Tazed for open cary Texas

[cyclonescott]

Here is one.
State v. Casad http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gunst...published).pdf

[cyclonescott]

The trial court held:
Here, the Defendant was carrying a rifle only partially concealed and clearly
identifiable as a rifle to the citizen who made the call as well as law enforcement
officers, with the barrel pointing towards the ground walking on a main
thoroughfare in the City of Port Angeles in daylight hours. In fact there were two
rifles, which would likely be less alarming than the carrying of one rifle. Nothing
indicates that the manner in which the Defendant was carrying the weapons in any
way would give reasonable cause for alarm unless the mere fact of carrying a
weapon within the city limits in the open in daylight on a major thoroughfare in
and of itself would cause such alarm. The statute does not and, under the
Constitution, cannot prohibit the mere carrying of a firearm in public. Therefore articulable suspicion that any criminal activity was occurring.
CP at 20 (emphasis added).
Under the Spencer factors, the facts in this case did not allow the police to detain Casad.
First, the neighborhood in which Casad carried the weapon was mixed residential and commercial.
He walked over the Eighth Street Bridge, which almost every person traveling across Port
Angeles must cross. Nothing about this locale warrants alarm as would, possibly, a park known
as a haven for drug dealers or an elementary school during recess. See, e.g., State v. Mitchell, 80
Wn. App. 143, 906 P.2d 1013 (1995), review denied, 129 Wn.2d 1019 (1996) (upholding validity
of Terry stop for unlawful display when suspects carried firearms through urban, residential
Seattle neighborhood).
Second, Casad carried the rifles at 2 p.m. on a Saturday. Because it was a Saturday
afternoon, the area was filled with traffic and pedestrians. These facts contrast with those of
Mitchell, in which we found that police had authority to make Terry stops of suspects for
unlawfully displaying a weapon because they walked down an urban, residential street at night
carrying a semi-automatic weapon. Mitchell, 80 Wn. App. 143. Under this factor, Casad’s
behavior did not warrant reasonable alarm because he was not smuggling the rifles in the
darkness, at a time when the streets were empty and the rare traveler was more vulnerable to
criminal behavior, nor was he at a large public event where crowds of people could be gunned
down.
There is no evidence in the record relating to the third factor, the urban environment. Port
Angeles is a small city and at oral argument the parties each disputed whether the community is one in which many people own guns and hunt or whether such activities are relatively uncommon.
Because the record does not contain evidence to support either perception, we will not consider
this factor.
Fourth, the trial court found that Casad did not carry the weapons in a manner that would
warrant reasonable alarm. This factor is heavily contested by the parties, primarily based on
individuals’ reactions to seeing a gun carried on a city street and whether Casad pointed one rifle
barrel toward the roadway. We note that, in connection with this case, several individuals have
commented that they would find it strange, maybe shocking, to see a man carrying a gun down
the street in broad daylight. Casad’s appellate counsel conceded that she would personally react
with shock, but she emphasized that an individual’s lack of comfort with firearms does not equate
to reasonable alarm. We agree. It is not unlawful for a person to responsibly walk down the
street with a visible firearm, even if this action would shock some people.
And the facts in evidence do not support a reasonable suspicion that Casad carried the
weapons in a fashion that would warrant alarm. Casad wrapped a towel around the rifles and he
cradled them in both arms, so he could not readily reach the trigger and he did not have the rifles
“at the ready.” RP at 73. In Spencer, this court upheld a conviction for unlawful display partially
because the defendant warranted alarm by carrying a rifle while walking briskly with his head
down, in “a hostile, assaultive type manner with the weapon ready.” 75 Wn. App. at 121. But
Casad’s demeanor did not warrant alarm; he walked straight down the path with eyes focused
forward. He did not wear combat type clothing nor act erratically. In short, other than the fact
that he was carrying the guns down the street to a pawn shop, which is typically a lawful activity,
Casad did nothing to warrant alarm.

[kingjason]

CHAPTER 22. ASSAULTIVE OFFENSES

§ 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT.
(a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.
(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:
(1) one or more individuals;
(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.
(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.
(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation," and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section 30.01.
(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree.

[cyclonescott]

I'm going to point a gun at someone and politely ask for money. If cops dont see it them it's not against the law.

Can't ID for asking for money. Can't prove I pointed a gun at someone. Free and clear.

If I see you drag racing down the road and I call the police do you think they are going to give you a ticket based on my call or do they have to see you in the act of speeding?

[cyclonescott]

A panel of Manhattan federal judges says cops must now investigate anonymous 911 calls — before they can investigate the crimes being reported.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday overturned the conviction of an ex-con caught by cops carrying a gun in 2011 as two of the three judges on the panel found the anonymous tips the officers relied on didn’t offer enough “reasonable suspicion” for them to stop and search the defendant Joseph Freeman.

The panel’s decision, overturning a previous December 2011 ruling by Manhattan federal Judge Paul Crotty, spares Freeman from a possible lengthy prison sentence.

Freeman has a previous rap sheet, and was he found carrying a 9 mm Luger pistol and 10 bullets when stopped by police, according to the indictment.

“The fact that the call was recorded and that the caller’s apparent cell phone number is known does not alter the fact that the identity of the caller is still unknown, leaving no way for the police (or for the reviewing court) to determine her credibility and reputation for honesty — one of the main reasons tips from known sources are afforded greater deference than anonymous ones,” wrote Judge Rosemary Pooler, who, along with Judge Christopher Droney, supported reversing the conviction.

The controversy stems around two anonymous 911 calls made by the same woman on April 27, 2011. She described a man carrying a gun on East Gun Hill Road near a Chase bank, first saying he appeared to be a “Hispanic male” and then a “male black.”

Cops initially walked over to Freeman and put their hands on his elbow, but he shrugged them off and kept walking. One of the cops then put him in a “bear hug” and tripped him to the ground, the panel wrote.

Freeman was then handcuffed and searched, and cops found a gun by his waistband.

“If we accepted the government’s argument that such a simple refusal to comply could create reasonable suspicion where none existed before, we would create a truly paradoxical class of individuals: individuals who cannot be stopped by officers, but who can be stopped if they refuse to stop,” Pooler wrote.

Judge Richard Wesley, the lone dissenter, took a more common sense approach to law enforcement, writing: “This is not a case where a stranger in a muffled voice made a call from a payphone, or where someone dropped off an anonymous note.

“The officers reasonably presumed that the caller could be identified,” Wesley wrote. “They requested that the dispatcher call the tipster back to verify whether she actually saw a gun; the dispatcher in fact did call back on the officer’s request, albeit to no avail.”

The NYPD did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

http://nypost.com/2013/11/11/anonymous-tips-not-good-enough-for-cops-judges/

[cyclonescott]

CHAPTER 22. ASSAULTIVE OFFENSES

§ 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT.
(a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.
(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:
(1) one or more individuals;
(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.
(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.
(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation," and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section 30.01.
(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree.

An anonymous phone call still would not give the officers probable cause.

[kingjason]

I’m sure he was wondering why the police were being so confrontational considering he hadn’t broken any laws. Even if someone had seen him pointing the gun at them, unless the police actually witness the act themselves they do not have probable cause to stop him. If the police cannot articulate that he has committed a crime, is committing a crime or is about to commit a crime they do not have reasonable suspicion to ask for ID. There has been numerous case law and opinions at the state and federal levels that will back this up.

Did I miss the anonymous part?

[cyclonescott]

Did I miss the anonymous part?

No, but you did miss the knowingly part. Just walking down the road and his gun inadvertently pointing at someone is not a crime. That part is in the statute for someone committing a crime with a gun.

[Super Coupe]

If I see you drag racing down the road and I call the police do you think they are going to give you a ticket based on my call or do they have to see you in the act of speeding?

I don't drag race. I race circle track.

[YALE]

No, but you did miss the knowingly part. Just walking down the road and his gun inadvertently pointing at someone is not a crime. That part is in the statute for someone committing a crime with a gun.

If someone makes a complaint like that, they usually take the complaintant's information.

[kingjason]

If someone makes a complaint like that, they usually take the complaintant's information.

Get out of here with that bullshit!

[Rreemo]

If I see you drag racing down the road and I call the police do you think they are going to give you a ticket based on my call or do they have to see you in the act of speeding?

Sorry dude....you've got loose brains.

Serious question for any/everyone else in this thread....you see a young male (he says 19, cop says he looks younger) walking around in your neighborhood (metropolitan area), in the dark, with a rifle - are you going to just brush it off and figure, meh...he's just touting his 2nd amendment rights, or would you find that a bit suspicious?

I'm sorry, but I value my family and property a bit more than that. With all the Sandy Hook, Fort Hood, Theatre whack-job fucks out there....I'm not taking any chances. Matter of fact, if he happened to set foot on my property I'd drop his ass with the AR from the front porch...when the cops arrive...well, he was armed! Duh!

[Rick Modena]

I guess I would need to see if he was just walking to get somewhere or acting suspicious. I would probably just mind my own business though.

If hes not threatening you or stealing at night and comes on your property and you shoot him, there's a good possibility that you are going to jail for a long time.

[Rick Modena]

And BTW CScott, I'm probably going to edit all that bullshit tomorrow since I'm on my phone now, under the "whoa, whoa I'm not reading all that shit, dude!"

[cyclonescott]

And BTW CScott, I'm probably going to edit all that bullshit tomorrow since I'm on my phone now, under the "whoa, whoa I'm not reading all that shit, dude!"

No problem.
This should be standard policy for every police dept. around the country.
3. LAW DEPARTMENT MEMO ON OPEN CARRY OF A FIREARM IN OHIO
Ohio law permits the open carry of a firearm with few exceptions. Citizens may openly carry firearms in public places unless there is a specific prohibition against carrying a firearm in that place (police station, school safety zone, courthouse, etc.).
Since Cleveland v. State of Ohio, 2010-Ohio-6318, regulation of the "ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition" is only done by state and federal law. Local municipal laws may only regulate the discharge of firearms. Therefore, officers should not charge individuals with violations of the Cincinnati Municipal Code unless the ordinance deals with the discharge of a firearm.
Many people worry when they see someone openly carrying a gun. Officers can expect to receive calls when this happens. But, openly carrying a firearm, by itself, is not illegal. The fact that someone has called 911 or flagged down an officer about seeing someone with a gun in public is probably not enough to support an investigative detention. In such situations, an officer must observe the subject and evaluate the totality of circumstances to determine whether reasonable suspicion exists to justify detaining the individual. If the individual is doing nothing else that arouses suspicion, simply wearing a gun will not justify a detention.
It is important to note, open carry by itself also would not support a charge of Disorderly Conduct or Inducing Panic. There must be additional facts to support these offenses. If someone is lawfully carrying a firearm—and doing nothing else— the fact that it causes alarm to others does not support a charge.
Equally important, before you charge someone with a violation of Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 2921.29, Failure to Disclose Personal Information (also referred to as the "Stop and I.D." law), you first must have reasonable suspicion that person has, is, or is about to commit a criminal offense. The "Stop and I.D." law does not apply unless you already have a valid investigative detention of the person – and open carry by itself is not enough. Citizens may ignore your request for information during a consensual encounter, so you may only charge a citizen with a violation of ORC 2921.29 when they are legally detained.
Private businesses or property owners may prohibit all firearms on their property. They may post signs prohibiting firearms or they may order a person to leave for such behavior. Criminal Trespass is the appropriate charge if a person is on private property in violation of such a prohibition.