Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Teenager in Aurora, Colorado trots around town carrying a shotgun, says he's free to do what he wants and to hell with everyone still concerned about the theater shooting; he has the Second Amendment on his side   (rawstory.com ) divider line
    More: Sick  
•       •       •

15193 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Aug 2014 at 6:11 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1161 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-04 09:32:02 AM  

lilbjorn: Drop what charges?  What do you imagine he is charged with?


My money is on "village idiocy without a permit".
 
2014-08-04 09:32:14 AM  

I alone am best: I am glad everyone in this thread is OK with stopping people and asking for ID based on their appearance. Just to make sure they are not breaking the law.

This should help us to clear up our immigration problem a little faster.


Age is different than skin color.

I'm 34 and carded about 75% of the time I go into a liquor store and buy alcohol, or order alcohol at a restaurant.  Why?  Because I look like I'm in my early 20's, and most restaurants and liquor stores, to comply with the 21+ law in these United States, will card if someone looks younger than 30.  Because sometimes life is hard on some teenager and they end up looking like old farts long before their time.  Heroin is a hell of a drug, after all.

Same goes with cigarettes.  18+ (sometimes 19, at least to purchase), and I'm FINE with age-based carding.

This isn't like stop-and-frisk, and I've yet to hear of the police using excessive force in an age-based stop.  You show your ID like asked, they look at the date of birth and, if you're not breaking the law you go on your merry damned way.

I show my ID at the liquor store and I get my booze.

Same thing.  If the police stopped me outside of the liquor store and asked for my ID, I'd be FINE with it, so long as they didn't make me drop my rum.
 
2014-08-04 09:32:42 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: When I was growing up, there were only three reason to leave the house without a gun, and two of those were church and school.


You must be so proud that your parents raised you in a such a highly civilized place.
 
2014-08-04 09:32:49 AM  
This kid is why alcohol purchases are limited to those 21 and over. It's scientific fact that a teenager's brains aren't fully developed yet, especially the frontal lobe - the part of the brain where we figure out "what happens next?" and "what if?". It's why teens do the dumb sh*t they would not even think of doing ten years later.

All you people out there who take the time to handle your guns safely - not just according to the law but with common f*cking sense - should want to beat this moron's ass to fine powder.
 
2014-08-04 09:33:53 AM  
I'm sure that's the type of situation the drafters of the Constitution foresaw AND approved of.  Yep.  And you'd be delusional to think otherwise.
 
2014-08-04 09:35:09 AM  

Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.


img.fark.net

it's also legal to walk around dressed up as hitler.
 
2014-08-04 09:35:36 AM  

Forbidden Doughnut: [img.fark.net image 480x360]

[www.slantmagazine.com image 602x330]


Eponysterical
 
2014-08-04 09:35:38 AM  
Eh, at least the kid is walking around getting some exercise for a change.  I don't care about guns for the most part, but if I see someone carrying around a rifle/shotgun around town and it's not hunting season, I'd call the police as well.

I don't really expect great reasoning from a teenager, but it sure seems to me, that these "protester" types are just inviting legislation that ruins it for the average hunter, who gets back from a hunt and carries their rifle into a donut shop rather than leaving it unattended in their pickup truck.
 
2014-08-04 09:35:41 AM  

zamboni: TuteTibiImperes: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

He wasn't cited for carrying the gun, he was cited for refusing to provide identification, which was a valid request as by his appearance it was not clear whether or not he was old enough to be legally carrying the weapon.

He has no grounds to stand on to sue.

You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

Scary


Yup, just like voting, actually.
 
2014-08-04 09:36:25 AM  

jso2897: I alone am best: lilbjorn: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

Drop what charges?  What do you imagine he is charged with?  Did you even read TFA?

I didnt read the article. What did they charge him with? My guess is obstruction because that is what they always charge people with right before they get sued and settle it out of court.

This kid has no lawyer and isn't suing anybody. He has nobody to sue, and nothing to sue them for.


He was cited for obstruction and he wasn't doing anything wrong including not showing ID. This is not new, it happens all the time and the state/city always loses, they settle out of court and the charges get thrown out. They assumed he was underage after stopping him for engaging in a lawful activity. They made a mistake.
 
2014-08-04 09:37:20 AM  

Headso: it doesn't apply to this situation but it applies to the suggestion that people should be charged with a crime when they are walking down the road with a gun, the post I was responding to. Gun laws should be the most local level. This situation appears to be a protest, nothing wrong with that either, protests aren't supposed to make everyone happ

y.

Nobody said he should be charged with a crime, that I saw. Most people said he was within his legal rights, but nonetheless, stupid, rude, ignorant, and clearly upsetting other people enough that they felt the police should be notified and involved.  I doubt in your scenario, in the rural town where everyone is hunting, anyone is calling the police on the hunter walking down the street, and if they did, they'd be laughed at.  So I actually agree with you on the laws being a local thing - which they are.

The part where you confused me is "this appears to be a protest." Of what, exactly?  Open carry is already legal in that state, and the only reason he was stopped was people who saw him felt concerned/threatened (whatever... I can't say specifically what they were feeling) enough to call the police. So what was he protesting? People's fears of guns? If so, as I suggested above, why not educate people - set up a table, show them gun safety, explain how to handle, store, clean, and properly carry a gun. Show what a responsible gun owner looks like rather than simply wandering around, carrying a gun with you. That would be productive, proactive, and would help people understand guns in and of themselves are not something to be terrified of at all times. In his situation, 1) there wasn't anything to protest; 2) His behavior was abnormal/attention drawing enough that people called the police; 3) He nonetheless wasn't charged with any crimes.  So I'm sort of lost there, specifically regarding the point or so-called protest.  He may not like that the police were called, , but the police do have to respond to all calls they receive and ask pertinent questions.
 
2014-08-04 09:38:33 AM  

FlashHarry: it's also legal to walk around dressed up as hitler.


iruntheinternet.com
 
2014-08-04 09:39:25 AM  

Ker_Thwap: but if I see someone carrying around a rifle/shotgun around town and it's not hunting season, I'd call the police as well.


Eh, I've seen people walking around this area (Northern Kentucky/Cincinnati) with WASR-10s (essentially AKMs - think the AK-47) slung over their back.  No magazine in the mag well, and with the bolt locked back.  They were browsing in a Barnes&Noble.  They weren't bothering anybody, minded their own business, and nobody bothered them.
 
2014-08-04 09:40:52 AM  
206 comments as of the time I wrote this and it always ends up the same. The gun rights guys say the liberals are wrong who say the gun rights guys are wrong. You know what? This is not a gun rights issue. This is a crazy 18y/o's issue with him wanting attention. This is not about the right to do, it is about the what you have the sense NOT to do. I don't care if he does have the right to carry a shotgun. I don't care if he is not breaking a law. Does that mean that he should be allowed to make people in his community uncomfortable because he has the right to? Sure you can all say that people should not be nervous because he is not doing anything. Have you ever been on a roller coaster? You are locked in, strapped in the speeds are regulated, and there are people that inspect them regularly for safety and damage. You know what? They still scare the SHIAT out of me when I get on one. You can call it an irrational, but could it not be just as irrational for an individual to knowingly terrorize a community just because he can. The whole get use to me carrying a gun argument sounds like the same argument I use to use when I wanted a chick to take it in the poop chute. And I think I am use to people carrying guns for my protection....they are called POLICE OFFICERS. I don't need a punk kid walking around talking about he is protecting me.
 
2014-08-04 09:41:15 AM  
Looks like the kid from 3 1/2 men.
 
2014-08-04 09:41:27 AM  
One more stupid point:  A shotgun is worth how much to a criminal?  Would such a criminal be inclined to relieve this teen of his weapon thus THUS putting another untraceable stolen weapon on the street.  Whether the teen is fatally ventilated during this transaction or merely damaged is consequential only to relatives, loved ones and the local heath care system.
 
2014-08-04 09:42:41 AM  
Has nobody else noted the resemblance

i.chzbgr.com
 
2014-08-04 09:44:21 AM  

I alone am best: including not showing ID


Here's the law on stop and identify in CO. But we all have our delusions. Far be it from me to take away yours.
 
2014-08-04 09:45:40 AM  

jshine: serial_crusher: Um, I hope it wasn't loaded during the filming of this.

/ Gun is always loaded...

If a gun is *always* loaded, how do you clean or transport them? ...because generally you shouldn't do those things with a loaded gun.


You just go ahead and assume they're all unloaded, precious. Just make sure not to point it at another, more intelligent, person. M'kay? Thanks
 
2014-08-04 09:46:27 AM  

I alone am best: jso2897: I alone am best: lilbjorn: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

Drop what charges?  What do you imagine he is charged with?  Did you even read TFA?

I didnt read the article. What did they charge him with? My guess is obstruction because that is what they always charge people with right before they get sued and settle it out of court.

This kid has no lawyer and isn't suing anybody. He has nobody to sue, and nothing to sue them for.

He was cited for obstruction and he wasn't doing anything wrong including not showing ID. This is not new, it happens all the time and the state/city always loses, they settle out of court and the charges get thrown out. They assumed he was underage after stopping him for engaging in a lawful activity. They made a mistake.


Settle what? He isn't suing anybody. They may choose to dismiss his charges, and probably should, since it would be a waste of taxpayer money to try this tard or jail him. But there isn't anything they need to "settle".
 
2014-08-04 09:46:33 AM  

vingamm:  And I think I am use to people carrying guns for my protection....they are called POLICE OFFICERS. I don't need a punk kid walking around talking about he is protecting me.


Given how many of them shoot I'm not all that certain they're around for my protection, or anyone else's even their own at times. Course my view of the best version of gun control is all guns in the area are in my control. It just doesn't scale well.
 
2014-08-04 09:47:20 AM  
I was raised around guns. I've owned guns. I have nothing against guns or responsible gun owners. I also think the only reason this kid is wandering around town with a shotgun is that he's an attention-whoring little shiatbag who bears watching. Normal people don't walk around town carrying shotguns. If he doesn't accidentally blow his own head off first because he obviously does not know how to properly handle a gun, he'll probably end up in jail.

It's not about being a liberal or a conservative. It's just about not being a farking idiot.
 
2014-08-04 09:48:52 AM  
Someone should paint the signers of the Constitution all holding weapons as they sign the Constitution.  Some rifles, some pistols stuck in their waists.  Maybe
Alexander Hamilton holding two pistols gangsta style.  That way, in fitty years, the 2nd Amendment people can point to the painting and say "See?  This is what they intended!"
 
2014-08-04 09:50:01 AM  

rzrwiresunrise: I alone am best: including not showing ID

Here's the law on stop and identify in CO. But we all have our delusions. Far be it from me to take away yours.


Shrug, the cop has to show that he reasonably suspects the kid committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime.
"Carrying a gun" ranks pretty close to "not being white" on the reasonable suspicion spectrum.
 
2014-08-04 09:50:03 AM  

rzrwiresunrise: I alone am best: including not showing ID

Here's the law on stop and identify in CO. But we all have our delusions. Far be it from me to take away yours.


For the lazy:

(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.

(2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.


I'd say that carrying a weapon out in the open is probable cause that shiat may go down so an ID and maybe a pat down are absolutely within the law.
 
2014-08-04 09:51:04 AM  

pla: Any "right" you can't actually act on - doesn't exist in the first place. We need more... Thousands more, Millions more, to start open carrying; not for protection but simply to make it normal again. You know what has changed between 1914 and 2014? in 1914, virtually everyone had seen and used a gun from an early age for both hunting and varmint-killing. In 2014, most people have only seen guns in movies, which adhere to Chekhov's rule: If you see a gun in the first act, it will get fired by the fourth act. Guns have gone from a tool to a prop for many (particularly urban, which I don't mean as a euphemism for "black") people; meanwhile, the other 50% of the country that lives outside the cities still uses them for hunting and varmint killing.


But this is completely not true.  If this kid were heading to the firing range or out hunting, no one would bat an eye, and THAT is the intent of the open carry long gun laws.  And open carrying long guns is not a right, it is allowable under the law.  Either way, it is certainly not a privilege that one cannot exercise.

Walking around with a long gun for no reason makes one look more like the psychos who shoot up schools, movie theaters and post offices or rob stores.

I live in Texas,the land of ubiquitous gun ownership and rabid republicans (if what I read on Fark is true).  You pretty much get a CCL with your voter ID card.  Yet, inexplicably, I never see folks walking down 6th Street with a rifle, and there is a reason for that. The reason is that responsible gun owners aren't out to scare people with their guns unless there is a reason to do so.  You don't pull your gun out unless you are going to use it (either for protection, or to go to the range, or to go hunting).  Doing so otherwise is a good way to get yourself killed by some other responsible citizen who has a CCL (pretty much everyone in the south if what I read on Fark is true) who is standing their ground.
 
2014-08-04 09:51:56 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

He wasn't cited for carrying the gun, he was cited for refusing to provide identification, which was a valid request as by his appearance it was not clear whether or not he was old enough to be legally carrying the weapon.

He has no grounds to stand on to sue.


I don't know if it's that black and white. I'm no expert on this, but the ruling seems to indicate that the police have to be investigating a suspected crime to request ID. In that case, do they have to inform you of what crime that is? Otherwise they have carte blanche to request identification from whoever they want to, since they are always investigating SOME crime.
 
2014-08-04 09:52:32 AM  

sweetmelissa31: Has nobody else noted the resemblance

[i.chzbgr.com image 401x271]


You forgot the kid that used to try and duplicate Darth Maul's fighting style before people drove him to depression and a higher paying job than I have right now.
 
2014-08-04 09:52:53 AM  

FightDirector: Ker_Thwap: but if I see someone carrying around a rifle/shotgun around town and it's not hunting season, I'd call the police as well.

Eh, I've seen people walking around this area (Northern Kentucky/Cincinnati) with WASR-10s (essentially AKMs - think the AK-47) slung over their back.  No magazine in the mag well, and with the bolt locked back.  They were browsing in a Barnes&Noble.  They weren't bothering anybody, minded their own business, and nobody bothered them.


Well, I suppose that comes down to there being an obviously missing magazine, and your ability to notice such detail.  Is the average grandmother going to notice that when she's shopping for her new copy of 50 Shades of Grey?
 
2014-08-04 09:52:57 AM  
Lohner then proceeds to argue with the officers, refusing to show them ID or hand over the shotgun insisting he hasn't committed a crime before being cited by the officer on a misdemeanor obstruction charge for refusing to show his identification

/This is not nazi germany, and you are under no obligation to show your "papers" without due cause. Meaning, the officer is investigating a crime, and suspects that you have committed it. I, and you, are under no law that says we have to produce ID upon demand for walking down the street. This "obstruction" charge is bullshiat, and will not hold up in court. Your panic at seeing a armed individual doesn't vitiate my right to defend myself. That being said, the kid is a farking tool for carrying a loaded shotgun down the street. You are not helping. Wear a farking pancake holster, and stop being a farking douche bag. We all know you have a small penis, and are making up for it with your boom stick. Carry a handgun under your shirt if you can carry concealed.
 
2014-08-04 09:52:59 AM  

rzrwiresunrise: I alone am best: including not showing ID

Here's the law on stop and identify in CO. But we all have our delusions. Far be it from me to take away yours.



It is not reasonable. They have no objective basis to assume he was under 18. They asked and he told them, then they wanted his ID to prove it.

 A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available,

None of which apply in this situation.
 
2014-08-04 09:53:47 AM  

serial_crusher: Shrug, the cop has to show that he reasonably suspects the kid committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime.
"Carrying a gun" ranks pretty close to "not being white" on the reasonable suspicion spectrum.


Fortunately, law enforcement can tell what his intentions are based on the color hat he's wearing. The kid was wearing a white hat, right?
 
2014-08-04 09:54:09 AM  
Gee a nerdy little fanboy trying to look tough.
 
2014-08-04 09:54:14 AM  

MFK: The fact of the matter is while these guys may be the "good guys" in their own heads, nobody else knows if they are a good guy or someone who's on his way to shoot up a mall. We shouldn't have to wait to find out the hard way.


This.  We should not be so comfortable (or just plain numb) seeing people carrying around their guns that we will miss the one person who really shouldn't have a gun in the first place, and by all rights should be locked away somewhere in a straight jacket.
 
2014-08-04 09:54:45 AM  

jso2897: I alone am best: jso2897: I alone am best: lilbjorn: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

Drop what charges?  What do you imagine he is charged with?  Did you even read TFA?

I didnt read the article. What did they charge him with? My guess is obstruction because that is what they always charge people with right before they get sued and settle it out of court.

This kid has no lawyer and isn't suing anybody. He has nobody to sue, and nothing to sue them for.

He was cited for obstruction and he wasn't doing anything wrong including not showing ID. This is not new, it happens all the time and the state/city always loses, they settle out of court and the charges get thrown out. They assumed he was underage after stopping him for engaging in a lawful activity. They made a mistake.

Settle what? He isn't suing anybody. They may choose to dismiss his charges, and probably should, since it would be a waste of taxpayer money to try this tard or jail him. But there isn't anything they need to "settle".


As soon as he gets a lawyer for the obstruction charge they would be remiss not to sue the city.
 
2014-08-04 09:55:42 AM  

I alone am best: jso2897: I alone am best: lilbjorn: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

Drop what charges?  What do you imagine he is charged with?  Did you even read TFA?

I didnt read the article. What did they charge him with? My guess is obstruction because that is what they always charge people with right before they get sued and settle it out of court.

This kid has no lawyer and isn't suing anybody. He has nobody to sue, and nothing to sue them for.

He was cited for obstruction and he wasn't doing anything wrong including not showing ID. This is not new, it happens all the time and the state/city always loses, they settle out of court and the charges get thrown out. They assumed he was underage after stopping him for engaging in a lawful activity. They made a mistake.


To detain someone, the police need reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or has been committed - and reasonable suspicion is a lower bar than probable cause. As you note, they believed that Babyface there was underage, so they detained him. At that point, they can ask for ID, and if the person refuses to provide it, then in many states, they have committed a crime.
Your post would be correct, if the guy was a retiree. But here, where he's 18 and looks 15, then, no - it's the same as if he were walking down the street pushing a keg of beer on a cart and they stopped him to check ID.
 
2014-08-04 09:55:54 AM  

Ker_Thwap: FightDirector: Ker_Thwap: but if I see someone carrying around a rifle/shotgun around town and it's not hunting season, I'd call the police as well.

Eh, I've seen people walking around this area (Northern Kentucky/Cincinnati) with WASR-10s (essentially AKMs - think the AK-47) slung over their back.  No magazine in the mag well, and with the bolt locked back.  They were browsing in a Barnes&Noble.  They weren't bothering anybody, minded their own business, and nobody bothered them.

Well, I suppose that comes down to there being an obviously missing magazine, and your ability to notice such detail.  Is the average grandmother going to notice that when she's shopping for her new copy of 50 Shades of Grey?


Given that nobody bothered them or called the cops, it seems that way.

/I'm of the opinion basic firearm safety should be a required course in schools, though.  Not "proficiency"; safety.  That would, naturally, include things like "being able to tell when an AK or AR's magazine is missing - it's not a tiny detail, after all.
 
2014-08-04 09:56:12 AM  
Monkeyhouse Zendo:
I'd say that carrying a weapon out in the open is probable cause that shiat may go down so an ID and maybe a pat down are absolutely within the law.

The law does not work that way.
 
2014-08-04 09:56:54 AM  

I alone am best: None of which apply in this situation.


I love this. Authoritarians will support "had bloodshot eyes" as probable cause for a search but carrying around firearms for no particular reason is kosher. I guess it really does matter whose ox is being gored.
 
2014-08-04 09:57:41 AM  

serpent_sky: The part where you confused me is "this appears to be a protest." Of what, exactly?  Open carry is already legal in that state, and the only reason he was stopped was people who saw him felt concerned/threatened (whatever... I can't say specifically what they were feeling) enough to call the police. So what was he protesting? People's fears of guns? If so, as I suggested above, why not educate people - set up a table, show them gun safety, explain how to handle, store, clean, and properly carry a gun. Show what a responsible gun owner looks like rather than simply wandering around, carrying a gun with you. That would be productive, proactive, and would help people understand guns in and of themselves are not something to be terrified of at all times. In his situation, 1) there wasn't anything to protest; 2) His behavior was abnormal/attention drawing enough that people called the police; 3) He nonetheless wasn't charged with any crimes.  So I'm sort of lost there, specifically regarding the point or so-called protest.  He may not like that the police were called, , but the police do have to respond to all calls they receive and ask pertinent questions.


He's protesting based on his perception of the world where the libs are going to take his guns away. Had he set up some table it wouldn't have made the news, your idea isn't provocative. He was charged with a crime, when the cop said "papers please" he said no and got charged with obstructing.
 
2014-08-04 09:57:42 AM  

vingamm: 206 comments as of the time I wrote this and it always ends up the same. The gun rights guys say the liberals are wrong who say the gun rights guys are wrong. You know what? This is not a gun rights issue. This is a crazy 18y/o's issue with him wanting attention. This is not about the right to do, it is about the what you have the sense NOT to do. I don't care if he does have the right to carry a shotgun. I don't care if he is not breaking a law. Does that mean that he should be allowed to make people in his community uncomfortable because he has the right to? Sure you can all say that people should not be nervous because he is not doing anything. Have you ever been on a roller coaster? You are locked in, strapped in the speeds are regulated, and there are people that inspect them regularly for safety and damage. You know what? They still scare the SHIAT out of me when I get on one. You can call it an irrational, but could it not be just as irrational for an individual to knowingly terrorize a community just because he can. The whole get use to me carrying a gun argument sounds like the same argument I use to use when I wanted a chick to take it in the poop chute. And I think I am use to people carrying guns for my protection....they are called POLICE OFFICERS. I don't need a punk kid walking around talking about he is protecting me.


(1) you are correct that this is not a guns right issue. It's a 4th amendment issue - can the cops harrass you because you're within the bounds of the law, yet doing someting that is legal? We already have procedures in place for those who are breaking the law, and they're meant to protect the a-holes as well. Remember that Miranda of Miranda rights fame was a rapist and an overall sleazebag.

(2) Your roller coaster is a good analogy for "knowingly terrorize". If you ride it every day, you will no longer be terrified. The open carry people, while misguided, are trying to overcome your terror through acclimation. Their overall intent is not to terrify, but to change culture.

(3) The idea of "anointed police officers protecting you" is the old busted. Some of the smarter ones are breaking ranks. Here you go:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/16/detroit-police-chief -s ays-armed-citizens-are-curbi/
 
2014-08-04 09:58:39 AM  

sweetmelissa31: Has nobody else noted the resemblance

[i.chzbgr.com image 401x271]


Yes. Grumble.
 
2014-08-04 09:58:47 AM  

I alone am best: rzrwiresunrise: I alone am best: including not showing ID

Here's the law on stop and identify in CO. But we all have our delusions. Far be it from me to take away yours.


It is not reasonable. They have no objective basis to assume he was under 18. They asked and he told them, then they wanted his ID to prove it.

 A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available,

None of which apply in this situation.




/Agreed. They asked,..he told them. Just because they wish him to prove it doesn't compel him to comply. He did it to make a point, and he did. He's an attention whoring dick.
 
2014-08-04 09:58:56 AM  

Theaetetus: I alone am best: jso2897: I alone am best: lilbjorn: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

Drop what charges?  What do you imagine he is charged with?  Did you even read TFA?

I didnt read the article. What did they charge him with? My guess is obstruction because that is what they always charge people with right before they get sued and settle it out of court.

This kid has no lawyer and isn't suing anybody. He has nobody to sue, and nothing to sue them for.

He was cited for obstruction and he wasn't doing anything wrong including not showing ID. This is not new, it happens all the time and the state/city always loses, they settle out of court and the charges get thrown out. They assumed he was underage after stopping him for engaging in a lawful activity. They made a mistake.

To detain someone, the police need reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or has been committed - and reasonable suspicion is a lower bar than probable cause. As you note, they believed that Babyface there was underage, so they detained him. At that point, they can ask for ID, and if the person refuses to provide it, then in many states, they have committed a crime.
Your post would be correct, if the guy was a retiree. But here, where he's 18 and looks 15, then, no - it's the same as if he were walking down the street pushing a keg of beer on a cart and they stopped him to check ID.


He looks over 18 to me. Lets see if he sues and what the judge thinks then.
 
2014-08-04 09:59:18 AM  

Headso: In rural areas during hunting season it's common for people to walk down the roads with rifles or shotguns or even stop into a store for coffee.


Hunters (at least those in my area) will give their neighbors a call and inform them that they will be hunting prey on multiple properties. This way no one is surprised when a few hunters move across their fields, yards, forest, etc...
And it isn't uncommon for neighbors to post notices telling hunters what time of the day to be on/off their property.
Eventually everyone knows who is walking the roads/properties to hunt.

So a random kid (or adult) walking the roads (or the connected properties) with a gun in hand is going to look out of place even among those used to seeing people carry rifles. (Heck I would wager that most hunters would see this kid as being out of place.) And even in the farming/hunting community, armed strangers are not well received.

//Cheers
 
2014-08-04 10:00:37 AM  
Gain inches to your penis with this one weird trick....

....walk around in public scaring people with a gun.
 
2014-08-04 10:00:50 AM  
Look at me! I'm an attention whore!

/second amendment doesn't keep you from being a raging asshole
 
2014-08-04 10:00:58 AM  

I alone am best: As soon as he gets a lawyer for the obstruction charge they would be remiss not to sue the city.


I'm sorry - I thought you were talking about something that had actually happened or was going to actually happen.
Of course, it's cool to fantasize any future that entertains you.
 
2014-08-04 10:01:15 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: rzrwiresunrise: I alone am best: including not showing ID

Here's the law on stop and identify in CO. But we all have our delusions. Far be it from me to take away yours.

For the lazy:

(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.

(2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.

I'd say that carrying a weapon out in the open is probable cause that shiat may go down so an ID and maybe a pat down are absolutely within the law.


You'd be wrong (in states where open carry is legal).
The difference here is that the kid looked underage, and carrying a weapon while appearing to be a kid creates reasonable suspicion that can warrant checking an ID. It's not enough to rise to the level of probable cause, though - he couldn't see the kid walking down the street and immediately arrest him.
 
2014-08-04 10:01:48 AM  
Farina added, "He may be within his rights and legal, within the law to carry this gun but if we're investigating it and he refuses to cooperate that may violate other municipal laws."


If he is within his rights and legal, then any municipal laws you have imagined or have on the books would violate his rights. Might want to look into that, or are you just covering your ass? Last time i heard, municipal "laws" don't trump state or federal laws. Nice try though.
 
Displayed 50 of 1161 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report