For ANY civilian who ever carries a weapon in public or vehicle
Maurice
Anyone that might carry outside their home or business should read this and
consider the ramifications. I know it is somewhat remote but WHO would want
to endure what that man was put through. One would hope the account was
exaggerated but, in today's law enforcement mindset, it would not be a
complete surprise. It's scary!
Like I said recently, in past years my DPS friends (yes there were a few)
were quick to state that seeing a citizen with a rifle in the window rack
was reassuring as they knew that person would stop and help if HE got in
trouble. Now the officers might just as likely stop what they were doing
and shoot at the citizen attempting to help. Pray NOT.
Perils of Concealed Carry
by Robert Montserrat
Robert Montserrat serves as the legal counsel for the TSRA. He can be
reached by calling 214/969-6931.
Mark Michael was going to a convenience store on 18 November, 1998. He
parked his car and as he got out the pistol grip of his revolver stuck out
from inside his pants. A waist length jacket normally covered the pistol
grip but as he got out of the car the pistol grip stuck out from underneath
the jacket and appeared outside for a brief moment. Mr. Michael adjusted his
jacket to place the pistol grip back underneath and proceeded inside the
store where he purchased a coke and some chewing gum and left without
incident.
Three miles down the road after leaving the store, the local police appeared
in his rear view mirror. After responding to the emergency equipment by
stopping on the side of the road, Mr. Michael waited for the officer to
approach the vehicle and tell him why he had been stopped. The Watauga
Police officer did not approach the vehicle but instead waited for a back-up
unit to roll up onto the scene.
Mr. Michael was ordered by the officer over a bullhorn to exit the vehicle
with his hands up. After complying, Mr. Michael noticed that the officers
were outside but taking cover by their vehicles with their guns pointed at
him. He was then ordered to place his hands behind his head with his fingers
locked together and to kneel down on the ground. Not knowing the purpose of
this procedure, uncertain as to whether his life was about to end, Mr.
Michael inquired of the officers as to what he had done wrong, and whether
he was going to be shot. He also indicated to the officers that it was
impossible for him to gently place his face on the ground unless he moved
his hands, and he expressed fear that he would be shot if he moved his
hands.
The response was a dramatic repeating of the orders over and over to get his
face on the ground. Having no response to his inquiry, Mr. Michael hesitated
unable to comply. Regaining his composure, he complied and got his face on
the ground.
He was then overwhelmed by three, perhaps four, Watauga Police Department
officers and was then asked whether he had a concealed carry permit. He
responded that he did. Mr. Michael was arrested and booked in the jail for
the charge of unlawful carry of a weapon even though the officers knew that
he had a concealed carry permit.
Mr. Michael came into my office concerned, frightened, and in fear of losing
his concealed carry license. The battle was on. The Watauga Police
Department filed with the Tarrant County District Attorney to charge him
with the offense of Unlawful Carry of a Weapon (UCW). After listening to all
sides of the story, and to their credit, the Tarrant County DA rejected the
allegation. The Watuga Police Department next charged Mr. Michael with
disorderly conduct and with a traffic code violation: "Failure to obey a
lawful police order." The disorderly conduct was next dropped. The "failure
to obey" charge was next set for trial.
In the meantime, the Watauga police Department also filed with the
Department of Public Safety to have Mr. Michael's concealed carry license
revoked. As the statute only provides that he be given the actual affidavit
and not the supporting documents, we obtained notice of the attempted
revocation but not the facts or circumstances stated substantiating same.
Giving credit to DPS, they reviewed the situation and took no action.
The last remaining charge against Mr. Michael was a traffic code violation.
I was curious how the Watauga Police Department would try this case, since
all the officers would have to testify and all the facts and circumstances
would finally have to come to light in front of a Tarrant County jury. Mr.
Michael complied with every order given by the officers, and while he
questioned one legitimate order fearing for his life, he did obey. Moreover,
while he was doing so, he was not in a vehicle.
In my opinion, Mr. Michael had been thoroughly abused by the officers who
worked the matter up and filed charges. The facts are that the Watauga
Police Department tried to file three criminal cases against him and tried
to revoke his concealed carry permit. There has been a level of abuse that
rises to the threshold of false arrest and malicious prosecution. Perhaps
this cause of action will also be dismissed in which case the matter will be
put to rest.
The question becomes whether Mr. Michael was being abused because he has a
concealed carry permit. It is important to note that in over 90 to 95% of
contacts with law enforcement that officers on the street are polite,
courteous and treat concealed carry permit holders no differently than any
other citizen with whom they have a contact. In fact, this makes sense
because in order to have a concealed carry permit one has to be "squeaky
clean." The above case is an example of the exception bearing out the rule,
nevertheless, this exception can happen to anybody.
The membership is aware that one of the principle reasons the TSRA fought to
have the concealed carry permit law passed was to provide for the general
acceptance of an armed and polite society; a general education process to
both law enforcement and the general public, that individual citizens can be
trusted with the carrying of concealed arms. We are much further along than
I anticipated at this point in the game. Nevertheless, as this incident
shows, there are still pockets of resistance to the idea of the law abiding
citizen being armed.
There was a time in this country where it was understood and expected that
law abiding people would carry arms about them often. We are a lot further
along to the day when this becomes a commonly accepted practice again. Who
knows maybe even someday by the Watauga Police Department.
Bullshooter
I would be certain to avoid their turf.
James Lenaburg & Patrice Stanton
- Why can't Mr. Michael civilly sue the individual officers involved with false
arrest (they obviously knew he had a CHL and arrested him anyway)?
- Why can't Mr. Michael civilly sue the individual officers involved with
violating his civil rights ($10,000 per offense) (he had a government issued
CHL)?
- Why can't Mr. Michael civilly sue the individual officers for malicous
prosecution?
- I hope that Mr. Michael has filed a complaint against these officers in
Watauga and bring it to the city council's attention.
Unfortunately, Watauga is just down the road from me and I drive through there
frequently. I am afraid that Keller is just as bad. But I'm the type of person
that would not let this go. I would pursue this to the end result of getting
those officers disciplined and dismissed if possible. I hope Mr. Michael does
also.
Regards,
James
Maurice wrote:
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
| James Lenaburg | Work: jle...@us.ibm.com |
| Netfinity Server Technical Specialist | Home: extr...@home.com |
| IBM Netfinity Servers | Web: members.home.net/extremist |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| NRA Certified Instructor - Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety |
| Certified Texas Concealed Handgun Licence Instructor |
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
==>Opinions expressed are my own and in no way<==
==>reflect IBM's position in anyway whatsoever<==
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to 'work
within the system' but too early to shoot the bastards."
-- Claire Wolfe, "101 Things To Do 'Til the Revolution"
James Lenaburg & Patrice Stanton
wish to not raise a stink about this because he is GOING to litigate or
what? I'm talking about an organized campaign to bring this to light;
letter writing to Star Telegram, local news channels, city council, etc?
Does he need donations to bring a civil suit against the officer's?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Regards,
James
Ollie wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 07:13:31 -0500, in a fit of sanity, "Bullshooter"
> <ri...@discover-net.net> snatched up the keyboard and typed:
>
> >Where the h... is this obnoxious watauga police dept?
> >I would be certain to avoid their turf.
> >
> It's a small suburb on the north side of Ft. Worth, TX.
> --
>
> ===================================================
> "Here's another fine mess you've gotten us into..."
> ===================================================
>
> Ollie
rbo...@fastlane.net
>
>I'm saddened that this happened. Perhaps the WPD was more careful after
>this episode. I expect the 2 calls started differently. I was very
>compliant and it was "just" a traffic stop. The other was triggered by some
>panicked rag head which triggered the WPD into "man with a gun" mode. That
>they failed to properly evaluate the situation and de-escellate the
>situation seems to indicate that cops should have periodic training in the
>same de-escellation tactics that CHL holders are required to have.
Sounds like they need a new line of work. Like 7-11 clerks.
Rick Bowen
TSRA Life Member #073009
NRA Annual
William A. Levinson
James Lenaburg & Patrice Stanton wrote:
>
> My questions are these:
>
> - Why can't Mr. Michael civilly sue the individual officers involved with false
> arrest (they obviously knew he had a CHL and arrested him anyway)?
> - Why can't Mr. Michael civilly sue the individual officers involved with
> violating his civil rights ($10,000 per offense) (he had a government issued
> CHL)?
> - Why can't Mr. Michael civilly sue the individual officers for malicous
> prosecution?
> - I hope that Mr. Michael has filed a complaint against these officers in
> Watauga and bring it to the city council's attention.
If the police aimed their weapons at him without justification, does
this constitute a criminal offense (reckless endangerment)? I am not a
lawyer, but Mr. Michael's lawyer might be able to answer this question.
Every responsible firearm owner knows that you NEVER point a weapon at
someone unless you want him dead. Had Mr. Michael acted in a way to make
the officers fear for their safety, that would be another matter, but he
didn't. Since they knew he had a concealed handgun license, and since he
did not threaten them even verbally, it's hard to see their
justification for endangering him with their sidearms.
Speaking of handling a gun improperly, see the Dianne Feinstein story at
my Second Amendment link below.
--
William A. Levinson
http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend "Second Amendment Page"
http://www.stentorian.com/clinton "Why Bill Clinton should be Impeached"
http://www.stentorian.com/animfarm.html "George Orwell's 'Animal Farm'
Online"
Please direct mail to my Netcom address: wlevinso@ CONNECT PARTS TO
REPLY ix.netcom.com
Hoedown
>The response was a dramatic repeating of the orders over and over to get
his
>face on the ground. Having no response to his inquiry, Mr. Michael
hesitated
>unable to comply. Regaining his composure, he complied and got his face on
>the ground.
Gotta love those "lawful orders". Looks to me like there are a few cops and
a prosecutor up there who need to be thrown out to find a new line of work.
Patrick Larkin Jr
>
> James Lenaburg & Patrice Stanton wrote:
> >
> >
> > - Why can't Mr. Michael civilly sue the individual officers involved with false
> > arrest (they obviously knew he had a CHL and arrested him anyway)?
> > - Why can't Mr. Michael civilly sue the individual officers involved with
> > violating his civil rights ($10,000 per offense) (he had a government issued
> > CHL)?
> > - Why can't Mr. Michael civilly sue the individual officers for malicous
> > prosecution?
> > - I hope that Mr. Michael has filed a complaint against these officers in
> > Watauga and bring it to the city council's attention.
>
> this constitute a criminal offense (reckless endangerment)? I am not a
> lawyer, but Mr. Michael's lawyer might be able to answer this question.
Unlawful use (or threat to use) deadly force?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick H. Larkin, Jr <PatL...@BikeRider.com> MindSpring SysAdmin
To be intoxicated is to feel sophisticated, but not be able to say it.
----------------< http://www.mindspring.com/~pat.larkin/ >------------------
Patrick Larkin Jr
> I'm saddened that this happened. Perhaps the WPD was more careful after
> this episode. I expect the 2 calls started differently. I was very
> compliant and it was "just" a traffic stop. The other was triggered by some
> panicked rag head which triggered the WPD into "man with a gun" mode. That
> they failed to properly evaluate the situation and de-escellate the
> situation seems to indicate that cops should have periodic training in the
> same de-escellation tactics that CHL holders are required to have.
Yeah, unfortunately, "man with gun" mode quickly becomes "gung-ho, I'm
John Wayne" mode... the guys probably talked about that stop for HOURS
afterward... that they dont just back off and say "we f___ed up" is
indication that SOMEONE's "honor" or "reputation"
is at stake:
"I'm telling ya, that dude was one seriously bad Muthaf__ah! We
*HAD* to take him down! He had a traffic violation afterall!!"
Robb
<qpr...@interconnect.net> wrote:
----snip----
>Three miles down the road after leaving the store, the local police appeared
>in his rear view mirror. After responding to the emergency equipment by
>stopping on the side of the road, Mr. Michael waited for the officer to
>approach the vehicle and tell him why he had been stopped. The Watauga
>Police officer did not approach the vehicle but instead waited for a back-up
>unit to roll up onto the scene.
>
Just a quick aside: I have lived in the DFW area all my life, and have
heard more than one horror story about the Watauga PD. I've never
known whether to give any of them credence. I guess I should. Watauga
is a small suburb of Ft. Worth, and is reputed to be very tough on
speeders, ticketing for the slightest infractions. I've also heard
worse stories that I won't go into here. Suffice to say that this
story doesn't exactly surprise me.
I doubt I'll EVER drive through the town again!
Robb
Nick Hull
<3AED28A5E4DD3A40.3E7E48A5...@lp.airnews.net>,
rbo...@fastlane.net wrote:
> >
> >I'm saddened that this happened. Perhaps the WPD was more careful after
> >this episode. I expect the 2 calls started differently. I was very
> >compliant and it was "just" a traffic stop. The other was triggered by some
> >panicked rag head which triggered the WPD into "man with a gun" mode. That
> >they failed to properly evaluate the situation and de-escellate the
> >situation seems to indicate that cops should have periodic training in the
> >same de-escellation tactics that CHL holders are required to have.
>
> Sounds like they need a new line of work. Like 7-11 clerks.
>
UNARMED 7-11 clerks.
--
Committees of Correspondence Web page:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
- free men own guns, slaves don't
James D. Nicholson
SNIP
> I know it is somewhat remote but WHO would want
> to endure what that man was put through. One would hope the account was
> exaggerated but, in today's law enforcement mindset, it would not be a
> complete surprise. It's scary!
For anyone interested in putting a little pressure on the City of
Watauga (after all that is why the story is on the TSRA web site
http://www.tsra.com/perils.htm), here are the e-mail addresses of the
Watauga city fathers. If anybody can put a stop to this type of behavior
by the local police, these are the guys. I imagine that a flurry of
e-mail messages would get their attention. They must be interested in
economic development and could be expected to to what it takes to avoid
a bad image.
ma...@ci.watauga.tx.us
cityc...@ci.watauga.tx.us
economicd...@ci.watauga.tx.us
City Administrative Offices
citym...@ci.watauga.tx.us
adminis...@ci.watauga.tx.us
fin...@ci.watauga.tx.us
d...@ci.watauga.tx.us
publi...@ci.watauga.tx.us
recre...@ci.watauga.tx.us
lib...@ci.watauga.tx.us
m...@ci.watauga.tx.us
Silverdahl
20-20 or 48 hours.
Someone familiar with this case should approach everyone of them and see who
wants a story.
Maurice <qpr...@interconnect.net> wrote in message
news:2Ist3.8533$gO1.2...@news2.giganews.com...
><snip>
Silverdahl
anywhere in these United States an attitude is a personal thing even with
cops but it must also be kept in mind that much of it trickles down from the
top. You may get a good one or you may get a bad one. I strongly feel it's
our individual duty to our fellow citizens to weed out the bad ones. After
all it's a fact that many are in it for the power rush although that usually
subsides with years of experience and learning. Unfortunately we citizens
can't wait that long.
Onethumb <Pulg...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:56D728AE25593EC5.9543151C...@lp.airnews.net...
> I had a "contact" with the same police dept. It was either late last year
> or earlier this year on Western Center Blvd/Mid Cities Blvs (same road)
> while heading west on this road. I was past the Watauga Middle school and
> got stopped for excessive speed (40 in a 35) which is common along the
> stretch. In fact, Watauga has just installed a new traffic light where
> those heading east bound will not see it until after cresting a hill. If
it
> happens to be red, it may be difficult to stop even when going at posted
> speed limits.
>
> I found a safe place to pull off of the main road because of it's high
> traffic load and the officer pulled in behind me. He was very courteous
> while standing behind the vehicles rear pillar (common tactic these days
> for traffic stops). When I presented my DL and CHL he asked, "Where is
> it." To which I replied, "I don't have it with me right now, but I knew a
> run of the computer would show I had a CHL, so I thought I'd let you know
> ahead of time." He continued to be very courteous and professional and
> warned me about the posted speed limit advised that I be more careful from
> now on.
>
> I was never exposed to an "attitude" and was never asked to step out of my
> truck.
>
> I'm saddened that this happened. Perhaps the WPD was more careful after
> this episode. I expect the 2 calls started differently. I was very
> compliant and it was "just" a traffic stop. The other was triggered by
some
> panicked rag head which triggered the WPD into "man with a gun" mode. That
> they failed to properly evaluate the situation and de-escellate the
> situation seems to indicate that cops should have periodic training in the
> same de-escellation tactics that CHL holders are required to have.
> On Sun, 15 Aug 1999 00:56:54 -0500, "Maurice" <qpr...@interconnect.net>
> speed shifted, exploding the tranny, which formed the following random
> patterns on the ground:
> ...
> Copyright Mark Johnson 1999
> 1998 Goldwing SE (Black): DoD #2021
> IB:SS1000 9/6/1997; BBG 9/18/1998, Fort Worth, Texas
> Bikes & Spikes: http://web2.airmail.net/onethumb/
> Cigar Smoke Web Ring: http://www.priosys.com/cswr/index.htm
> To reduce the spam, email to onethumb at airmail dot net
Paul Barnett
James D. Nicholson <jam...@akamail.com> wrote in message
news:37B80726...@akamail.com...
> For anyone interested in putting a little pressure on the City of
> Watauga (after all that is why the story is on the TSRA web site
> http://www.tsra.com/perils.htm), here are the e-mail addresses of the
> Watauga city fathers. If anybody can put a stop to this type of behavior
> by the local police, these are the guys. I imagine that a flurry of
> e-mail messages would get their attention. They must be interested in
> economic development and could be expected to to what it takes to avoid
> a bad image.
>
> ma...@ci.watauga.tx.us
> cityc...@ci.watauga.tx.us
> economicd...@ci.watauga.tx.us
>
> City Administrative Offices
>
> citym...@ci.watauga.tx.us
> adminis...@ci.watauga.tx.us
> fin...@ci.watauga.tx.us
> d...@ci.watauga.tx.us
> publi...@ci.watauga.tx.us
> recre...@ci.watauga.tx.us
> lib...@ci.watauga.tx.us
> m...@ci.watauga.tx.us
The first three are appropriate. For the last set, don't waste your or
their time. They don't have the authority to do anything about it (with the
possible exception of dps -- is that the police?)
Jim, where did you get the list of email addresses? The usual web address
doesn't work.
Anyway, my suggestion is to write the top three address, reference the URL
at TSRA, and then simply say that you are appalled at law enforcement's
treatment of a person who was complying with the law.
Then, close with the following statement, or some derivative:
I don't live in Watauga, so I can't vote against any of you. However, I can
vote with my feet, by making sure I never set foot in your city, patronizing
any of the businesses in your city, or even so much as driving through your
city.... even if it means taking a detour to avoid the north side of Ft.
Worth.
And I'll tell all my friends and family to do the same.
James D. Nicholson
I think that would be the local police. I thought it would be
appropriate to stir the pot well and copy as many as possible. In a town
that size, it should be easy to make this the main topic of conversation
among the city officials and employees.
> Jim, where did you get the list of email addresses? The usual web address
> doesn't work.
I picked them off the Watauga web page at:
http://www.ci.watauga.tx.us/email.htm
> Anyway, my suggestion is to write the top three address, reference the URL
> at TSRA, and then simply say that you are appalled at law enforcement's
> treatment of a person who was complying with the law.
I've tried to figure out how all of this fiasco may have started. You
could assume that the convenience store manager/clerk/customer who
called in to the police was influential, or certainly a friend of the
police. That would motivate the local PD to make the initial contact
which was probably warranted, and the Rambo style stop they made on the
CHLicensee. But once these guys saw the license or called in and checked
out the ID, etc.,
everyone involved in the incident was way out of bounds.
> Then, close with the following statement, or some derivative:
>
> I don't live in Watauga, so I can't vote against any of you. However, I can
> vote with my feet, by making sure I never set foot in your city, patronizing
> any of the businesses in your city, or even so much as driving through your
> city.... even if it means taking a detour to avoid the north side of Ft.
> Worth.
>
> And I'll tell all my friends and family to do the same.
And you might add that you will be certain that your
company/employer/associates/friends/relatives/casual
acquaintances/dog/cat never spend a nickel in Watauga unless there is
some strong indication that there will never be another CHL incident
like this in the future. I think they owe Mark Michael an apology in the
form of a letter signed by the entire city council, not just the city
manager or the mayor.
Onethumb
>
> Watauga sounds like a perfect candidate for one of the "expose" shows like
> 20-20 or 48 hours.
> Someone familiar with this case should approach everyone of them and see who
> wants a story.
Except that, since both of those shows are anti-gun, the spin would
be in support of the WPD.
--
James D. Nicholson
> doesn't work.
I just sent to the whole caboodle on the theory that everyone of these
folks can't be in the same boat. Some have to be politically ambitious
and may use this incident to feather their own nest. The only one that
bounced was the last one:
"The following destination addresses were unknown (please check
the addresses and re-mail the message):
SMTP <m...@ci.watauga.tx.us>
Please reply to Postm...@server1.ci.watauga.tx.us
if you feel this message to be in error."
John A. Stovall
<jam...@akamail.com> wrote:
snipped
>And you might add that you will be certain that your
>company/employer/associates/friends/relatives/casual
>acquaintances/dog/cat never spend a nickel in Watauga unless there is
>some strong indication that there will never be another CHL incident
>like this in the future. I think they owe Mark Michael an apology in the
>form of a letter signed by the entire city council, not just the city
>manager or the mayor.
Jim, would suggest that apology should be signed by the Chief of
Police and the officers involved.
Not my provider’s views.
John Alex Stovall
XVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVO
"....Long live Freedom and damn the ideologies,"
Said the gamey old back-maned wild boar
Tusking the turf on Mal Paso Mountain.
XVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVO
dhe...@atlantic.net
John.A....@SPAM.SPAM.SPAM.cdc.com (John A. Stovall) wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 10:15:54 -0500, "James D. Nicholson"
><jam...@akamail.com> wrote:
>snipped
>>And you might add that you will be certain that your
>>company/employer/associates/friends/relatives/casual
>>acquaintances/dog/cat never spend a nickel in Watauga unless there is
>>some strong indication that there will never be another CHL incident
>>like this in the future. I think they owe Mark Michael an apology in the
>>form of a letter signed by the entire city council, not just the city
>>manager or the mayor.
>
>Jim, would suggest that apology should be signed by the Chief of
>Police and the officers involved.
>
>
I think that every one in the chain should be in jail.
Any attempt to pass or enforce an unconstitutional law --
especially any law that violates the first ten amendments to the
Constitution,
commonly known as the Bill of Rights -- is a crime punishable by
ten years in prison and a ten thousand dollar fine for each offense
(Title 18 U.S.C, Sections 241 and 242). If you'd like to see that.
law enforced, go to http://www.lns2000.org and make your wishes
known.
The only reason the US doesn't have a Gestapo is that the
FBI, BATF, DEA, EPA etc. can't speak German.
Steve Caserza
brass on our floor, and reports to the police, so we all get stopped (video
tapes running), until they get tired of it all.
Bullshooter wrote in message ...
Jerry Peacock
Paul Barnett <ne...@ptb.org> wrote in message
news:C307AEC3D4A91632.EF0425F9...@lp.airnews.net
...
> I don't live in Watauga, so I can't vote against any of you.
However, I can
> vote with my feet, by making sure I never set foot in your city,
patronizing
> any of the businesses in your city, or even so much as driving
through your
> city.... even if it means taking a detour to avoid the north side of
Ft.
> Worth.
Or, alternatively:
I don't live in Watauga, so I can't vote against any of you. I will,
however,
be urging my state representatives to rip up all the roads to your
medieval
fifedom.
David Rackley
of admission of guilt. If y'a done nothin' wrong, why's y'a saying y'o
sorry?
Dave Rackley
"John A. Stovall" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 10:15:54 -0500, "James D. Nicholson"
> <jam...@akamail.com> wrote:
> snipped
> >And you might add that you will be certain that your
> >company/employer/associates/friends/relatives/casual
> >acquaintances/dog/cat never spend a nickel in Watauga unless there is
> >some strong indication that there will never be another CHL incident
> >like this in the future. I think they owe Mark Michael an apology in the
> >form of a letter signed by the entire city council, not just the city
> >manager or the mayor.
>
> Jim, would suggest that apology should be signed by the Chief of
> Police and the officers involved.
>
rbo...@fastlane.net
>On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 10:15:54 -0500, "James D. Nicholson"
><jam...@akamail.com> wrote:
>snipped
>>And you might add that you will be certain that your
>>company/employer/associates/friends/relatives/casual
>>acquaintances/dog/cat never spend a nickel in Watauga unless there is
>>some strong indication that there will never be another CHL incident
>>like this in the future. I think they owe Mark Michael an apology in the
>>form of a letter signed by the entire city council, not just the city
>>manager or the mayor.
>
>Jim, would suggest that apology should be signed by the Chief of
>Police and the officers involved.
Along with a huge pile of small unmarked bills.
>
>Not my provider’s views.
>John Alex Stovall
>XVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVO
>"....Long live Freedom and damn the ideologies,"
>Said the gamey old back-maned wild boar
>Tusking the turf on Mal Paso Mountain.
>XVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVO
Rick Bowen
ksmith
> If the police aimed their weapons at him without justification, does
> this constitute a criminal offense (reckless endangerment)? I am not a
> lawyer, but Mr. Michael's lawyer might be able to answer this question.
Technically since they stopped him for a Firearms issue, they had every
right to perform the way they did. They fear for their safety when a firearm
is involved, and they took the precautions necessary to protect themselves
from a possible situation.
> Since they knew he had a concealed handgun license, and since he
> did not threaten them even verbally, it's hard to see their
> justification for endangering him with their sidearms.
How do you figure? They DID NOT know that he had a permit when they first
responded, and weren't aware of it until later, after they had him in a
submissive position, where they were safe.
Sure, it would be nice if they had inquired about a concealed permit BEFORE
they did all this to him, but that may have caused more of an incident had
this person been actually breaking a law. If he were a criminal then the
officer/s would have been in danger, so better to first subdue and then
question. (safer).
I still think they were overreacting, and they obviously went too far with
things, and arrested him when he was compliant with all regulations, so they
SHOULD be held accountable for their actions. Thing is, we don't KNOW the
whole story, since we weren't there, so maybe this person was NOT compliant
from the getgo and the officers had a reason to arrest him.
ksmith
you to do, show Drivers License AND concealed carry permit to the officer.
Always inform them of a firearm, and they will generally treat you with more
respect. They know a criminal isn't going to be so open and honest about it,
so they are not as likely to be in danger.
Here we are allowed to carry open, or concealed with permit, and we always
inform an officer during a stop that we have a weapon in the vehicle. A
friend of mine got stopped, and informed the officer that there was a
firearm in the vehicle, and the cop casually and somewhat jokingly, "you
reach for your's and I reach for mine" and that was that. He never got
defensive and didn't drag my friend out at gunpoint, just casually ran his
D.L. and issued his traffic ticket and sent him on his way. Very cordial.
Of course I would say that officers in Arizona are a bit more used to
firearm carrying citizens since it IS the old west after all. :0)
> ...
rbo...@fastlane.net
<kevin...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
>> If the police aimed their weapons at him without justification, does
>> this constitute a criminal offense (reckless endangerment)? I am not a
>> lawyer, but Mr. Michael's lawyer might be able to answer this question.
>
>Technically since they stopped him for a Firearms issue, they had every
>right to perform the way they did. They fear for their safety when a firearm
>is involved, and they took the precautions necessary to protect themselves
>from a possible situation.
Bullshit.
>> Since they knew he had a concealed handgun license, and since he
>> did not threaten them even verbally, it's hard to see their
>> justification for endangering him with their sidearms.
>
>How do you figure?
They run both computers. (License & CHL) They know when they stop
you.
They DID NOT know that he had a permit when they first
>responded, and weren't aware of it until later, after they had him in a
>submissive position, where they were safe.
>Sure, it would be nice if they had inquired about a concealed permit BEFORE
>they did all this to him, but that may have caused more of an incident had
>this person been actually breaking a law. If he were a criminal then the
>officer/s would have been in danger, so better to first subdue and then
>question. (safer).
>
>I still think they were overreacting, and they obviously went too far with
>things, and arrested him when he was compliant with all regulations, so they
>SHOULD be held accountable for their actions. Thing is, we don't KNOW the
>whole story, since we weren't there, so maybe this person was NOT compliant
>from the getgo and the officers had a reason to arrest him.
>
>
>
Sam A. Kersh
>> Since they knew he had a concealed handgun license, and since he
>> did not threaten them even verbally, it's hard to see their
>> justification for endangering him with their sidearms.
>
>How do you figure? They DID NOT know that he had a permit when they first
>responded, and weren't aware of it until later, after they had him in a
>submissive position, where they were safe.
>Sure, it would be nice if they had inquired about a concealed permit BEFORE
>they did all this to him, but that may have caused more of an incident had
>this person been actually breaking a law. If he were a criminal then the
>officer/s would have been in danger, so better to first subdue and then
>question. (safer).
>
>I still think they were overreacting, and they obviously went too far with
>things, and arrested him when he was compliant with all regulations, so they
>SHOULD be held accountable for their actions. Thing is, we don't KNOW the
>whole story, since we weren't there, so maybe this person was NOT compliant
>from the getgo and the officers had a reason to arrest him.
You're correct, we don't know the whole story. It's highly possible the
police were furnished a plate number with the original call. They most
likely ran a 10-28 or 29 and checked the stolen vehicle log. Chances
are they KNEW he had a CHL long before the stop. If this is correct,
I'd be asking DPS to pull their peace officer's certification....
Sam A. Kersh
NRA Life Member
TSRA Life Member
LEAA Life Member
JPFO,
Gun Owners of America
http://www.flash.net/~csmkersh
=======================================================
"Among other evils which being unarmed brings
you, it causes you to be despised."
The Prince
Niccolo Machivelli
James D. Nicholson
>
> You're correct, we don't know the whole story. It's highly possible the
> police were furnished a plate number with the original call. They most
> likely ran a 10-28 or 29 and checked the stolen vehicle log. Chances
> are they KNEW he had a CHL long before the stop. If this is correct,
> I'd be asking DPS to pull their peace officer's certification....
Sam, I don't believe that they can determine that you have a CHL until
they run the DL #, or the apprehended person complies with the law, when
carrying, and shows both documents at once. In this case, Mark Michaels
was allegedly down on his face with another concern like muzzles pointed
his way with nervous fingers on the triggers (Glocks?).
BTW, fellows, I hope that a number of us have followed up with
complaints to the Watauga city officials. The addresses again are:
ma...@ci.watauga.tx.us
cityc...@ci.watauga.tx.us
economicd...@ci.watauga.tx.us
citym...@ci.watauga.tx.us
adminis...@ci.watauga.tx.us
fin...@ci.watauga.tx.us
d...@ci.watauga.tx.us
publi...@ci.watauga.tx.us
recre...@ci.watauga.tx.us
lib...@ci.watauga.tx.us
--
Jim Nicholson -- http://www.tsra.com/
XTP...@mindspring.com
about a car that was driving recklessly and wanted to confirm what the rules
were for "Road Rage". She said the guys tag brought up that he had a CHL
and was wondering what she should do. She had not pulled the car over but
was following it. So I guess if your tags are registered to you, and you
have a CHL, they know about it long before you give them your DL anc CHL.
You can hear the DPD and others on the internet at POLICESCANNER.COM.
Enjoy.
James D. Nicholson <jam...@akamail.com> wrote in message
news:37BA9B66...@akamail.com...
James D. Nicholson
>
> I was listening to the Dallas PD a few weeks ago, and a cop called dispatch
> about a car that was driving recklessly and wanted to confirm what the rules
> were for "Road Rage". She said the guys tag brought up that he had a CHL
> and was wondering what she should do. She had not pulled the car over but
> was following it. So I guess if your tags are registered to you, and you
> have a CHL, they know about it long before you give them your DL anc CHL.
The procedure, when following a car, would likely be to check the DL of
the auto registrant and make the ASS Umption that the driver was the
same. In the event that the person was driving a borrowed car, etc., the
absolute verification would not come until the DL was surrendered and
cross referenced with the CHL computer.
rb...@my-deja.com
> You're correct, we don't know the whole story. It's highly possible
the
> police were furnished a plate number with the original call. They
most
> likely ran a 10-28 or 29 and checked the stolen vehicle log. Chances
> are they KNEW he had a CHL long before the stop. If this is correct,
> I'd be asking DPS to pull their peace officer's certification....
>
Interesting circumstances, Sam. That will come out at trial if the
accused has an attorney. Bet it would be real interesting for the
defense attorney to subpoena the tapes of the radio transmissions.
Because this appears to be a case of police misconduct, or overreaction
at least, the radio logs could be relevant. Surely in a civil action
they would be, but usually they have a habit of being "accidently"
erased to protect the guilty. All of what took place, including a 911
call from a hysterical clerk should become public records. Maybe
we don't have a right to hear it, but the accused sure would.
Dick Burg
> =======================================================
>
> "Among other evils which being unarmed brings
> you, it causes you to be despised."
>
> The Prince
> Niccolo Machivelli
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Onethumb
>
> "Sam A. Kersh" wrote:
> >
>
> > You're correct, we don't know the whole story. It's highly possible the
> > police were furnished a plate number with the original call. They most
> > likely ran a 10-28 or 29 and checked the stolen vehicle log. Chances
> > are they KNEW he had a CHL long before the stop. If this is correct,
> > I'd be asking DPS to pull their peace officer's certification....
>
> they run the DL #, or the apprehended person complies with the law, when
> carrying, and shows both documents at once. In this case, Mark Michaels
> was allegedly down on his face with another concern like muzzles pointed
> his way with nervous fingers on the triggers (Glocks?).
>
> BTW, fellows, I hope that a number of us have followed up with
> complaints to the Watauga city officials. The addresses again are:
They can run the plate, which cross-references to the owner,
they can then pull up the DL from that info and it's cross-
referenced with the CHL. It's possible and it may even be
SOP. However that can't tell us if they really did it or not.
My guess would be, with the number of officers and patrol cars
involved and the way they reacted that either they, or dispatch
had all their ducks in a row going in.
--
Sam A. Kersh
>In article <37ba1d42...@news.flash.net>,
> csmk...@flash.net (Sam A. Kersh) wrote:
>>
>
>
>> You're correct, we don't know the whole story. It's highly possible
>the
>> police were furnished a plate number with the original call. They
>most
>> likely ran a 10-28 or 29 and checked the stolen vehicle log. Chances
>> are they KNEW he had a CHL long before the stop. If this is correct,
>> I'd be asking DPS to pull their peace officer's certification....
>>
>Interesting circumstances, Sam. That will come out at trial if the
>accused has an attorney. Bet it would be real interesting for the
>defense attorney to subpoena the tapes of the radio transmissions.
>Because this appears to be a case of police misconduct, or overreaction
>at least, the radio logs could be relevant. Surely in a civil action
>they would be, but usually they have a habit of being "accidently"
>erased to protect the guilty. All of what took place, including a 911
>call from a hysterical clerk should become public records. Maybe
>we don't have a right to hear it, but the accused sure would.
If my scenerio is correct, I will bet hard cash the police pull a "ATF
at Waco" and lose the tapes including the 911 call....
Sam A. Kersh
NRA Life Member
TSRA Life Member
LEAA Life Member
JPFO,
Gun Owners of America
http://www.flash.net/~csmkersh
Lilflo123
notstuck in your wistband ...... second when a officer tells you to lay down
you dont tell him no ... its this type of dork that makes lawfull carry a
bad word.. as for the law officers conduct its overboared to say the least
the man has a sweet case for false arrest
George Ham
I Am The NRA!
and I vote!
http://community.webtv.net/geoham/therightofthepeople
William Harvey
First place, dork breath, no matter how careful one is sooner or later
your weapon will flash. Secondly he had the right to worry enough
about his life to not want to make any sudden movements which falling
on you face from a knelling position with hands behind head would
definitely be.
It is dorks like you who give support to over reaction strong arm BS
that is causing so many innocents to be gunned down by some of our
less inept LEOs. A...oles like you probably applauded when Vicki
Weaver was gunned down.
William Harvey
wha...@aye.net
Joel Jacobs
Gee, Bill Harvey, you are quick to castigate and quick to name call. You
ever bother to look up the world dork? Maybe that old boy should sue you,
for he can surely prove he's NOT a dork. :)
BTW, are you angry with the whole world, or you just a practicing mysognist?
Joel Jacobs
William Harvey
wrote:
Well Mr. Press. Lets look at the original post I was replying to and
see how it fits into my reply, which you conveniently quoted out of
context. (A speciality of the press mayhaps?)
Below is pasted from my reponse which was snipped. My comments are
blocked off:
On 18 Aug 1999 22:43:56 GMT, lilf...@aol.com (Lilflo123) wrote:
>sounds like he needs to watch his weapon a bitcloser thats what conceald means
>notstuck in your wistband ...... second when a officer tells you to lay down
>you dont tell him no ... its this type of dork that makes lawfull carry a
>bad word.. as for the law officers conduct its overboared to say the least
> the man has a sweet case for false arrest
First place, dork breath, no matter how careful one is sooner or later
your weapon will flash. Secondly he had the right to worry enough
about his life to not want to make any sudden movements which falling
on you face from a knelling position with hands behind head would
definitely be.
============ my comments to your post ==================
You will note that my comments calling the poster a dork was in direct
response to their using that very same term. To call someone a dork or
irresponsible because their gun flashed momentarily is stupid at
best.
================Back to my original responce ============
It is dorks like you who give support to over reaction strong arm BS
that is causing so many innocents to be gunned down by some of our
less inept LEOs. A...oles like you probably applauded when Vicki
Weaver was gunned down.
============ my further comments to your post ==============
I admit my last paragraph was not called. I also have to say that I
agree in that the officers should be sued for at minimum false arrest.
Personally, I think an harrasment lawsuit is in order.
However, you reply to my post demonstrates why most pro-gun people
will not talk with the press. You just couldn't wait to quote
something out of context and warp it to what you wanted it to say.
Not all journalist work this way but it does seem that the vast
majority do. As for as the poster to which I replied sueing me, that
would be a gross waste of time on his part but it would give you
something to report.
As to whether I am mad at the world or a misogynist, (If you are going
to use big words you really should check to see how they are
spelled!), I am neither. I do get fed up with people making comments
and calling people names when dealing with subjects of which they
apparently have little knowledge. You know, like the press often does.
If lilf...@aol.com carried a gun very often he/she would know that
it is very easy to have the gun momentarily flash. That doesn't make
the either a dork or irresponsible. Also, considering I had no idea
as to the gender of lilf...@aol.com, how does my reply make me a
misogynist?
>
>
>
William Harvey
wha...@aye.net
Joel Jacobs
> see how it fits into my reply, which you conveniently quoted out of
> context. (A speciality of the press mayhaps?)
Bill, context or no, the word dork - which I challenged your use of - still
means whale penis, so, my statement still stands, that you chose an
incorrect use of words.
Are you angry with the WHOLE world or just the part that you can't dictate
to?
Joel Jacobs
William Harvey
press take words out of context when it suits THEIR purpose? (And you
wonder why most of the gun people don't want to deal with you!) Also,
apparently it was all right for the other person to use the word
"dork" since they are refering to a "gun nut" but not me since I was
defending the "gun nut".
On Mon, 6 Sep 1999 01:35:08 -0500, "Joel Jacobs" <jja...@koyote.com>
wrote:
>> Well Mr. Press. Lets look at the original post I was replying to and
William Harvey
wha...@aye.net
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
mQCNAzfMR/4AAAEEAKia88kzCOmLjT6Y9BatSYetKW0T1RE/6AyQ+sXBLJyj0iHo
S1W0wPISDDjfYktIwqmtyJuuA7kE3mS9Y00EBrr0gviRmUYxeU6NTn6GpjFbVDGR
us2N7Nw7bl9u/DGIjZTGJu4RRt4u1frBZF/7ys1Brf2V67Uib+5/cNiTBB9lAAUR
tB9XaWxsaWFtIEhhcnZleTx3aGFydmV5QGF5ZS5uZXQ+
=ctlM
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Joel Jacobs
> "dork" since they are refering to a "gun nut" but not me since I was
> defending the "gun nut".
No, the incorrect use of the word "dork" or any other word for that matter
does not lend it credence, no matter who writes it.
Insofar as gun nuts go, I'm about as big of a gun nut as they get. And no,
I defend no one who uses the language incorrectly - particularly myself when
I lapse and use it incorrectly.
Joel Jacobs
Jerry Peacock
Joel Jacobs <jja...@koyote.com> wrote in message
news:ARiB3.649$rZ6....@news21b.ispnews.com...
> And no,
> I defend no one who uses the language incorrectly - particularly
myself when
> I lapse and use it incorrectly.
I, too, am an amateur wordsmith. Many politicians use words
incorrectly,
and, in so doing, promote their cause (i.e., "Assault Weapon"). From
their
viewpoint, the incorrect use of a word is correct. I better stop
before this
gets more complicated. And I haven't even mentioned puns.
Joel Jacobs
I bet we could quickly go from puny to ridiculous, no? :)
Joel
William Harvey
wrote:
>>Also, apparently it was all right for the other person to use the word
>> "dork" since they are refering to a "gun nut" but not me since I was
>> defending the "gun nut".
>
>No, the incorrect use of the word "dork" or any other word for that matter
>does not lend it credence, no matter who writes it.
>
Now I'm starting to feel paranoid. You decided to pick me out to
correct but not the person who originally used the word improperly.
>Insofar as gun nuts go, I'm about as big of a gun nut as they get. And no,
>I defend no one who uses the language incorrectly - particularly myself when
>I lapse and use it incorrectly.
>
sleen...@applink.net
On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 17:08:00 GMT, wha...@aye.net (William Harvey)
wrote: