My God, that is beautiful.
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 ...
I just double checked, and I'm on the right forum, are YOU?
Took him to county, and the local judge, who also happens to be a cousin, called county to tell them they had the wrong guy. Trooper wouldn't listen. Judge drove over, argued with them, had to wait until a picture came back, and then the guy looked similar enough, though heavier, that the trooper still wouldn't let him out.
They had to fingerprint him, call Austin, light a fire under their butt by telling them they had a potential lawsuit on their hands, get the actual perps fingerprints. Then they let him out. The trooper told him to stay close to home, because he was sending his prints to Austin to have them doublechecked in the morning.
Turned out they attached the warrant to the wrong record, and he didn't even get an apology.
Rights are lost when enough people allow it...or in your vernacular, sell out.
Are all the people in NH idiots or just the ones that disagree with you?
There should be a procedure for obtaining 911 records, this includes the audio and the print out of the number from the call. Here there is a procedure which must be followed, if there is a written request that portion of the tape is not destroyed after 30 days. It was put in place after it was kind of/sort of/oppsed found out the prosecutors were delaying some charges past the 30 days to let tapes be erased as a matter of SOP because there might have been useful defense material. (name of witnesses, informents)
If no such procedure exists they may have to go to court to get an order directing the material be preserved until further order of the court.
I read a post from him today, but I don't know what it was dated. He said his lawyer was trying to get the 911 records, but they were (as you said) most likely calling it an internal matter to delay long enough for the tapes to be destroyed.
Open carry is legal in ID.
Depending on the cop, yes. It some parts of the country that would be considered aggravated assault.
First I've heard of that. What states are doing away with open carry?
Sometimes you have to work for it...
Carrying concealed simply allows those with their head in the sand to continur to think that calling 911 is the answer to all their problems. It is a courtesy not an obligation. If we continue to treat it as our obligation, you can expect this kind of treatment every time you lean over and "print"!
If you are one of the business owners that has posted the "no guns allowed sign" the street interpitation of that sign is "ROB HERE"!
"It must be concealed" What is that statement "All that is not specifically premitted is hereby.........."
No permit needed for open carry in Vermont, which is what he was doing. However he also had a permit to carry concealed. He'd merely removed his jacket, allowing the gun to become visible.
And Jews needed to be discrete in 1930's Germany.
Didn't seem to do them any good.
Americans have been conditioned for decades to respond with fear when a gun is seen. We need to decondition the sheeple by apearing, where the law and circumstance allow, well dressed, well groomed....and visibly armed.
I DO strongly urge that when we choose to wear grubbies or cammies, for the time being, keep it covered. For now.
If we are not pressing the envelope a bit we will not make progress. But judgement should be used.
New Hampshire and Vermont are both open-carry states. NH requires a permit for concealed carry, but not for open carry.
It's the law. The cops SHOULD know that. Before laying hands on someone, they certainly SHOULD have checked, even if they were ignorant of such a widely applicable law.
In New Hampshire, that may not be legal. Anyone - no permit required - can carry openly. Anyone without a concealed-carry permit would be breaking the law by concealing their weapon. In either case, calling a law-abiding citizen a "moron" is way out of line. Do you believe in the "specialness" of police?
So your saying he should have used the gun to keep from being arrested or even just questioned ?
First of all, what I said was "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. Pellitier could well have had his own weapon used against him."
If you'll go back and read the original story:
I was idly leafing through an interesting book, minding my own business, when suddenly I found myself seized by the right shoulder and my holster, pushed towards the corner of the bookcase, by either Officer xxxxxxx or Officer xxxxxxx, I’m not absolutely certain which of them.
I'm saying it appears that Mr. Pelletier is lucky that he was grabbed from behind by a policeman who had his hand on the holster, rather than by a "bad guy" with his hand on the holster because if the person grabbing him by the holster had been of criminal intent, the gun could well have been used against Mr. Pelletier rather than in his defense.
I sure hope if you own a gun you learn how to properly use it !
Back at you.
Let me ask you, if a person is going to carry a gun so that it's readily available if needed for self-defense, but difficult for someone else to use offensively, do you think carrying it behind you at the small of your back is optimal, or are there other types of holster both easier for you to reach and harder for someone else to access?
My God, that is beautiful.
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.