Houston Police Officer Open Carry Stop
BY Herschel Smith
9 years, 9 months ago
The video below is being bandied about over various internet forums, as well as via Bob Owens. Bob’s commenters are all confused and basically don’t know what they are talking about. Similarly, the comments over the YouTube video – some of which are supportive and some of which aren’t – point to a problem of understanding and confusion. Watch the video and then I’ll clear up that confusion for you.
He was just trying to tell if the person was a felon, or so the comment[s] at YouTube go. The cop clearly is in favor of gun rights, claiming (falsely) that he is a three percenter. “I’m sympathetic to the cop here,” says Uncle.
Now, take a deep breath, calm down and let’s clear up the confusion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a legendary body slam to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department for stopping a man for openly carrying a weapon in an open carry state (North Carolina), even when it was later determined that the man was a criminal. See Fourth Circuit Finds That Carrying A Firearm In An Open Carry State Does Not Create Reasonable Suspicion And Provides Thorough Analysis Of The “Free To Leave” Standard.
This was clearly not a so-called “Terry Stop” (the cop didn’t believe a law had been broken) and the LEO had no need or right to know whether the man was a felon. According to the court, it was none of his business. No demurral, case closed, end of discussion. Period. That’s all. You don’t need to know any more than that.
But since the bed wetters (who may be reading this) might need to know more, we’re going to help you.
OK, it is fairly simple. If you are under arrest refuse to provide your name, date of birth, or residence address, you commit a Class C misdemeanor unless you have warrants outstanding, when it is a Class B misdemeanor. If you are either under arrest or lawfully detained, it is an offense to provide a false name, date of birth or address. The later is a Class B or A misdemeanor, dependent on whether you have outstanding warrants.
What is not an offense is refusing to provide your name, date of birth, or residence address when you are lawfully detained. See Dutton v. Hayes-Pupko, No. 03-06-00438-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 6030, 2008 WL 3166324 (Tex. App.–Austin 2008, no pet.). The court held that Deputy Derrick Dutton had arrested Sheryl Hayes-Pupko without probable cause since the law did not require her to identify herself while she was only being detained.. Dutton’s mistake of law did not provide a defense for the false arrest claim.
Unfortunately, this is not unusual for Texas. Police officers in this state have an idea that they have the right to identify anyone at anytime for any or no reason. The courts have repeatedly slapped them down on this.
- “The application of Tex. Penal Code Ann., Tit. 8, § 38.02 (1974), to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Accordingly, appellant may not be punished for refusing to identify himself, and the conviction is Reversed.” Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).
- “It is clear petitioner was arrested and convicted for his refusal to answer Officer Jennings’ question requesting that petitioner identify himself. This is impermissible even in the context of a lawful investigatory stop.” Spring v. Caldwell, 516 F. Supp. 1223 (S.D. Tex. 1981), reversed on other grounds 692 F.2d 994 (5th Cir. 1982).
- “First, Officer Lowe obtained identification from each occupant of the automobile though he had no legal basis whatever for demanding them.” Lewis v. State, 664 S.W.2d 345 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).
- “Moreover, the Supreme Court has previously dealt with a case in which Texas police officers demanded that an individual identify himself even though they had no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime. In Brown v. Texas, the Court [11] ruled that Texas Penal Code Ann. § 38.02 (a), as enacted by the Texas legislature in 1974, was unconstitutional because it allowed an officer to stop and demand identification of an individual without any specific basis or belief that he was involved in criminal activity.” Weddle v. Ferrell, No. 3:99-CV-0453-G, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2659, 2000 WL 256891 (N.D. Tex. 2000).
- “Officers have the right to conduct an investigation of a driver following a traffic violation, but do not have authority to investigate a passenger without reasonable suspicion.” St. George v. State, 237 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (holding that arrest of passenger for failure to identify not valid absent legal detention).
Yet we still see police officers demand identification in Texas and threaten arrest (or actually make arrest) on Failure to Identify when in fact, no offense has occurred.
Although oriented towards Texas law, this is true even in states that have stop and identify statutes if the stop isn’t a so-called “Terry Stop.” The officer has no need or right to know who the person is. Period. Do you understand now?
The officer was a jackass, but worse than that, he was wrong as to the details and application of the law, like many LEOs today are. Before the bed-wetters blow their bladders, they need to study the law a little bit. And Bob Owens needs to educate his readers rather than allowing the pooling of ignorance in comments over his web site. That is unseemly and undignified.
|
|
On March 3, 2015 at 6:45 am, Daniel Barger said:
There are two fundamental reasons why LEO violate rights and break laws regarding such issues.
First is the fact that their training is PISS POOR….and the vast majority of it is aimed at dispensing violence and “going home at the end of your shift no matter what”. VERY little training addresses what the law says…..and truth be told even bar admitted lawyers cannot keep up with ALL the laws. The second and more germane reason is that THEY DON’T CARE. They are virtually never held personally responsible either civilly or criminally for their conduct be it inadvertent or deliberate. In short they have no incentive to learn what they can or cannot do legally nor do they have to worry a bit about what will happen to them for willful legal transgressions that they KNOW they are committing. In short LEO do what they do BECAUSE THEY CAN. Just like Obama does and just like most people in power.
On March 3, 2015 at 4:49 pm, boogyoogyoogy said:
They are trained to do it this way and have been for decades. I know, I was there when it was done.
On March 3, 2015 at 10:11 am, Haywood Jablome said:
I have stopped going to Bob Owens web site. I expect the comments to be bad…most people are trolls or uninformed idiots (or both), but I would expect more from Bob. While I don’t always agree with the Captain, you can clearly see the “thread” that holds all his views together. His Christian faith. The Constitution, and his training as an engineer. A principled man…rare but refreshing.
On March 3, 2015 at 5:34 pm, Jack Crabb said:
Once Owens outed himself as a copsucker I quit going to his site.
On March 4, 2015 at 12:21 am, Carl Stevenson said:
Owens is a copsucker of the first order.
I stopped following his blog after he celebrated the cops summarially executing Chris Dorner by burning the house down around him a la Waco.
To add insult to that injury, he blocked me (and presumably all other dissenters) from comments after I criticized his praise of the barbecue by posting a comment stating that the police state response was irresponsible, reprehensible, and way over the top (remember how the cops wounded several innocent people, riddling their vehicles with dozens of rounds, despite the fact that neither the people nor the vehicles matched the description of Dorner or his vehicle any more than I and my F150 would match a BOLO for the Incredible Hulk driving the Batmobile.)
Owens also goes overboard in criticizing the open carry movement and any other gun rights activity that offends his Fuddness.
In short, IMNSHO, Owens is a pontificating gasbag unworthy of a following.
On March 3, 2015 at 11:00 am, Ned Weatherby said:
It’s becoming tiresome to read comments from people supposedly on “the same side,” decrying someone open carrying an EBR in Texas.
It appears that people only approve of a right being exercised if no one is made uncomfortable by the exercise. In the day of busybodies looking for things that offend them, there’s always going to be a panty wetter (or two) in the crowd.
I saw that video last week, then saw that Bob Owens posted it. Many of the comments were surreal.
If Texas actually “permitted” guns to be carried, most would choose a handgun for utilitarian reasons. Since Texas does not “allow” guns to be carried by citizens – absent a permit – this is the result. People will carry what they’re legally allowed to carry. And LEO’s will harass and arrest them. I hope the citizen open carrier sues the crap out of the department and the officer.
Once again, it’s Prozis teaming up with certain “conservatives” to complain about the actions of the citizen, while supporting police arresting the citizen. “He was only trying to find out if the guy was a felon.” Under that test, a guy could be stopped for any reason and asked to “produce your papers.” No use arguing with useful idiots. That being said, Herschel does a good job above of laying out the facts and the law, and explaining same to the idiots, and to those who just don’t understand.
Maybe that will help. But it seems like Texas is on the cutting edge of Police State Goon tactics: http://www.policestateusa.com/2015/republic-of-texas-raid/
I admittedly know little about the Republic of Texas. But I suspect that the usual cheerleaders on “our side” support this raid.
On March 3, 2015 at 12:33 pm, Mike in Illinois said:
If carrying a gun is worthy of a cop stopping and detaining you then so would it be true they could stop you and detain you for not carrying – Its the same authority. Taken logically to its end, a cop could then also stop and detain you for carrying that bible, Torah or KORAN. And Ummm, how about that stopping and detaining you because you aren’t carrying the book? We already know gubmint can now penalize us for not purchasing what it commands us to purchase – Obamacare.
See the circle jerk factor? Every “gun control” law is exactly that – a circle jerk. All time place manner “restrictions” are the same. That’s why certain rights were ENUMERATED plainly, to AVOID the endless circle jerk at least as it pertained to those particulars.
Arms, all arms, bought sold given and inherited and then carried openly or concealed and even used in defense of self kin property and country simply ARENT under the purview of GOVERNMENT – that purview rests with each and every individual…..whether another individual likes it or not.
Anyone claiming otherwise isn’t on the side of the constitution but instead is letting slip their appetite for usurping Liberty belonging to another/others.
This is not to say government is powerless regarding arms – firearms included. It does have due authority to punish criminal abuses. But remember, exercise of the rights CANT BE criminal acts!!! Government authority rests OUTSIDE the parameters of rights. Time place manner IS infringement and abridgment. Indeed TPM is CONTROL that amounts to DESTRUCTION OF RIGHTS, relegating them all to permissions.
Be careful telling folks to study the “law” because some of the “laws” are quite perverted! The Supreme Law is what matters, and that’s not necessarily the supreme COURT’s (case) law…..
On March 3, 2015 at 1:36 pm, Kansas Bright said:
All state Constitution’s are required to support and defend the US Constitution. All governmental employees – state and federal- are REQUIRED to take and KEEP an Oath that they support and defend the US Constitution (and if state, the state Constitution).
The US Constitution is the Supreme LAW of this land that ALL other laws, regulations, etc that are sued against the people. The state Constitution is the Highest LAW of the state and all state governmental employees are REQUIRED (must) enforce that law before all others EXCEPT when the US Constitution takes precedence.
The Bill of Rights are forbiddens and limitations put upon those who serve within our governments – state and federal. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights makes this clear. There can be NO STATE law that breaks, modifies, or in any way any of the protections listed within the Bill of Rights, and some Natural Rights not listed but easily inferred as protected from those who serve within our governments.
Preamble to the Bill of Rights: “Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution…”
It is a FELONY to not keep the Oath. It is also Perjury.
On March 3, 2015 at 5:14 pm, Pat Hines said:
The Supremacy Clause has limiting language within it, “in pursuance thereof”. State Constitutions are NOT required to contain language supporting and defending the US Constitution, in fact, the above is the first time I’ve heard this concept.
While I fully support the right of self defense with any weapon and for every man, woman, or responsible child; we much be careful to not grant power to the US government that it is not authorized to have.
On March 3, 2015 at 5:39 pm, Jack Crabb said:
Kansas Bright never stipulated that “[s]tate Constitutions are … required to contain language supporting and defending the US Constitution”. He is absolutely correct that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. As Chief Justice John Marshall plainly said, “A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”
On March 3, 2015 at 6:52 pm, Pat Hines said:
No, that’s inaccurate.
The supremacy clause has limiting language in it, go read it.
Wait, I’ll put it here for your convenience.
From Article VI:
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
“in pursuance thereof” is limiting language.
On March 4, 2015 at 9:17 am, Kansas Bright said:
Exactly.
“In Pursuance thereof” means that ALL laws, state and federal MUST follow the US Constitution where it has jurisdiction, where it is supreme, to be lawful here within America (where the US Constitution is supreme, and that is NOT everywhere, it is a limited general government with specific duties put into writing). Supremacy Clause.
It is clarified that the states must be in “Pursuance thereof” the US Constitution where it applies here ” and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Remember that each state has a Constitution. If something is put into the state Constitution that is under the jurisdiction or PROTECTION of the US Constitution it is “null and void”; or law created that undermines the PROTECTIONS in the Bill of Rights, then that law is actually “color of law”, pretend law, and it also is null and void.
Example. The Bill of Rights lists some things the people in the states felt were outside of, and not to be under, the authorities of those who serve within our governments. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights clarifies who these restrictions are put upon here:
“… THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent
misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and
restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of
public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent
ends of its institution.”
In other words, there would not be a Constitution of the United States of America if those PROTECTIONS were not added to make sure that the people were to be safe from tyranny, or at least able to protect themselves if tyranny reared its treasonous head. Notice that word “further”.
The Bill of Rights list those things that are mostly outside of the authority of both the states and general government. I say mostly because in a couple they say exactly what can be done, and in what manner it MUST be done to be lawful here.
1943 Supreme Court Case of West Virginia Board of Education Vs. Barnette 319 U.S. 624, Justice Robert H Jackson (and the Chief Justice at the Nuremberg Trails, Nazi Germany) said the following: “The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles
to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcomes of no elections.”
Example the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
This lists forbiddens, things that those who serve within our government were given NO authority in anyway, any manner over. The six protections from those who serve within our governments encroachment are:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
2. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the exercise of religion
3. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech
4. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press
5. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peacefully to assemble
6. Congress shall make no law abridging the right to petition the government for a redress of grievance.
(Remember, no other branch within the federal government can make a law other then the legislative branch.)
The Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
This one is different.
Though these things are forbidden by these words ” shall not be violated”; but also because they framers recognized that it might be possible that a crime was committed and a search, etc might be needed. So it describes in detail the ONLY LAWFUL way a search, etc can be done here within the USA. There are conditions that must be met, and carried out to be a lawful search here in America – and this is above the authority of either of our governments. This is how it IS to be. Anything else is a crime committed by those in government. And when it is done as policy it IS Treason against the American people. The Oath is their accountability that those who serve within ANY position or office within our governments KNOW this and will KEEP their contract and Oath.
So what does the Fourth Amendment do? Basically it gives two limitations placed upon those who serve within our governments. They are that
1. All the citizens are to be secure in their person, home, papers, and property, from unreasonable searches and seizure. That the people have the privacy to go about their lives without worrying whether those who serve within our governments will invade them, invade their privacy, their things. This was to ensure that those who serve within our governments do not trespass, or breech the security and privacy of the people nor take anything from the people without following correct legal procedure. BTW, this makes Civil Forfeiture a crime, a felony act against the American people, and as a policy, TREASON.
2. The government is restrained from taking either person or property without first getting a warrant, and only after proving probable cause. This, however, is only as valid as the judge is honest. There have been numerous cases in which judges have signed blank warrants, and the details are not filled in until after serving the warrant.
These amendments within the Bill of Rights are not a grants of right, but above the authority of those who serve within our governments and express limitations placed on the government in writing to ensure that they do not trespass beyond their enumerated (listed) powers.
It makes clear that the US Constitution itself limits those who serve within the federal government to specific duties, authorities and all are put down in writing, backed by a solemn and legally binding Oath to make it the strongest contract there can be written.
The US Constitution is not ambiguous or difficult to understand, and it does NOT need to be interpreted. It is easily understood by the way the proponents of the US Constitution defended it and presented it to the people is how it is to be “interpreted” as to its meaning.
Alexander Hamilton, at New York’s convention: “I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this — that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government… but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding”
Federalist #33, Hamilton also said: “It will not, I presume, have
escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws
made pursuant to the Constitution….”
Thomas McKean, at the Pennsylvania convention: “The meaning [of the
Supremacy Clause] which appears to be plain and well expressed is simply this, that Congress have the power of making laws upon any subject over which the proposed plan gives them a jurisdiction, and that those laws, thus made in pursuance of the Constitution, shall be binding upon the states”
James Iredell, at the First North Carolina convention: “When Congress
passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on
the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.”
On March 8, 2015 at 10:05 pm, grendal113 said:
very good, I agree with the majority of what you said. It does bring to bear the argument of Federalist versus anti-federalist.
On March 3, 2015 at 9:52 pm, TimeHasCome said:
I absolutely love this trend of people open carrying . The monopoly on power is shifting back to the people to where it belongs.
On March 4, 2015 at 12:37 pm, Ed Hamilton said:
I think I would have been inclined to tell him to stick his lecture in his ear.
On March 8, 2015 at 8:52 pm, Houston PinkPistols said:
The kilted texan did EXACTLY what he should have and thereby hung this LEO by his own petard. Don’t talk back to an officer, don’t talk to him at all just ask why you are being stopped and if you are free to go. Say nothing else.
On March 4, 2015 at 2:00 pm, Tommy Gnosis said:
Where I live, a cop can stop you at any time, for any reason, and arrest you if you remind them of your 4th. I’m sure it’s the same in other cities. So taking cops to task for not having a reason to stop you is…unrealistic.
On March 4, 2015 at 2:39 pm, Herschel Smith said:
So the way I read you, since you and your fellow citizens wherever you live have made the voluntary decision not to hold LEOs accountable for violation of the constitution, it makes sense for everyone else to do that too.
Since this is the way you feel about constitutional rights, I suppose you support kicking blacks to the back of the bus as well. Or how about if LEOs decided to strip search you in public? Do you despise all of your constitutional rights, or just some of them?
On March 4, 2015 at 3:05 pm, Tommy Gnosis said:
Oh, we have tried to fight them. The police force has been assigned a federal monitor. We remind them of the 4th all the time. It’s hard when your force numbers 34,000. LEOs here do all of the things you mentioned.
But I am curious about kicking blacks to the back of the bus? Where does that fit in to LEOs or the Constitution? What power does an individual have to stop a police force with guns, a police force that is not afraid to use them? Invoking my 4th and not being successful is hardly the same as despising my Constitutional rights. I must be successful in stopping a cop to love my Constitution? C’mon.
On March 4, 2015 at 3:20 pm, Herschel Smith said:
As to kicking blacks to the back of the bus, I didn’t invoke the issue of how realistic change might be – you did that yourself. You used the threshold of what may be realistic or “unrealistic” (in your estimation) as a justification for “taking cops to task.”
Here is my prediction. It will be changed in Texas (they will see open carry and eventually it will be unlicensed open carry), and it will have been accomplished with just a handful of people. You do underestimate the power of armed, voting citizens. In fact, I wager 3% can accomplish a whole hell of a lot.
On March 4, 2015 at 3:27 pm, Tommy Gnosis said:
But who kicks blacks to the back of the bus? Still not sure what that has to do with 2015 America. When was the last time that happened – 60 years ago? And certainly never where I live. Also not sure what it has to do with the Constitution, still – after all, the Constitution once included the 3/5 clause, so maybe you’re saying we should go back to that?
On March 4, 2015 at 3:41 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Try hard to follow. You used “[un]realistic” as a justification for holding accountable those who violate constitutional rights. I didn’t do that – you did. How realistic was it to get the rights of blacks to be recognized when they had been ignored for so long? They could have used the same justification as you. They could have told each other, “it just isn’t realistic for it ever to change, so go sit at the back of the bus like a good Negro.” But a handful of people fought for their rights, and it changed.
Again, try to follow. You used realistic and unrealistic as a justification for holding anyone accountable when they violate your rights. I didn’t do that – you did. Are you new to this deductive reasoning thing? I’m using your own arguments to show you to be inconsistent.
On March 4, 2015 at 4:02 pm, Tommy Gnosis said:
“Since you and your fellow citizens wherever you live have made the
voluntary decision not to hold LEOs accountable for violation of the
constitution, it makes sense for everyone else to do that too.Since this is the way you feel about constitutional rights, I suppose you support kicking blacks to the back of the bus as well.”
That was your original remark. I didn’t make the connection to civil rights because the analogy was ridiculous.
Voluntary decision? You think we’re sheep just because we stand up to cops but still can’t prevent arrest? Or because some of us can’t afford to stand up to cops? People here DO get arrested for standing up to cops. But it’s unrealistic to think we can get them to respect our rights just because we asked nicely. There’s a difference between being a freedom fighter and being stupid. Look what happened to Eric Garner. You have to pick your battles. People try to protest here – even with permits – and get arrested. Our 1st is compromised all the time. We can’t fight every battle – especially the low-income among us. They have to work to feed their families, and they can’t do that when they’ve been arrested for not consenting to a search. Those charges stay with you forever, preventing you from gaining employment. So, it’s not very REALISTIC. And those changes in the south were won over 15 years. Maybe policing will change by 2030, maybe not, but we all can’t be at war every minute of every hour every day if we feel someone’s overstepped. That’s disorderly conduct, and not very productive. We have to pay rent. I HAVE protested the police state, though. And so have many thousands. Just because we’re not marching every day does not mean we’re not dedicated to the cause.
Still don’t understand why you said I despised my Constitutional rights, as I have actually invoked the 4th, and work in the media, so I use my 1st every day. But I can’t control what my fellow citizens do. I’m also white, so I am not as likely to be arrested. But if you’re black here and invoke the 4th? Have fun at Rikers.
How dare you ever question anyone’s patriotism. That is the most unAmerican thing I can think of.
On March 4, 2015 at 4:10 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Alright. I understand that you’re unable to follow the discussion. I’m okay with that.
On March 4, 2015 at 4:12 pm, Tommy Gnosis said:
Yeah, I don’t think so. You seem to have a fundamental understanding of society. We are not insurrectionists. That is treason, sir.
On March 4, 2015 at 4:17 pm, Herschel Smith said:
So now it has become “treason” to expect LEOs to honor your constitutional rights and demand they do so. Do you see how outlandish your comments have become?
On March 4, 2015 at 4:30 pm, Tommy Gnosis said:
Nope. What you’re suggesting is treason by challenging every LEO we come across who we feel violated our rights, and if we don’t we’re not worthy of them. We are not vigilantes in this country. Our rights are violated every day in one way or another. You want to take on cops and the government, it’s your funeral.
Also – outlandish is saying I despise my constitutional rights because I understand that fighting every battle is unrealistic. That was quite a leap you made, and quite insulting. Who are you to dare question my relationship to my country? To inject such immaturity into such serious issues is childish. You want to lob spitballs when I attempted to have a discussion.
On March 4, 2015 at 4:39 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Jennifer, you’re having a fit now. It has devolved into that – sad to say. Nothing you are saying is making an sense, so let it go now. I have made it a rule of mine not to engage random thinkers. You appear to be one.
In the mean time, happy trails to you and yours as you decide which constitutional infringements you will abide and which ones you won’t.
On March 5, 2015 at 10:07 pm, Josh said:
You have a “relationship” with your country?
What in the hell is wrong with you?
On March 6, 2015 at 10:22 am, Jennifer Mascia said:
I assume I am not the only person here who feels passionately about the place I was born, raised and will die.
On March 6, 2015 at 10:32 am, Josh said:
Although I don’t feel one way or the other about America, other than that it no longer exists, if it ever did, I think your assumption is safe.
I submit, however, that not a single individual I know categorizes their feelings about America as a “relationship.” That’s the sort of thing statists say, once the state has supplanted the family. It smacks if Stockholm Syndrome (an exaggeration for a fact, of course, but not a large one).
On March 6, 2015 at 10:37 am, Jennifer Mascia said:
“once the state has supplanted the family.”
When does that ever happen in America? I watch “The Americans,” about Russian spies at the end of the Cold War, and they do that. I have never heard of that happening here.
I happen to be a New York City patriot, as well. That probably started after 9/11, though my parents were born in Brooklyn, so there’s that.
So what do you think should happen to America? I’m genuinely curious. Do you think we should split? California had a proposal to split into 6 states.
On March 6, 2015 at 10:43 am, Josh said:
We have fundamentally different worldviews that cannot be reconciled, I feel.
As far as what I think should happen to America, that’s just irrelevant. America is gone. It’s been sold, lock, stock, and barel, to special interests and crony capitalism.
As for splitting the Union, I think that’s untenable. But, I also think that managing a group of people as large and diverse in their beliefs and culture as America as a Union is untenable.
It’s quite a quandary.
On March 6, 2015 at 10:47 am, Jennifer Mascia said:
I agree with you! America has been bought by special interests. I still have hope. I also agree that we are many disparate groups, and we are spread out far and wide. This country is huge. I hoped the Internet would bring people together more, but it seems to reinforce their bubbles.
On March 6, 2015 at 10:51 am, Josh said:
As something of a cynic,I don’t think anything short of off-planet migration will ever bring our species together (if that). We’re social, but tribal animals. It’s literally in our DNA.
I don’t know if the Gun Report covers police brutality or violence visited on police by citizens, but I think if you’re not covering the former, you’re doing a disservice to your profession and your readers.
The militarization of police is, IMO, one of the most important issues of our time.
On March 6, 2015 at 12:01 pm, Jennifer Mascia said:
There is a great blog that tracks police shootings: http://www.fatalencounters.org/. Some argue that police have become so lethal because so many more people are armed. But that doesn’t make sense in the big cities. I agree, it is a very important issue. It wasn’t part of my coverage because the police are deputized to use force. But I do track it in the news: Whenever I search for “shooting,” I see the many police shootings that happen in this country every day and something must change.
On March 6, 2015 at 12:54 pm, Josh said:
Police are not deputized to “use force.” They are deputized as agents of Sherrifs, Governers, etc. A police officer’s use of deadly force is governed under the exact same law as every other citizen. See Tennesee v. Garner.
There is nothing that elevates a police officer’s life or liberty above another’s, save for their unions and prosecutors and the (fast disintegrating) cop worship that’s been instilled since the 50’s.
On March 9, 2015 at 5:35 pm, Hangun Pro said:
Meadow Soprano just gave herself away.
On March 5, 2015 at 12:58 pm, rappini said:
My question is, was the guy in the straw hat wearing anything under his Kilt, just sayin.
On March 8, 2015 at 10:14 pm, grendal113 said:
This is a great job! kudos to the author and several of the commentators. I have now noticed you and will be following.