tased and arrested for NOT breaking the law

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
In Texas, It is NOT illegal to open carry a rifle or a shotgun. It is also illegal for any municipality to regulate the wearing of arms. That apparently doesn't stop San Antonio from doing those very things.

So when a citizen is NOT breaking the law and exercising their right to carry a long gun yet is tased and arrested anyway, should the police officer be sued individually? should the city be sued for violating constitutional rights? KNOWING that the arrest is unlawful and tasing someone is considered assault and battery, would it be illegal to assist the citizen in preventing said assault and arrest? would it be a capital offense, in your eyes, if deadly force had to be used to prevent said tasing/assault and arrest? or should we, as citizens, be submissive to the state and accept such brutality, letting the government offer us cash money to deal with it?

A man was tasered and arrested by police for openly carrying his rifle walking near his home Sunday, despite it being legal to openly carry a rifle in Texas.

Police arrested Henry Vichique under a local ordinance that prohibits residents form carrying a loaded rifle or shotgun within city limits, according to San Antonio Express-News.

A YouTube video posted on Monday shows the 19-year-old man being approached by police who ordered him to put his rifle on the ground immediately.

“I’m not doing anything wrong, sir,” Vichique replies to an officer’s command.

One of the officers said they received complaints about him “pointing” his rifle at people, but Vichique denied the officer’s claims. He did tell them that his rifle was loaded.

Vichique chatted with one of the officers for several minutes diffusing the situation. The officer is heard explaining to him that he could have been shot by someone worried about an armed man walking in the neighborhood.

“You are not under arrest. You are free to go,” the cop said in the video. “You’re just going to happen to walk home, and I’m just going to happen to make sure you get home safely. And as soon as you get home safely, you will never see us again.”

But before Vichique could go, another officer approached inserting himself into the situation.

The second officer who approached is heard on video saying, “We are going to take that gun off your shoulder, do you understand that? Do you understand that?”

Then the other officer inquired if Vichique will “fight” if the police grab his gun. He replied, “I’m not going to grab it, sir. I have not been arrested and the law says unless I’ve been arrested, you can’t take it from me.”

An officer then asked if his rifle was loaded even though Vichique had already stated that it was several times and told the police that he’s not breaking any laws.

Suddenly, an officer uses his taser on Vichique who stated he was being unlawfully arrested and that he doesn’t consent to any searches or seizures.
Click to expand...


http://houston.cbslocal.com/2014/04...for-openly-carrying-rifle-while-walking-home/
 
SmarterthanYou said:
In Texas, It is NOT illegal to open carry a rifle or a shotgun. It is also illegal for any municipality to regulate the wearing of arms. That apparently doesn't stop San Antonio from doing those very things.

So when a citizen is NOT breaking the law and exercising their right to carry a long gun yet is tased and arrested anyway, should the police officer be sued individually? should the city be sued for violating constitutional rights? KNOWING that the arrest is unlawful and tasing someone is considered assault and battery, would it be illegal to assist the citizen in preventing said assault and arrest? would it be a capital offense, in your eyes, if deadly force had to be used to prevent said tasing/assault and arrest? or should we, as citizens, be submissive to the state and accept such brutality, letting the government offer us cash money to deal with it?




http://houston.cbslocal.com/2014/04...for-openly-carrying-rifle-while-walking-home/
Click to expand...


Police arrested Henry Vichique under a local ordinance that prohibits residents form carrying a loaded rifle or shotgun within city limits, according to San Antonio Express-News.


Breaking the LAW is reason enough to be tasered.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Police arrested Henry Vichique under a local ordinance that prohibits residents form carrying a loaded rifle or shotgun within city limits, according to San Antonio Express-News.


Breaking the LAW is reason enough to be tasered.
Click to expand...
what law did he break? the local ordnance is invalid and illegal because of TX state preemption, so maybe you'd like to try again.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
what law did he break? the local ordnance is invalid and illegal because of TX state preemption, so maybe you'd like to try again.
Click to expand...


No...it's clear.

This guy is just another gun nut, out strutting around the neighborhood with his "manhood" slung over his shoulder trying to intimidate others.

NATURALLY you think that sort of intimidating action is okay, since you yourself need a gun to supply your courage for you.

He was asked...POLITELY...to go home, he was then asked to unsling his gun from over his shoulder...he REFUSED a lawful request from peace officers and they took him down.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
No...it's clear.
Click to expand...
clear that it's illegal? or you could just admit that you either don't know or don't care about the law. again, PREEMPTED by the state. San Antonio has no power or authority to regulate the wearing of firearms.

ZappasGuitar said:
He was asked...POLITELY...to go home, he was then asked to unsling his gun from over his shoulder...he REFUSED a lawful request from peace officers and they took him down.
Click to expand...
anyone can refuse a REQUEST. is refusing a REQUEST grounds for tasing and arresting? I think not.

your other hoplophobic comment is just your cowardice. stop throwing off the thread topic.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
clear that it's illegal? or you could just admit that you either don't know or don't care about the law. again, PREEMPTED by the state. San Antonio has no power or authority to regulate the wearing of firearms.

anyone can refuse a REQUEST. is refusing a REQUEST grounds for tasing and arresting? I think not.

your other hoplophobic comment is just your cowardice. stop throwing off the thread topic.
Click to expand...


Typical.

You "small government" whiners are ALWAYS crying about Federal Government preemption of State and LOCAL laws...well this is the STATE preempting the duly enacted laws of the Municipality of San Antonio.

Naturally, since it has to do with regulating your precious guns, you think it's acceptable.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Typical.

You "small government" whiners are ALWAYS crying about Federal Government preemption of State and LOCAL laws...well this is the STATE preempting the duly enacted laws of the Municipality of San Antonio.

Naturally, since it has to do with regulating your precious guns, you think it's acceptable.
Click to expand...

It actually has to do with the STATE CONSTITUTION, not any 'duly enacted' municipal law.

Article I, Section 23

Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

so, if you have any further issue with the preemption of gun laws in this state, petition to amend the state constitution.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
In Texas, It is NOT illegal to open carry a rifle or a shotgun. It is also illegal for any municipality to regulate the wearing of arms. That apparently doesn't stop San Antonio from doing those very things.

So when a citizen is NOT breaking the law and exercising their right to carry a long gun yet is tased and arrested anyway, should the police officer be sued individually? should the city be sued for violating constitutional rights? KNOWING that the arrest is unlawful and tasing someone is considered assault and battery, would it be illegal to assist the citizen in preventing said assault and arrest? would it be a capital offense, in your eyes, if deadly force had to be used to prevent said tasing/assault and arrest? or should we, as citizens, be submissive to the state and accept such brutality, letting the government offer us cash money to deal with it?




http://houston.cbslocal.com/2014/04...for-openly-carrying-rifle-while-walking-home/
Click to expand...

The second officer should lose his job. End of story. Next!
 
SmarterthanYou said:
It actually has to do with the STATE CONSTITUTION, not any 'duly enacted' municipal law.

Article I, Section 23

Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

so, if you have any further issue with the preemption of gun laws in this state, petition to amend the state constitution.
Click to expand...


Typical BS double standard Rightie.

You're all for letting local municipalities decide what's best for their own kids regarding topics like education and how best to feed the homeless, but GOD help the community that decides it doesn't want armed, trigger-happy nutbars walking the streets 24/7/365.

...by GOD don't anyone dare tell you gun nuts where you can and cannot strap on your courage.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Typical BS double standard Rightie.

You're all for letting local municipalities decide what's best for their own kids regarding topics like education and how best to feed the homeless, but GOD help the community that decides it doesn't want armed, trigger-happy nutbars walking the streets 24/7/365.

...by GOD don't anyone dare tell you gun nuts where you can and cannot strap on your courage.
Click to expand...

again, CONSTITUTION!!!! I know you don't like it, but it's there.
 
OR we could wait and see what happens next, seeing as how it's happened less then a week ago; but NAH, let's go ahead and act like the left did when Trayvon was shoot.
 
Journalists Lauren Abdel-Razzaq and Mike Martindale wrote for The Detroit News 12 July 2012:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent Troy High School graduate was acquitted Thursday of all charges in his arrest for carrying a rifle through downtown Birmingham. A jury in 48th District Court found Sean M. Combs, 18, not guilty of brandishing a firearm and disturbing the peace. Wednesday, Judge Marc Barron issued a directed verdict dismissing a charge of resisting and obstructing a police officer after Combs' attorney, James Makowski, argued that city attorney Mary Kucharek had not proven that offense. ...Combs' attorney said he was pleased with the verdict. "I've said from the beginning this is not a gun rights case, this is a civil rights case," Makowski said after the decision. "Birmingham Police violated his civil rights by arresting him that night."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
indago said:
Journalists Lauren Abdel-Razzaq and Mike Martindale wrote for The Detroit News 12 July 2012:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent Troy High School graduate was acquitted Thursday of all charges in his arrest for carrying a rifle through downtown Birmingham. A jury in 48th District Court found Sean M. Combs, 18, not guilty of brandishing a firearm and disturbing the peace. Wednesday, Judge Marc Barron issued a directed verdict dismissing a charge of resisting and obstructing a police officer after Combs' attorney, James Makowski, argued that city attorney Mary Kucharek had not proven that offense. ...Combs' attorney said he was pleased with the verdict. "I've said from the beginning this is not a gun rights case, this is a civil rights case," Makowski said after the decision. "Birmingham Police violated his civil rights by arresting him that night."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...

And I hope he wins a lawsuit and is compensated for their stupidity.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
OR we could wait and see what happens next, seeing as how it's happened less then a week ago; but NAH, let's go ahead and act like the left did when Trayvon was shoot.
Click to expand...

is it your law enforcement relationship that prompts you to always give them the benefit of the doubt? that they should not be held accountable personally, but that it should ALWAYS be done by the courts, since you think that seems to be the only recourse we should have?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I also noticed that he seemed to be all about the ability of municipalities to make their own laws and rules over state pre-emption. wonder if he'd be ok with that on voter IDs and immigration?
Click to expand...


Silly me, I was trying to find common ground with you regarding Governmental overreach.

I did forget, however, you are completely hypocritical regarding ANY sort of law created locally regarding the regulation of your precious guns.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
is it your law enforcement relationship that prompts you to always give them the benefit of the doubt? that they should not be held accountable personally, but that it should ALWAYS be done by the courts, since you think that seems to be the only recourse we should have?
Click to expand...

So you want to do away with the system in place and just rely on public opinion to decide if someone is guilty of something.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Silly me, I was trying to find common ground with you regarding Governmental overreach.

I did forget, however, you are completely hypocritical regarding ANY sort of law created locally regarding the regulation of your precious guns.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you might want to read the various constitutions which specifically prohibit that...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top