AZ:Man in Desert Arrested for not Surrendering Rifle to Deputies who Refused to show ID

Gun Watch ^ | 21 August, 2013 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Richard Malley helps patrol the sparsely populated Arizona desert to spot Illegal aliens.  He has been arrested for refusing to surrender his rifle to deputies who refused to show their ID.  The story says that Richard Malley is accused of aggravated assault for allegedly pointing his rifle at a deputy.   From  abc15.com:

GILA BEND, AZ - Authorities arrested an Arizona Minuteman for allegedly pointing a rifle at a deputy over the weekend.

According to court paperwork, 49-year-old Richard Malley and two other men who are part of the Minuteman militia were patrolling the desert just east of Gila Bend, along Interstate 8, Saturday night.

Two Maricopa County Sheriff's deputies were checking nearby mile posts often used for drug trafficking when they came across mile post 140, court papers said.

When the deputies pulled up to the area, they reportedly flashed their high beams and honked their horn.

Court papers say Malley thought a crime was occurring when the deputies showed up, so he felt the right to flash his rifle and a flashlight at one of the deputies.

The deputy verbally identified himself as law enforcement, but Malley continued to point his rifle and asked the deputy to show identification, court documents said.

Crucial details that seem to be glossed over in the story, are these:

Arizona has a "defensive display" law that allows citizens to show that they are armed if they are in fear of attack.

Numerous crimes have been facilitated by criminals wearing police uniforms and claiming to be police.

Nowhere in the story does it say that the deputies turned on their police lights or siren. Such a display would have helped to identify them. It is never mentioned whether or not the vehicle had any official markings.

Merely flashing high beams and honking does not indicate a police presence.

All of the above occurred in darkness, as shown by the use of vehicle lights and the flashlight, making positive identification even more difficult.

When the additional units arrived, Malley apparently cooperated fully, because there are no charges of resisting arrest or of obstruction of justice.

I find it less than credible that Malley actually pointed the rifle at a deputy.  Deputies are trained to react violently to such a direct threat.  More details will come out as the case unfolds.

 I hope that there is some video of the event.

 ©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch

[supercat]

In this context show a badge or something else to prove you’re real.

I would like to see legislation to clarify that anyone who might have reason to doubt the legitimacy of a government agent's actions has the right to question it; one of the duties of a government agent is to dispel any such reasonable doubts, and government agents should not bristle at being asked to do their duty.

[marktwain]

I agree. Reading the article, it appears that the deputies believed that a uniform should be all that was required.

[OneWingedShark]

At what point are citizens required to disarm simply because someone is wearing a uniform?

Cower Worm!

Read this informational brochure on the proper interaction with government agents:
Stop, Drop, and Cower
[Direct Link]

[Jet Jaguar]

Bump

[Mr Rogers]

“He then asked Malley to surrender his weapon, and Malley replied, “You aren’t taking my weapons.”

The deputy then said he would wait for additional units to arrive before taking anyone’s weapons.”

Sounds reasonable to me. Yes, cops do have the right to disarm you in order to control the scene while they investigate what is happening. Anyone who thinks otherwise is likely to end up in jail, with reason.

[Mr Rogers]

If a badge is not enough, then what is? Do they need your Momma to come out and vouch for them?

What do YOU consider sufficient ID?

[marktwain]

I would believe department credentials. When I was a peace officer for a while, the requirements for credentials were set in state law, and anyone could read them. For example, there had to be a state seal applied to the credentials that overlapped the photograph.

I did not see anywhere in the article that the deputies even showed a badge. Maybe they were wearing one, maybe not.

Very little information in the article.

I would like to know if they were in a civilian vehicle, a marked squad, or an unmarked official vehicle.

When you are many miles in the middle of nowhere, probably without cell phone coverage, at a known drug/people smuggling corridor, it pays to be cautious, for both sides.

[marktwain]

“Sounds reasonable to me.”

Yes, to me to. Apparently it sounded reasonable to Mr. Malley as well, as there is no indication that he did not cooperate when the backup arrived.

[marktwain]

So it turns out it was an unmarked car, the deputies were in camouflage, not regular uniforms, and did not display badges.

Not only that, but they were deliberately playacting as drug dealers.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3056922/posts

[Altariel]

Thanks for the update.

[Altariel]

It makes sense if you assume their objective is to condition the public to automatically *comply* with any and all orders, no matter how illogical or unconstitutional.