Active Duty Soldier Disarmed & Arrested by Temple Texas Police (Illegal Search?)

Discussion in 'Sports & Outdoors' started by ChevyFan, Apr 18, 2013.

  1. Enkeiavalanche

    Enkeiavalanche Loving the Outdoors Staff Member 5+ Years ROTM Winner 5000 Posts

    A he is VERY arrogant to the cop...
    B If he's just going for a hike with his son Why does he need 2 guns one being a Rifle?

    The Cop has a right to DISARM and Cuff the person till HE feels he and the Public is Safe...

    And I would NEVER do this in front of my child..
  2. Sierraowner5.3

    Sierraowner5.3 Epic Member 5+ Years 1000 Posts

    a few points here,

    1) we dont know what was exchanged between him and the cops before filming started, cops may have been super hostile, he may have been, we dont know.

    2) if he feels the need to carry two weapons, and is doing it legally, what harm is that?

    3) depending on how the laws work, the cops may have very well illegally disarmed him. as was pointed out, he was completly legal in what he was doing, argumenative perhaps, but legal. also, if the officers really felt threatened the would have approached with gums drawn, and had him lay down and all that, not walk up and grab him.

    you dont approach someone armed that way, saying you felt threatened and desired to disarm him, without being ready to act.

  3. meme1961

    meme1961 New Member

    Don't Validate the Power to Harass

    Actually, the police don't have the right to investigate complaints about legal action.

    To be able to stop any citizen for any reason to investigate what they are doing in the absence of a valid complaint about a reasonable belief that the person is violating the law is to give to the police a power to harass that allows them to have a very chilling effect on any activity that the police do not approve of.

    Such as, for instance, open carry of a rifle.
  4. SupplySgt

    SupplySgt Rockstar 4 Years 500 Posts

    Alex, to build on your second point, growing up on a farm (especially with livestock as where there are livestock there are always predators lurking) taught me that it's always handy to have a backup weapon. Coyotes (at least where I'm from) travel and hunt in packs, especially when their prey is 5 times their size. Even with my experience and training, I know I would not be 100% accurate when defending my livestock from predators and my pistol only carries 10 rounds (the rifles and shotguns I grew up carrying were single shots as well). Hence the backup weapon. It's much quicker to draw your backup than it is to reload. Regardless of what I'm carrying on the farm as my primary, that pistol always stays with me as a backup just in case. Get a pack of coyotes together and they won't scare as easily as one or two do on their own. Especially when they smell blood.

    Enkei, no disrespect to you intended, but growing up on a farm you learn at an early age the threats that are posed to you and your livestock from wildlife.

    Also, as many of you know, a lot of us military (especially Army and Marines) are trained to carry a backup weapon. It's a level of comfort that I don't always get to enjoy in my own country because of where I'm not allowed to legally carry. We're also trained to carry at low ready (with the muzzle pointed in a safe direction at the ground). From a safety standpoint, low ready is FAR FAR FAR safer than having the muzzle pointed in air because of the distances that a bullet can travel when fired at an angle in the air. But because (in part) of the media, people think nothing of the unsafe nature of a rifle slung with the muzzle pointed upwards, but are threatened by one pointed towards the ground in a low ready type position. I've also noticed that criminals tend to not carry in a particular position and it's usually somewhat unsafe. They'll certainly not have the discipline (for the most part to keep it in a safe direction and in full control at all times.

    As far as point #3, I completely agree with Alex. Many people I've talked to who oppose gun ownership by civilians seem to have this blind belief that police will always react correctly when threatened. Almost half of my reserve unit is law enforcement, and they all agree that their military training was much more strenuous and demanding from both a physical and mental standpoint. Many LEOs go their entire careers without having ever been fired upon. You never truly know how you will react until fired upon.

    Granted, this view is probably somewhat biased as I know what it means to have my 6 covered when the fecal matter hits the rotating prop, but I'd be more apt to trust armed a fellow vet who had been through the crap and had proven himself in the baptism of fire than an LEO who gets fearful everytime he sees a weapon who (in many cases) has never taken fire and just might freak out in that situation (putting himself and fellow LEOs at risk).

    That is nothing against Law Enforcement as a whole, most of those who I have known are the utmost professionals. Many of them are also prior military (or are reservists now) and those I know would be dependable under fire. Yes, they go through a lot of training, but the ones that I know who have been to combat can say without a doubt that their military training prepared them for reacting when taking fire or being threatened with force far more than their police training. There's a reason that many police agencies give military exemptions for education requirements.

    Had I been in the LEOs shoes with my military experience in mind, I probably would have just asked the appropriate questions and sent him on his way when it was evident that he was not a threat. I would not, under any circumstances, tried to grab the weapon (we're also trained that the hand to hand combat that we are trained in is an absolute last resort when we have no other options). Again, the low ready in of itself is one of the safest positions you can have for a firearm. Towards the ground and not flagging (aka pointed at) anyone. With the lone exception of performing drill and ceremony, I NEVER EVER have my muzzle pointed up into the air.

    I think our backgrounds and where we're from is really showing in this thread as to our perceptions of everything. I also think the media has given the public a vastly misguided perception of things as well. Our media is so biased that it's not even funny, hence the views people have of what's going on in the rest of the world when they've only seen it from behind their television set and have never been there or seen it for themselves.

Share This Page

Newest Gallery Photos