The following video shows a group officers stopping a person who was walking down a sidewalk with a slung rifle. The lead officer indicates that he stopped the individual because he was armed and wanted to check to see if the guy was “just exerting his Constitutional rights.” The officer also made a general reference to active shooters, but went on to say, “I think I know what is going on here.” During the stop, the lead officer makes several references shooting the individual in the head. His only articulation of anything criminal was a general reference to active shooters.
This incident is actually being portrayed in some circles as the officer being pro-Second Amendment. I suppose this is because the officer does make several “pro” statements, but, in my opinion, these statements are clearly overshadowed by the repeated references to shooting the individual in the head. I am further baffled by some people with whom I am acquainted who are themselves very pro-carry holding this out as a positive example of how officers should handle such situations.
I do not understand this. The lead officer stated that he stopped the guy solely for being armed, which is clearly contrary to numerous holdings by the United States Supreme Court, and made numerous references to shooting the individual in the head. This leads to the question of whether these same people would be okay with being stopped when legally carrying simply for carrying and then being threatened with being shot in the head. The Reasonable Articulable Suspicion standard for an investigative (Tier 2) stop requires specific and articulable facts when taken together and based upon the officer’s knowledge, training, and experience lead the officer to believe that criminal activity is afoot. Is it reasonable to believe that just because someone is armed that they are a mass shooter?
The officer does have an even tone, and under the circumstances of the contact, his tone could even be described as somewhat genial. The officer then sets forth to lecture the individual concerning his open carrying in such a manner as being ultimately detrimental to Second Amendment rights. With this part, I actually am in large part in agreement; however, this is simply a personal opinion. I do understand that my personal opinion is not a valid reason to shoot people in the head, or any other part of their anatomy; thus, I can’t say such things to those who root for that bastion of evil inhabiting a football stadium in the suburbs of Dallas.
According to my philosophy professor in college, all Beagles are dogs but not all dogs are Beagles…
Compare the above video to those below where another officer pretty much says the same things except that his statements were made in the middle of a tirade. He was rightfully on the receiving end of copious amounts of outrage.
I guess he should have used a calm and even tone, and then everything would have been okay as he calmly states that he could murder a person and make their body disappear.
If you would like to listen to the non-emergency line call to dispatch for the first video, you can do so by clicking here.