Posted on 06/05/2004 8:48:52 PM PDT by natewill
A gunowners group is protesting the seizure of a legally armed citizen in a bookstore by two police officers who responded to an anonymous caller alarmed by the weapon.
Michael Pelletier was browsing a Manchester, N.H., Barnes & Noble with his wife March 27 when a police officer, assisted by a colleague, suddenly grabbed him by the right shoulder and his holster and pushed him toward the corner of a bookcase, says Gunowners of America.
The Manchester Police Department officers, Chris Byron and David DuPont, ordered Pelletier to place his hands on his head, which he did at once, the group said.
Pelletier was carrying a pistol openly at the small of his back, which became apparent after he took off his jacket.
The officers then disarmed Pelletier and escorted him out of the store. Background checks revealed no record, but officers and detectives issued a barrage of questions about why he carries a gun and what kind of training he had, the gun group said.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
You call this logic??? Displaying their weapons seems to work pretty well for the police in America. Frankly, if I were a bad guy in the mood for attacking a man, that last guy I'd pick on would be the one carrying a gun. Attackers always go for the most vulnerable ones, not the strongest ones or the armed ones. Even a beast who hunts to stay alive understands this concept. The guy got roughed up by the police and arrested, when all they should have done was ask him for his permit. No excuses, no song and dance, end of story.
Lots of cops carry small of the back. Why do hate police officers so much?
There are some good ones, and some bad ones, but you seem to hate all of them.
The bootlicking contingent here thinks it's okay for cops to carry anywhere, but if a peasant does so they are a "moron" or worse.
It will be interesting to see how our resident JBT-wannabe answers my last post.
Wrong. The only reason someone wasn't injured or killed was because the subject wasn't paying much attention and apparently hadn't taken any weapons retention training.
The police have NO RIGHT to lay their hands on you unless you have committed a crime, or they have probable cause that you have. I still haven't seen a single poster state what law the citizen was accused of breaking. It is not illegal to go to a bookstore in New Hampshire. Nor is it illegal to carry openly in New Hampshire.
The police recieved a complaint, investigated, found the complaint to be groundless and immediately released the suspect on the scene. It doesn't get anymore perfect than that.
Like I said, they got very lucky. Bad guys are starting to impersonate police officers more and more often nowadays, and it's very reasonable for a citizen to assume that when someone comes up and grabs them when they haven't committed a crime, that the person grabbing them isn't a cop.
The cops got lucky that this guy didn't have much formal training.
Police officers can come up and engage you in conversation, but you don't have to acknowledge them, and they sure as hell can't put their hands on you if you ignore them (unless of course, you have committed a crime).
I've never met a successful business owner who 1) spent so much time calling other people "morons" and the like, or 2) who spent so much time obsessing about all the kind of people he wanted to keep out of his business.
This is where you keep tripping up. The police have to determine if a crime has been committed. Sometimes that's affirmative and the suspect is arrested, and sometimes that's a negative and the suspect is released. The police have EVERY RIGHT to proceed agressively if the suspect is believed to be armed. That's just common effing sense.
What do you mean by "other than that.."? The 30.06 sign pretty much defines the whole scenerio. Carry in an establishment displaying the 30.06 sign in Texas and you risk heavy fines and imprisonment. There is no other than that.
Isn't it ironic that the bootlickers here would think that a private citizen must "have something to hide" if he didn't show ID within 20 seconds of a police encounter, yet it's perfectly okay for the police to withold relevant information from the public indefinately?
What is at stake here is whether or not cops can harass citizens under color of law, and violate their civil Rights.
I admire your stand in support of the Bill of Rights, and I hope you sue the city and all of those that violated your Rights into oblivion.
You look remarkably like Brent Spiner.
Actually, I looked over my right shoulder and there was a uniformed officer standing there to the right of the one who'd grabbed me. It's true I was absorbed in the book I was perusing and didn't notice them sneaking up behind me, though. Big mistake that I don't intend to repeat.
I wasn't "believed" to be armed - since I had neglected to tuck my shirt over my holster before taking off my jacket, I was known to be armed.
So, Melas, if I was a "suspect," what was I being "suspected" of? Where's the reasonable suspicion? Where's even the mere suspicion of illegal activity?
And there are strict guidelines for doing so, the first being the Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the police could jail someone indefinately, or enter your house and search it while "determining" if a crime has been committed.
Furthermore, what "crime" did they suspect him of committing? Open carry is NOT illegal in New Hampshire. The police cannot detain you for without just cause, which is what happened here.
Consider the following 3 scenarios. In each case, you are walking down the street, and in each case, someone calls 911:
1) The caller reports someone engaging in a burglarly (a crime), that matches your description. Cops show up, and the caller IDs you as the perp. Cops detain you. They can then arrest you or release you based on other findings (such as stolen property in your possession). This is legitimate.
2) The caller reports a theft, and a responding officer sees you walking down the street. It is my understanding that because he has reasonable suspicion that you've committed a crime, he can detain you for up to 20 minutes.
3) The caller reports a suspiscious person walking down the street. Since no law has been broken, an investigating officer CANNOT detain you or lay his hands on you, even if he "thinks" you are legally armed or even if he "thinks" you are going to commit a crime in the future. You are under no legal requirement to speak to the officer, and as such, can continue your walk down the street.
Scenario #3 is what happened in this case.
The police have EVERY RIGHT to proceed agressively if the suspect is believed to be armed.
You keep saying "suspect", but what was he "suspected" of doing? It is not illegal to openly carry in New Hampshire.
I believe you have encountered what I have heard another Freeper refer to as "impenatrable ignorance".
I guess I'm not seeing the horror here. If you had been arrested, or even handcuffed and removed from the premisis for questioning, I would understand your beef. Sounds like you were questioned and released within minutes. What's the problem?
Yeah, I don't understand all of these unwritten edicts that the boolickers here make up, that we are all supposed to know.
I guess that makes me "ignorant".
If he had his hands behind his head...how did he remove his jacket?
Thanks for your info! I shot an XD subcompact (9mm) the other day, and really liked how it handled.
I'm probably going to buy one, even though I'm starting to favor the .45 ACP cartrigde over everything else.
The XD subcompact would make a nice back-up-gun.
Of course, some folks on this thread would crap in their pants if they knew that many Americans don't carry a gun, but more than one gun ;)
"After reading the original story, what struck me was that if the person grabbing him had been a "bad guy" instead of a policeman, Mr. Pellitiercould well have had his own weapon used against him."
I believe he didn't fight back because he turned and saw it was the police. I doubt a bad guy would mess with an armed guy. Think about it.
Did someone actually say that to him. Good gravy.
Regardless, who had his hands on the gun, the owner or someone else?
Think about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.