This video is disturbing in its portrayal of how the lawful right to carry arms openly was treated by law enforcement officers in Temple, Texas. The accompanying short article and headline are typical of what I consider to be 'alarmist' over-reactive sites, so read that with a grain of salt.
The 13:18 video is missing the initial encounter but it's described verbally later in the video. Assuming what the citizen says is accurate, I think there were mistakes made on both sides.
It seems like the first officer was too aggressive and that they were not respectful of the actual laws regarding open carry in Texas. I have no idea why he was arrested. Perhaps some law enforcement officer or lawyers here can explain?
On the other hand, I think the citizen could have avoided this hassle if he had brought his tone down several notches. I understand his anger and frustration but demonstrating them was not smart. I don't think his body language was particularly threatening.
http://clashdaily.com/2013/04/texas-gestapo-arrests-soldier-for-rudely-displaying-weapon/
In contrast, he's a selection of videos from a young guy in Oregon who intentionally walks around various towns with an AR-15 slung on his back with the intent of video recording the police response. I've watched a few of them and the police have always been professional and in at least one case were extremely generous of their time and accommodating. This guys goes way too far in my opinion because he's baiting the officers even if he thinks it's for the good cause of creating awareness.
Roseburg: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olPkAYsNmQY&list=UULn99vcRkhJkVOq7FDPV3kw&index=21
Springfield: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kslYbVVKYE&list=UULn99vcRkhJkVOq7FDPV3kw&index=22
Corvallis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHuCiBIbK7g&list=UULn99vcRkhJkVOq7FDPV3kw&index=20
Klamath Falls (In this one he's disarmed while the firearm is inspected to ensure it's not a fully automatic version of the MP-5.): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj9wahCTz08 Note that the policeman, after inspecting and returning the firearm to its slung position, says that while these individuals are walking around armed that there won't be any crime near them - they're suppressing crime by exercising their 2nd Amendment rights and state right to open carry firearms.
There are others here: http://www.youtube.com/user/Markedguardian
===
May 4, 2013
Another media report of someone choosing to live in fear and begging to become a victim. See how this woman responds in an interview to one of her community neighbors who frequently walks the neighborhood with a rifle slung on his shoulder.
I wonder, is she afraid of the dark? If so, does she sleep with a light on and tell her children there are things to be afraid of in the dark so they'll grow up with her phobia too? Is she afraid of heights? If so, does she refuse to climb ladders or stairs and prevent her children from doing so?
"My kids don't even come outside, 'cause they're scared." How about teaching them to not be scared of the sight of a firearm? How about speaking with your community neighbor and trying to understand him and what he's doing? And if that puts you more at ease, how about having your children speak to him too so they can see him not as the boogey man to be frightened of but as a protector?
"He could be good, without the rifle." Doesn't that say it all? The same person could be good without a rifle but is not good with a rifle. Wow. How do you combat that kind of ignorance? That kind of ideology? Does this woman think of herself as good as she lives in fear daily of the very sight of a firearm? Would she think of herself as not good if she were to hold it in her hands? That's essentially what she's suggesting about this community neighbor.
"I think the rifle is what scares everybody. 'Cause why do you need a rifle to pick up trash?" First of all, is "everybody" scared? Or just some like her? The armed citizen says some of his neighbors thank him. Second, does she really think that's why he carries the rifle - to pick up trash? He's out for a walk. He's cleaning up his neighborhood of garbage. He's looking out for their interests by being an observant citizen. And he's exercising his constitutional 2nd Amendment rights. News flash: there's no real connection between picking up trash and carrying the rifle.
"Let the policemen take care of that. Not you." She's apparently one of those brainwashed people who thinks the police can protect her and prevent crime. They do both. But they absolutely cannot do it always, anywhere, at any time, against any offender. To believe anything else is at least naive and probably more.
http://clashdaily.com/2013/05/gun-control-dont-worry-we-dont-want-your-guns/
- DK: I didn't even watch the video. I'm sure she acts in an uncivilized way. But do you really think people walking the streets with rifles around their shoulders like this is the answer? This is one person in a small neighborhood and it looks crazy to me! Imagine a very populus area (downtown chicago) and thousands of people carrying rifles around their shoulders. Ludicrous! And now we've gone from owning a gun to 'protect your family' to condoning a vigilante to roam the neighborhood and act as an enforcer of the law? Like it or not, most people who saw this man roaming their neighborhood would immediately consider him a person 'to keep an eye on'. And if there was a murder in the neighborhood? Guess whose house would be the first one the cops visit?
- ME: DK, she doesn't act uncivilized at all. She appears to just be a very timid, fearful person - at least where guns are concerned. As mentioned, her statement that "He could be good, without the rifle." is very indicative of her view. And I'm sure it's shared by many. But it's completely flawed. A good person doesn't become a bad person just because they pick up a gun.
No, DK, I don't think this is "the answer". I'm not promoting what he's doing. I don't think it's the "right thing to do". But he's "within his rights to do it" and I know that carrying a gun does not automatically equate to danger or evil. The media floods us with the incidents of guns being used for criminal violence, suicide and incidents of negligence. The same media is grossly negligent in not showing the other side. It's estimated that guns are used between 600k and 2.5 million times per year to defend life, safety or property. In 2011 there were approx. 32k deaths in our country by guns. That includes homicide, justifiable homicide (police and self defense shootings), suicides and 'accidental' death. Even if we split the middle of the 600k-2.5m estimate and call it 1.4 million, even if we use the low end at just 600k positive uses of a gun, that's still a HUGE margin in favor of gun rights. Different states have different laws about open carry, as exercised here, concealed carry and transportation. All gun owners have to decide which to exercise as they live their lives. And there are pros and cons, risks and benefits of all of them. Displaying a firearm in open carry can be a deterrent to crime, as acknowledged by the police officer from Klamath Falls, Oregon in an embedded link at the blog link above. Having concealed firearms in society is also a deterrent because the criminals don't know where the resistance or risks to their plans will come from.
I have posted about 3 people who have done this. I've lightly criticized the guy who goes to different towns throughout Oregon with the intent of being stopped by police officers so he can record the incidents and post them on YouTube. It's easy to think this is an attempt to setup the police. He seems to think he's on a campaign to inform people, including police officers, of gun rights and laws. I've watched at least 4 of his videos and I've never seen him in a negative encounter with police. They've all been very respectful and professional. Some have been extraordinarily patient with the guy. But I think there's a better way than his one-man demonstration. I recently posted about a man and his son who were on a 10-mile hike in Texas for the son's Boy Scout merit badge. The Army veteran father carried an AR-15 in open carry and a .45 pistol concealed. Both were legal. He was stopped by police and the encounter was very much a conflict and resulted in the father being taken into custody. He claims he wasn't carrying for demonstration or statement purposes but because of the potential threat from Texas wildlife. But he seemed well enough versed in his firearms rights, as gun owners sometimes must be. I don't think the police behaved professionally and I think the veteran's response only escalated the situation. Both were in the wrong, in my opinion - but not for carrying the firearms, just for the encounter. The guy in this latest article who's walking his neighborhood, picking up trash and carrying his rifle seems harmless. I don't know if he's making a statement or if he's a one-man neighborhood watch - an armed Guardian Angel. (Yes, I know the GAs weren't armed.) Regardless, he's within his rights and doesn't appear to be a threat to his neighbors. He even says he wouldn't chase after a suspected criminal. But the appearance of the rifle and brandishing it, if necessary, are crime reducers. He's providing a service for which some of his neighbors are thankful and others are not. But he's not doing it just for them. It's his neighborhood too.
Separately, there are open carry demonstrations occasionally throughout the country. I think I've read about a couple in the past few months. Just an hour ago I read about another one that's being planned for Washington DC on July 4th. The ones I've heard about elsewhere were peaceful, non-violent affairs - exercising both 1st and 2nd Amendment rights. The one in DC is worrisome to me. The rhetoric is stronger - 'this will be a non-violent demonstration, unless the government chooses to make it violent' and 'this is civil disobedience (because DC has such strict gun laws that they'll likely be violating), not a permitted activity'. I think this group is asking for trouble. And if they do get arrested and convicted of violations of gun laws in DC, they risk losing their 2nd Amendment rights. That's a whole different topic - whether all felonies should qualify to remove 2nd Amendment rights.
Appreciate your comments and questions, DK, as always.
No comments:
Post a Comment