Man Arrested for Open Carrying an Empty Shotgun on His Property
 

This is getting out of hand.

http://gunsnfreedom.com/homeowner-is...a-tresspasser/

How is this not a joke? Who on earth are they hiring as police officers and who is educating them? What on earth is going on here?

BTW, I too wish for a better world where the motives of poultry are not questioned.

Disturbing, yet not at all unbelievable

A good plan an a good lawyer and this guy should be able to retire .

While I don't agree with it....Since he is charged with "felonious assault" it will all depend on what the tresspasser says. If he claims that the shotgun was pointed at him, loaded or not, then they were right.

WWW

Um, no, you have the right to make a citizen's arrest of someone trespassing on your property. I don't see how pointing a weapon at a trespasser whom you have no idea whether or not they have ill intent or are armed themselves can be considered out of line. Let me point out that the dirt bikers who break through _my_ land are running Meth and so I consider them dangerous.

As I said in the other post about this.. the moral of the story is do not let trespassers leave your property, and don't ever call the cops... Seems simple enough...

There has got to be more to this story than the article reveals. It says the Department of Natural Resources was called about the trespasser. Huh?? Unless you caught them in the act of poaching, which isn't mentioned in the story, why would DNR care about a trespasser on private land??

And why would you bring a trespasser back to your HOUSE? I would just tell them to get out and stay out, and with a shotgun and bow in plain sight, I bet they would kick up dust getting out of there.

I can understand the cops securing the guy when they first got there, until they sort out who is who and what is going on. For him to be arrested, though, the trespasser must have told them he was threatened with the shotgun. If he lied about that, it isn't the cops fault. They just make the arrest and it gets sorted out in court.

Not quite that simple . . . There seems to be a reluctance in
 

+ + + + + + + + ;)
how to use a shovel and trying to express to them

that digging the hole deep enough, is the most important aspect of the work.

It's that Gen X mentality; pure laziness that prevents them from doing a good job ---

That & all the constant begging and pleading, instead of ACTUAL digging . . .

I could have maybe considered both sides... Until I saw the cop trying to take away the right for that lady to film on her own personal property...

That took all credibility outta the whole thing for me... Seems what I pretty much saw after that was a boot on everyone's neck.. except the trespassers..

Nothing to see here... every thing's moving along as planned... you do the same comrade... move along..

I tell people all the time NEVER ask a cop about legal matters. For the most part they know very little about the laws they are supposed to enforce. Their training usually is when in doubt arrest everyone and let the lawyers sort it out.

I didn't read the story but usually the best thing to do is follow the nice officer's directions (he has a gun and more importantly a radio to call more people with more guns). After the dust has settled you stand a good chance of a fairly good pay day.

Welcome to the Obamanation. Tyranny trickles down hill.

Was the guy with the shotgun related to Barney Fife?

Sheriff's deputies=jack booted thug wannabe.

Melt their badges down to scrap metal, and put them in prison for a very long time. Then sue their department/county for several Millions of dollars so that they will feel the sting of their idiocy.:coffee:

If you sue the sheriff and win, the taxpayers will pay the bill. An idiot cousin was sheriff and did something stupid (I don't recall what), was sued, lost, and mom's taxes went up $40.

Because they where hunting and the rider was interfering with them lawfully hunting, which is the DNRs jurisdiction.

I would of called the State boys out.

Looks like the usual conundrum.

The cops show up, someone won't cooperate, they get nervous, then they have to get rough and someone, wants to video record the incident, most likely for a law suite later.

And then we wonder why we don't get the cream of the crop, for law enforcement officers. :rolleyes:

Naturally, everything that happened prior to the handcuffing, is not on video.

michigan is a castle act state and you can shoot a trespasser if you can prove your life was in danger(outside)inside it's even a less gray area.
what I don't get is why you would confront a trespasser with an empty shotgun,I could see that ending badly if the trespasser was armed,if I am going to confront someone on my land I am either going to have my loaded handcannon or my hip howitzer :hobbyhors

why am I not surprised you take the gov't's side in this issue?

Why didn't the man just set the shotgun down when the cops showed up? The cops reacted the way they're trained, see someone with a firearm, treat them as armed and dangerous. The whole thing could have been avoided had the man used common sense and laid the gun aside when the cops arrived.

I didn't take anybody's side, just merely commenting on the situation.

Just like you, I don't have the slighted clue, what really happened. I too am just digesting the partial, one sided story, that was fed to me.

When LE shows up and one party, has another party detained at gun point, it's usually a good idea (and probably LE procedure) to disarm and handcuff, both, until it can be determined, that the good guy is indeed, the one, who was holding the gun. It's not always this way.

I don't know if the property owner, instead of cooperating for sake of safety, started yapping about gun and property rights, turning a routing trespassing complaint, into a felony - against him.

Just my guess. Most Cops don't want trouble and these two, looked like they were terrified of any trouble.

It would be nice to have the full story - both sides.

I don't like that the homeowner was cuffed, but I understand the cops have to figure out what is going on and who is who. I have a big problem with cops who object to citizens "yapping about gun and property rights". WOW! I can't believe you said that.

I have a big problem with cops forcing people to destroy evidence. If that isn't a crime, it should be. Even if the cops did everything else right, when they did that, it makes them look like they are trying to hide something. Cops love cameras when they control the video but seem to hate them when citizens control it. Doesn't that scare you just a tiny bit?

I made the statement, because I see many instances where people make it about themselves, verses looking at the bigger picture. I'm for both gun and property rights, but I also like to keep things in perspective, when necessary.

Not sure if having someone detained at gunpoint, even falls under the open carry laws, by area and is not defined in the Constitution.

The cops had no basis to take the video away, but it's really not surprising any more. They are getting sick of the people, they were sworn to protect and often just want a paycheck, hopefully making it to retirement alive. They now look bad (maybe rightly so) and will probably get fired and/or sued (along with the County).

We are getting sick of them too. That's one reason LE is getting hard up for recruits - nationwide.

I think that's a little backwards: Your immediate safety is a smaller issue than constitutional rights as a whole. Yapping about property rights, on one's own property when no one is in immediate danger and the property owner called the authorities on a property rights related issue (trespassing) would seem reasonable to me.

When law enforcement doesn't know law and actively breaks them it is the citizenry at large who has a responsibility to speak out about it and make changes. They, like politicians, operate under a mandate from the people to perform the duties they do-- the people are not beholden to them.

Maybe this is all just the consequences of passing off our responsibility to secure our own lands and communities to a third party.

Take judicial notice of the trends and conduct yourselves accordingly.

Don't want the situation turned back upon you ?

Don't call in another man to defuse it for you in the first place.

A simple, "hey, Buddy......you're trespassing. The property line is *gesturing appropriately* right over there"..... all the while with gun in hand, and then when the trespasser leaves, call it a day.

Dragging the situation to a further end will now (given the trends of the day) involve you losing control, and perhaps liberty, as has been aptly demonstrated, above.

You don't like others being in control of your food, weapons, heat source, livelihood....etc..... why beg control over your protection ?

It doesn't take very long, for a bullet to come out of the muzzle of a gun. That would seemed to be the highest priority, in the situation, IMO.

Were they just supposed to take his word - the guy holding the gun, that he was the "good guy"?

Sound's like a great way to chance, testing out a a bullet proof vest, provided, that's where the shot was placed.

Until anyone tried to escalate the situation and until property ownership was established--- yeah, I'd say if you don't like it get out of the field you are too twitchy.

It's their _job_ if I require a plumber I call one. If I need someone to be arrested for _breaking the law_ I should be able to call a cop without ending up on my belly, in cuffs. Those of you who think trespassing is so simply handled obviously don't have drug runners using your land as a shortcut or have to deal with repeat offenders who simply think they will try again because they have a right to run through your land and tear it up with their stupid dirt bikes and atvs.

If I can't trust a person do be competent at their job I should be able to fire them. If there is no way that 'the man' can be trusted then he needs to be put out of business not simply, not called in to do what is his job.

ETA: it's not begging for protection when you already have custody of the person. It's called handing them over to those who are supposed to enforce the laws that were broken. I suppose if I ever have custody of a prisoner at large or a person whose just committed a crime somewhere above trespassing in it's level of severity I should just handle it myself or else I am begging for protection.

For the people that think the whole story was not given, the first Officer plainly if erroneously stated why the man was being arrested.
"Because he had a hand gun no excuse me a rifle" before being corrected by the man that it was a shot gun.
I don't think to go around recording things, let alone record the choice bits....
IMO the recording started with the action which was perpetrated by these officers.
hey if they had nothing to hide why would the care if they where recorded?

Tresspassing is a misdemeaner. In many states you can make a citizens arrest for a misdemeaner but you can not forceably restrain them in making that arrest. Pointing a weapon at them would be considered forcable restraining them. If the tresspasser is a minor you could also be charged with kidnapping.

WWW

Let's disentangle those two sentences. You are allowed to make a citizen's arrest and separately you can point a weapon at someone while assessing what kind of potential threat they offer. Since the weapon was unloaded and in the crook of his arm when the officers arrived I doubt he was actively pointing the weapon at the criminal and using it forcibly against them. Reasonable force can be used to apprehend someone you are arresting with a citizen's arrest.. if they run you are allowed to take them down.,.. you are not allowed to lock them anywhere or restrain them physically with handcuffs or rope or zipties and you are not allowed to transport them.

Any way... how does any of that end up with the guy who called the authorities to do their job being the one in cuffs?

South Carolina does not recognize citizen arrest at all. Any attempt to make one could land you in jail.

In Wyoming at least you better not point a gun at anyone before making the threat assessment. That is assult with a deadly weapon.

WWW

What was the threat, being attacked with a dirt bike?

If you look at the video again, the trespasser. - (or was that the landowner?) was also in handcuffs. ( unless he likes to relax with his hands behind his back)

That's good that you are trusting, so that if a man with a gun in one hand and a round in the other, tells you he's the good guy, you will automatically believe him.

I am the cop, I was called by the man with a gun, to _his_ property... yeah, I think I'll be ready but I'm not going to cuff him and demand the footage be deleted.

I would not take up long term residence in a state that did not recognize citizen's arrest. Even California recognizes it.

As to keeping it in perspective, people are allowed to be jerks, express themselves inappropriately. Not until they are interfering with the cops legitimately doing their jobs is it a crime. Many cops, as captured many times on video, think the public yelling about rights, filming cops doing their jobs, or not obeying every desire of the cop, is an illegal offense.

It is very surprising the cops took away the video in light of the SCOTUS decision that filming cops is a 1A right. http://www.infowars.com/supreme-cour...n-in-illinois/ I expect that cops protect my rights, not usurp my rights. Any gov't official found guilty of violating rights should be fired. A gov't job and pension is not a right, it is a privilege which should be denied criminals.

As to there being a nationwide shortage of recruits, all I know is that my bud's son just went thru the police academy and he claimed it was at class size limits, with many fat, lazy, losers. The kid graduated with honors. He got an offer from a local dept, but most local agencies say they are at full staffing.

I have been disarmed by cops, understandably and temporarily while they assessed my reaction to certain unpleasantries they were about to reveal about a lad who had my property in his custody, unlawfully.

All understandable, but, had they cuffed me, I would have been more than a bit upset and gone looking for blood after the fact.

Unless a citizen is so imposing that they think he can whip the both of them, and/or unless he has shown some inclination to do so, cuffing an innocent citizen is an act of cowardice. A cop who cuffs anybody he runs across just because he can is in danger as long as he is a cop, and increases the danger for other cops.

Just one open-minded dude getting unjustly cuffed by the cops and maybe pushed around a little extra because he can't do anything about it is enough to make him a danger to the next cop he meets, right or wrong...Joe