Author Joel Rosenberg Arrested
- Thread starter Russ Pitts
- Start date
I'm from Minneapolis, Minnesota but I live mostly in Europe (currently Russia but I've been all over). I spent the nine years I lived in Minneapolis working for one of the local police departments (as a civilian security supervisor, I'm not entirely comfortable with the modern police's focus on law enforcement rather than safety and the move from "protect and serve" to "arrest and convict." Also, since I refused to cut my hair, I had little chance of getting hired as an officer). The MPD have a rep for being worse than LAPD, even among other departments, so this episode doesn't surprise me. As an earlier poster said, it's not because he broke the law (he didn't), he made MPD look bad and now they're going after him.PlasticTree said:
When it comes to guns, I am a supporter of a citizen's right to arm themselves in self-defense. There is no country in the world where it is the duty of the police to defend you and your family, they're there to respond to crime and to catch and prosecute the criminals once they've done something. I've never owned a gun myself but I think the right to ownership is a fundamental western value (not just American). In the history of western culture the distinction between a serf/slave and a citizen was the right to own weapons for both hunting and self-defense. For most of western history, even slaves were legally allowed to arm themselves (and were often given weapons by their owners) even though they had no guaranteed right to do so. Just because we live in safer, more civilized times doesn't mean we should accept legal restrictions which move us closer to feudalism and further from democracy.
All that said, I'm not a member of the NRA, however. I view the matter more as a historian than a politician. Originally the NRA was a solid organization but it seems like they've gone over the brink into irrationality in recent years even if they still do a lot of good on a local level. There are many good members who are not far-right extremists (Russ Pitts and Michael Moore are both NRA members).
In my experience following weapons-related news, most western countries have very similar per-capita weapons ownership (I've seen reports over the years from Gemany, the UK, Ireland, Sweden, Russia, Canada, the US, etc). The only difference is the ratio of legal vs. illegal. The US has relatively lax restrictions and high legal ownership. Germany has tight restrictions and high illegal ownership. The US doesn't actually have a significant problem with gun violence itself, our driving habits, eating habits, and medical practices are actually more dangerous than our guns. What we do have is a deeper social problem related to issues of wage disparity and a lack of social welfare infrastructure. Our politicians love debating guns and other "hot button" issues because it lets them ignore important issues like education, healthcare, and jobs.
(My internet connection is so slow today that I can barely use my RSS reader and even Google is timing out so I can't provide much in terms of links. So feel free to distrust everything I say and hit Google to read things for yourself.)
Well, I do agree with you on this. And as much as I don't like reading anything about those maniacs actually defending giving everyone and their mother a gun, I believe they are entitled to that opinion. What gave me the shudders in this article though, was the fact that it was so very one-sided. If I were present in that city hall that day, and the police were arresting someone who had entered the building with a concealed weapon, I would be glad they took it from him and pressed charges.Ensiferum said:
As for the author of the article here on escapist, its only stupid going around "bragging" about being a member of the NRA, or that this man is simply protecting his rights. He is not. He's actually just being a **** in my opinion. Listen to this:
He knows he can be in trouble for carrying it, but does it anyway. Then, when he gets arrested, he complains and confronts them, even though he knew they probably would do this. Afterwards, he claims its making him suffer some sort of emotionel distress (or some bullcrap like that). In my opinion, if I met the guy, I'd say something like: "Welcome to selfish-ville, population: you."
Many states maintain lists of "restricted areas" where carrying firearms is prohibited. Among them are commonly schools, court houses, mental institution and detainment facilities such as jails and prisons.PlasticTree said:
The rationale (which I'm inclined to disagree with in some cases) is that there are some places where there is already proficient security staff (thereby obviating the need for self defense) and there are people who are, by their nature, more at risk (because someone may want to shoot a judge, city council member, or a mentally ill person just plain shouldn't have access to a gun).
In the particular case of city hall, I'd imagine Minnesota simply wants to prevent small-scale assassination attempts. In the case of my home state, City Hall may be a restricted area simply because in many cities, it also serves as a court house and we have had a situation where someone shot at the judge and prosecutor at his own trials -- and even killed a bailiff (long time ago, though... and that guy had a hard time convincing a jury he didn't do it after that).
It's also worth noting that while many states do issue permits to carry weapons, such laws are not uniform throughout the US. Some states do not issue permits to carry while others make it incredibly difficult to obtain one.
Thanks for the explanation, guys. To be honest, I'd give someone a few years in jail if they actually shót a judge of whatever, not when they are simply carrying a gun in his presence.
Yeah, most legislation is just there to give politicians an excuse when they're confronted by the histrionics brigade. They write a law so they can say "Hey, I did my part to help prevent horrors like these from happening! Vote for me again and I can do my part even harder."PlasticTree said:
There's nothing hard about kicking a man when he's down. They had a month to study up--they know he doesn't have the money to defend himself. It doesn't matter if you're right or not--so long as you can't defend yourself in court, you won't win the case.Booze Zombie said:
The cops won this a long time ago.
I think your fellow community members have addressed your points better than I could, but I will address one misconception under which you seem to be operating.psrdirector said:
To wit: The Escapist is not public property, therefore your rights to express yourself using The Escapist Forum are not governed by the Constitution of the United States, rather, the Code of Conduct of The Escapist [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/codeofconduct].
What does this mean? It means that your right to express yourself is based on your agreement to the terms under which we operate this Forum as defined by us, and not your inalienable rights as a human being as defined by the authors of the US Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States of America, on the other hand (specifically the 1st Amendment, and the first article in what is commonly referred to as The Bill of Rights), grants American citizens the right to express themselves in whatever forum or media without fear of prosecution by Local, State or Federal law enforcement officers. In other words, the Government of the United States (or any of the various governments within the United States) does/do not have the legal right to punish an American citizen for speaking their mind except in a relatively few, straightforward instances such as speech that would be slanderous against or harmful to others.
Therefore, as an American citizen, one may not face legal prosecution for, say, disagreeing with the Editor-in-Chief of The Escapist in The Escapist Forum, or theoretically, for posting videos on YouTube ridiculing the Minneapolis Police Department, but The Escapist can reasonably and legally ban you if you violate our code of conduct, and YouTube could pull your videos if you violate theirs. Whether or not we would ever do such a thing (we wouldn't) is irrelevant.
As far as me "forcing [my] political views" on anyone, get over it. I have opinions. I will share them. Feel free to disagree with them. I think it's a testament to how sensitive this particular issue is in some circles that this relatively even-handed news article can generate such a virulent objection.
I'm sorry, did you even read the article? He wasn't arrested that day, he was arrested a month later after he posted an unflattering video on YouTube. He knows the person that wrote the law in question, and that person is quite certain he wasn't breaking it. He was arrested and is now trying to defend himself, there are no lawsuits involved.MrScandinavia said:
That basically fits nothing of what you said at all. Why did you even post if you didn't read the article?
This is not really the forum for that kind of thing, but suffice to say I was born and raised in Texas, a state with a long-standing tradition of independence and self-reliance instilled in its citizenry for historical reasons too broad to go into here. In Texas, owning a gun is about as unremarkable as owning a hat anywhere else. I was raised by a family of responsible gun owners, and I grew up to become one myself. It's basically that simple. Where I'm from, that is just the way things are.PlasticTree said:
As far as the NRA, just like any sufficiently large organization, it is comprised of members who fall all over the ideological map on a number of issues. The reasons I am a member, for example, may differ wildly from the reasons anyone else may be a member. I'm not ashamed, afraid or otherwise reluctant to declare my membership in the NRA, but I don't always agree with all of its policies or find common ground with all of its members. I do, however, believe that their work on behalf of upholding one of the fundamental rights granted to American citizens by the framers of the US Constitution is worth supporting.
The founding fathers believed this issue was so important that it came second in their minds only to our rights as free humans to speak ours. That, to me, means something, and I'm happy to contribute my money and time to help those who agree. I understand that a lot of people don't like guns and would prefer to never see them or hear about them. I understand that. I believe it is their right to decide for themselves whether or not they will exercise their own rights, but it is not their right infringe upon mine.
It's incident like this that continually remind me why police officers in general are not to be trusted any further than any other human being, which is to say not even as far as I can throw them.
If it were not necro-ing I'd post a link to this on a recent topic basically asking "why do so few excapist users respect and trust the authoritah of the police?", this here is a prime bloody example. Bending and re-interpreting the law to suit their own ends, this is not an isolated incident nor its limited to one locale, its regular and its everywhere.
Im a scot but for everyone who says 'hell mend him, I'd never carry a weapon he deserves jail' that is your choice but who are you to remove rights from others without due cause?
If it were not necro-ing I'd post a link to this on a recent topic basically asking "why do so few excapist users respect and trust the authoritah of the police?", this here is a prime bloody example. Bending and re-interpreting the law to suit their own ends, this is not an isolated incident nor its limited to one locale, its regular and its everywhere.
Im a scot but for everyone who says 'hell mend him, I'd never carry a weapon he deserves jail' that is your choice but who are you to remove rights from others without due cause?
Fair enough, thanks for your response. For pretty much anyone I know (= Dutch people) a right to carry firearms sounds very..surrealistic, so I always wonder how it is possible that so many people across the ocean have such a drastically different opinion about it. Culture is a strange thing.Russ Pitts said:
Agreed. This reminds me of what a glorious and wonderful world it is in which we live that so many people with so many seemingly opposite points of view can nevertheless find common ground and become friends. Culture is indeed a strange thing, but tolerance is a magical and wonderful thing.PlasticTree said:
Just gonna answer this quickly... Yes I read the article, and I know that he wasn't arrested the same day. But he was arrested because of the incident of carrying the firearm in the given situation, not because he made a video. I didn't mention any time he was arrested, simply that it was the triggering incident.ZephrC said:
Second, how could the officer know that the guy he arrested, once again for bringing a firearm to a place where normal commonsense dictatets that you shouldn't, knew some guy who had written that specific law? Try using that as an excuse the next time you get pulled over for anything.
And as for the whole suing thing; you really think that somewhere along the line here, that is in the future, you really don't see this guy suing someone for the trouble of being arrested if he's cleaned of the charges he's facing? This is America we're talking about. Less strange things have happened.
Amen. And I'm not even that religious. Some of us dig the editors opinions Russ, keep em comin!Russ Pitts said:
Then you don't realize he did nothing which he could be sued for (let alone jailed).sibrenfetter said:
To the contrary, he correctly cited the law which allows his possession of a firearm in a public building. The officer was reliant not on knowledge of the law, but of a posted notice which itself was in violation of the law.
If Rosenberg wins his court case, it's likely he's going to be the one doing the suing in civil action afterwards. That's easy money.
Police shouldn't be arresting people for doing things that aren't illegal. It doesn't matter whether you think it's common sense. It doesn't even matter if it is common sense. Common sense is often wrong, and anyway, the police should know the law before they try to enforce it.MrScandinavia said:
How would you feel if you ended up losing your job in this economy for doing something perfectly legal? And then complying with an officer that was trying to enforce a non-existent law? Do you really want to live in a country where the police can destroy your life over whatever made up crap they feel like enforcing that particular minute?
Don't get me wrong, most police officers are decent people doing a dangerous job with very little appreciation, but bullshit like this only makes their job harder and them even less appreciated. Idiocy like this needs to be stopped for the benefit of law enforcement. If you don't like the way the law works you get it changed. You don't let dickheads make up their own rules and give the police a bad name. And since they didn't arrest him until a month later, it wasn't the officer that asked him not to bring his gun in that was even the problem, really. He was just trying to do his job while misinformed. It's the petty idiot that waited a month and then had him arrested as soon as he made them look bad that deserves to be fired over this shit.
