Wednesday, April 17, 2013

And I Thought Maryland was Bad....

Yo, Alan, Lawdog... 

I had no idea cops in your state were above the law.  Exempt.  And like to push around gunnies and veterans for not, 'rezpectin' mah Autoritay!'

What's the story?  Is there parts of Texas I should avoid (besides Austin) if I ever come to visit that big state?

(and note, brought to you by the Metrocon Fortnightly.  When Manhattan's National Review is looking askance at Texas over 2A issues...)

10 comments:

That Guy said...

As much as I hate to say it- yeah... Avoid Austin. It will just make you mad.

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

You know how in Texas you can have a nest of Fire Ants on your property? You want to avoid that part of your property and eventually douse it with Gasoline.

The state has a nest of hippies inside it's borders. You want to avoid that part of the state and eventually douse it with Gasoline.

joethefatman said...

Just about anything on I-35 between Temple and San Antonio should be avoided. Along with the 30 to 50 miles on either side. College Station should be avoided at all costs...There be AGGIES.

Bubblehead Les. said...

So Texas is Hiring Canton, Ohio-Trained Cops now, eh?

3boxesofbs said...

Many Parts of Dallas also have an infestation we are trying to remove.

Fort Worth is struggling to keep an outbreak contained but...it appears to be a long struggle.

Joe The Fat Man has a point about the I-35 Corridor unfortunately.

JustSomeGuy said...

NOT defending the police, but there's a couple of problems with the story and MSG Grisham's arguments.

The "we're exempt from the law" phrase comes in reference to specific statutes governing the lawful concealed carry of a firearm (which MSG Grisham was trying to argue). On-duty police officers are not governed under that statute. In that context, limited to that "law," exempt is not inflammatory or inaccurate.

Some of MSG Grisham's arguments about the right of the police to disarm a citizen are inaccurate. There is some question about applicability to openly carried long-arms, however there is no requirement for probable cause or reasonable suspicion for a peace officer to disarm a licensee for the duration of a lawful contact.

I have philosophical and practical concerns with the way the statute is written, but that doesn't change it.

I think there's a great deal of concern about the officer's behavior in the video, and I think their stance and assumption that a citizen is a threat until proven otherwise is problematic and chilling.

I'd rather see the community hammer them for those errors rather than jumping on a more inflammatory but less accurate comment.

Thanks,
JSG

harp1034 said...

The guy arrested refused to show any ID. He also challenged their authority. Just talk nice and don't challenge the cops. Cops everywhere don't like their authority challenged.
BTW no open carry of handguns.

Phelps said...

The non-MP enforcement in any base town is usually full of moronic bullies who hate anyone with a short haircut. This happened right outside of Ft. Hood, so there you go.

College towns are the other problem, and face it, Austin, you're just another college town. Mrs. Eberly preventing the Rangers from moving the state archives didn't magically make Austin a real city.

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

Word is the dude is a douche. But we gotta respect the rights of douches ESPECIALLY. Miranda was a douche, after all.

Phelps said...

Refusing to ID is NOT an offense in Texas. Several large departments have ended up paying large settlements in lawsuits to learn that lesson. Unless the cop had articulable probable cause to make an arrest, there was no duty to show ID.