Most likely this was a lie to justify stopping him. A squad car was probably driving by and the driver noticed a rifle strapped to the pedestrians back.

[sarabellum]

But I really can't blame the police for escalating force when they're called out at night to deal with a "man with a gun" call, and the kid doesn't cooperate.

The young man asked- "am I under arrest?"- repeatedly. The police did not answer. The police did not ask him to do anything with which did not comply. People do not have a duty to cooperate or comply with police directions when they are not detained for questioning or arrested. The 1st anonymous police man ended his questioning and let the young man go. At that point, the young man had every reason to believe that the detention was over. Releasing him was also an admission that no crime was being committed and there existed no probable cause to arrest.

The sargeant told him that he, the sargeant, would remove his rifle, to which the young man asked, "why?" He has a 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment right to ask and know why the police are detaining him and purport to take his property. Asking questions does not warrant any use of force, particularly in an unlawful arrest.

In a police state, everything that a person does takes on political significance. Excusing police abuse is political because it affirms authoritarianism. Rejecting police abuse is political because it affirms popular democracy. Professing neutrality is political because it is a subtle affirmation of the order of things as they are. Marching in the street is mass political language. Bearing arms openly is political because it places those within the state on notice that its power, perceived or textual, has a clearly defined limit, such that false arrest or political repression ala Pinochet or Jim Crow is a risky vocation. Some folks were repressed politically just for trying to vote and being colored:


For other folks just existing in the face of genocide was political (Wounded Knee, 1890):


Open carry is a political and necessary (Homeland security fighting against terrorism since 1492):


With open carry everyone is on crystal clear notice of one's individual right to just be left alone in all spheres and at all times. This notice extends to miscreants in and out of uniform.

[J.Galt]

The young man asked- "am I under arrest?"- repeatedly. The police did not answer. The police did not ask him to do anything with which did not comply. People do not have a duty to cooperate or comply with police directions when they are not detained for questioning or arrested. The 1st anonymous police man ended his questioning and let the young man go. At that point, the young man had every reason to believe that the detention was over. Releasing him was also an admission that no crime was being committed and there existed no probable cause to arrest.

The sargeant told him that he, the sargeant, would remove his rifle, to which the young man asked, "why?" He has a 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment right to ask and know why the police are detaining him and purport to take his property. Asking questions does not warrant any use of force, particularly in an unlawful arrest.

In a police state, everything that a person does takes on political significance. Excusing police abuse is political because it affirms authoritarianism. Rejecting police abuse is political because it affirms popular democracy. Professing neutrality is political because it is a subtle affirmation of the order of things as they are. Marching in the street is mass political language. Bearing arms openly is political because it places those within the state on notice that its power, perceived or textual, has a clearly defined limit, such that false arrest or political repression ala Pinochet or Jim Crow is a risky vocation. Some folks were repressed politically just for trying to vote and being colored:


For other folks just existing in the face of genocide was political (Wounded Knee, 1890):


Open carry is a political and necessary (Homeland security fighting against terrorism since 1492):


With open carry everyone is on crystal clear notice of one's individual right to just be left alone in all spheres and at all times. This notice extends to miscreants in and out of uniform.

Fight for your rights or lose them. People have suffered alot more than going to prison or getting tazed in order to make a point or resist oppression. Consider yourself lucky to be living in a century where you wont be executed for "making a scene"..at least in this country. Try upsetting the crowd in Iran.

[sarabellum]

Fight for your rights or lose them. People have suffered alot more than going to prison or getting tazed in order to make a point or resist oppression. Consider yourself lucky to be living in a century where you wont be executed for "making a scene"..at least in this country. Try upsetting the crowd in Iran.

The young man in my original post made a scene and would have been executed had he not informed the officers that he had a camera. In other situations, you can be executed in this century and in this country for just delivering newspapers and driving a pickup: http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan...arges-20140115 For the state in general the modus operandi appears to be kill everyone, let God sort them out later. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...1&postcount=62

Oklahoma lets us know that OC is the norm:

http://news.yahoo.com/kansas-lawmakers-ok-bill-void-local-gun-rules-214756022.html?bcmt=1396760120171-28a01450-7395-4225-8dfd-4e08f73b4d94

You are right- fight for your rights or risk losing them.

[Jimmybacon43]

So open carry is like a civil rights issue for you?

The difference between carrying a gun and your race is that you can kill people with a gun.

Cops get shot at by guys with guns. An unarmed black man doesn't pose a threat, an armed person regardless of their race does.

You just have to be realistic. You're not going to renormalize open carrying by just doing it and getting into confrontations with police.

You guys really don't see how open carrying a weapon attracts unnecessary attention to yourself?

How do you think the confrontation should have gone? Do you think the cops should have just waved at the kid from their police car and driven away?

[Artema]

Do you think the cops should have just waved at the kid from their police car and driven away?

Yes. They are LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. Thus they should go enforce the law. If the law says he can open carry then move along.

[Jimmybacon43]

Yes. They are LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. Thus they should go enforce the law. If the law says he can open carry then move along.

I think you fail to understand the reality of modern society. People carrying guns in public attract attention. The cop in the video even said that people were afraid of them (the police) carrying guns, and they have uniforms.

I don't really know what else I can say. And the kid was violating a county ordinance, so he was not even in compliance of the law.

[Artema]

I think you fail to understand the reality of modern society. People carrying guns in public attract attention. The cop in the video even said that people were afraid of them (the police) carrying guns, and they have uniforms.

I don't really know what else I can say. And the kid was violating a county ordinance, so he was not even in compliance of the law.

The county ordinance that is in violation of state law, and that they couldn't have known without harassing a citizen whom they had no evidence of unlawful activity. I do understand how modern society REQUIRES the loss of freedoms. I'm surprised I'm allowed to go outside without a permit. Hail government!

[J.Galt]

So open carry is like a civil rights issue for you?

The difference between carrying a gun and your race is that you can kill people with a gun.

Cops get shot at by guys with guns. An unarmed black man doesn't pose a threat, an armed person regardless of their race does.

You just have to be realistic. You're not going to renormalize open carrying by just doing it and getting into confrontations with police.

You guys really don't see how open carrying a weapon attracts unnecessary attention to yourself?

How do you think the confrontation should have gone? Do you think the cops should have just waved at the kid from their police car and driven away?

How is this way of thinking any different from that of someone opposed to legal open carry?

You are outlining:

-its not a civil right
-it shouldnt be expressed
-it causes a public disturbance
-anyone seen open carrying should be stopped and questioned, even if its legal
-its not realistic

Wouldn't someone who tried to get us to the point where we felt this way be claiming "victory" at this point?

[IVC]

So open carry is like a civil rights issue for you?

It is not like a civil rights issue. It is a civil rights issue.