TexasCHLforum.com

Armybrat wrote:

srothstein wrote:

juno106 wrote:According to the court documents, the legality of open carry in the state was never in question, only if law enforcement had the authority to detain an individual simply because they were open carrying a firearm.

U.S. District Judge Janet Neff determined that yes, officers do have that authority.

I read this case as saying that the officers can stop someone who is openly carrying a weapon AND behaving in such a manner as to cause alarm. In this case, the officer stated extra reasons that made him think there was a potential problem, specifically talking to no one. While the man was just singing, walking around and talking to no one is generally regarded, rightly or wrongly, as a sign of mental illness. I believe that might be the trigger to give the officer grounds for a stop.

So Roy Rogers & Gene Autry were nutcases?

While I like both, I have quite a few relatives who think they were both nuts (especially about buying the Dodgers).

But, if they had not been in the movies at the time, do you honestly think they could have just broken out in a song like that and not been regarded as crazy?

juno106 wrote:According to the court documents, the legality of open carry in the state was never in question, only if law enforcement had the authority to detain an individual simply because they were open carrying a firearm.

U.S. District Judge Janet Neff determined that yes, officers do have that authority.

I read this case as saying that the officers can stop someone who is openly carrying a weapon AND behaving in such a manner as to cause alarm. In this case, the officer stated extra reasons that made him think there was a potential problem, specifically talking to no one. While the man was just singing, walking around and talking to no one is generally regarded, rightly or wrongly, as a sign of mental illness. I believe that might be the trigger to give the officer grounds for a stop.

I will say that I think, from the judge's order, that she made the right decision on summary judgement, even if for the wrong reasons. The officer was wrong, in my opinion, and did violate the Fourth Amendment. But, there was no evidence that this was due to lack of training or failure to supervise properly, and even some evidence of what I would call reasonable effort to train and supervise. Thus the city had no liability, even if the individual officer did. This is a case where the person should have sued just the individual officer but went for the deeper pockets of the department and it cost him. With the singing, the officer might have been able to beat it anyway, but the city surely had it won.