| Author | Post |
|---|
CJ
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | VT, AK |
| Posts: | 60 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14th, 2009 03:05 am |
|
http://www.azfamily.com/video/index.html?nvid=388316
I saw this on another board and figured I'd post it here. I was a bit surprised to see something like this happen in AZ.
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14th, 2009 03:25 am |
|
| A bit... odd... but not illegal. The disorderly is disturbing 'cause there was no intent. He wasn't doing anything but hiking... fantasy hiking... but that's all. The rifle could have been real... there's no law against it. Prob'ly some Kommiefornia noobs took faint.
|
r6-rider
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | Az |
| Posts: | 630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14th, 2009 04:08 am |
|
female hikers = california pussies (or at least wishing this was CA)
carrying an airsoft rifle = pussy. you wanna simulate carrying a ruck, pack 80+ pounds and carry a 12 pound AR
being charged with disorderly conduct = priceless. charges will probably be dropped and he'll be made fun of for a while but none the less i still give him props for trying.
either way if your trying to prepare for something you might as well make it as realistic as possible. pack a heavy ruck, dress ACUs, carry an unloaded (or loaded i guess) AR and start hiking.
airsoft and woodland camo? pretty gay but still give him an A for effort lol
|
JesseL
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Aug 14th, 2009 11:06 pm |
|
I suspect that the charge for disorderly conduct might have been less likely if the rifle had actually been real. There are no legal protections for the right to carry scary looking toys.
|
Kildars
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 16th, 2009 11:20 am |
|
I've never understood why east valley PD uniforms are dark blue/black.
|
HankT
State Researcher
|
Posted: Sun Aug 16th, 2009 01:21 pm |
|
JesseL wrote: I suspect that the charge for disorderly conduct might have been less likely if the rifle had actually been real. There are no legal protections for the right to carry scary looking toys.
That's an interesting speculation. If you're right it would mean that a person with a rifle is acknowledged more rights than a person with an airsoft toy.
I think the situation is unfortunate. The kid had a right to dress any way he wanted to and carry almost anything he wanted to.
The public had a right to report the "GI Joe with a rifle."
The cops had the reasonable latitude to check out the situation and detain the kid.
Nobody did anything wrong.
Yet, they all screwed up.
Funny, how that happens sometimes... 
|
KBCraig
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Northeast Texas |
| Posts: | 1539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 16th, 2009 09:20 pm |
|
| It would have been hilariously ironic if the SWAT team had shown up. Carrying rifles. While wearing camouflage.
|
insane.kangaroo
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat May 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | Homer, Alaska USA |
| Posts: | 861 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 17th, 2009 10:11 pm |
|
 You know, there needs to be an open carry meet with everyone open carrying a long gun or NFA weapon. Maybe go out for a group hike.
|
canadian
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 116 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 18th, 2009 07:18 am |
|
Kildars wrote: I've never understood why east valley PD uniforms are dark blue/black.
In 1988, two scientists from Cornell University published an academic paper entitled “The Dark Side of Self- and Social Perception: Black Uniforms and Aggression in Professional Sports” in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
I'll save you the long-winded analysis and skip right to the conclusions: The players wearing black uniforms were universally more agressive than those who did not.
Also, players and spectators alike found teams with black uniforms to be more manevolent and intimidating.
Read into that what you will.
Edit: You can read the entire paper here in .pdf format.Last edited on Tue Aug 18th, 2009 07:27 am by canadian
|
Kildars
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Aug 18th, 2009 08:17 am |
|
Interesting. I was thinking it's stupid because of the hot weather we get here in the valley.
|
KBCraig
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Northeast Texas |
| Posts: | 1539 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 18th, 2009 08:18 am |
|
canadian wrote: Kildars wrote: I've never understood why east valley PD uniforms are dark blue/black.
In 1988, two scientists from Cornell University published an academic paper entitled “The Dark Side of Self- and Social Perception: Black Uniforms and Aggression in Professional Sports” in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
I'll save you the long-winded analysis and skip right to the conclusions: The players wearing black uniforms were universally more agressive than those who did not.
Also, players and spectators alike found teams with black uniforms to be more manevolent and intimidating.
Read into that what you will.
I don't have to read into it: I know from anecdotal experience that it's true.
I live in a suburb of a medium-sized city. Until a few years ago, that city's police officers wore light blue shirts and medium blue trousers. Until this year, they drove white patrol cars with light blue police logos down the sides.
Now, they wear black uniforms, and all their new cars are black & white (predominantly black).
I admit that my political views have changed over the year, as well as my level of knowledge about police abuse. But still, every time I see one of their old white cruisers on the street, I smile a bit, thinking that it looks like someone to whom one could turn for help. And when I see one of their new black cruisers, my heart skips a beat.
The new police chief even said that he chose the new B&W scheme because it was more "intimidating".
Gee, thanks, chief.
|
insane.kangaroo
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat May 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | Homer, Alaska USA |
| Posts: | 861 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 18th, 2009 08:54 am |
|
I'd like to mention.
If you've like to keep updated to his case, Mr. Dan Hoemke is keeping everyone who asks updated on the issue. His email address is listed below.
dan [at] hoemkeassociates [dot] com
They are, "certainly not pleading guilty." Please be aware he can't inform anyone of his defense strategy, so don't ask. He does have a lawyer for his defense, so they should be ready to have a go with the DA.
|
cato
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1638 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 18th, 2009 07:49 pm |
|
| What is really sad is that even just an arrest, even with an acquittal, is likely to ruin his chances of becoming an Army Officer. Last edited on Tue Aug 18th, 2009 07:49 pm by cato
|
insane.kangaroo
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat May 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | Homer, Alaska USA |
| Posts: | 861 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 18th, 2009 07:54 pm |
|
Cato,
You speak like you know it all, but you don't. You don't know what CO may say or do to him in regards to his past history. Also, he can have his records expunged, but there is always the media history behind him.
Don't make assumptions.
|
o->i
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Aug 12th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 50 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 18th, 2009 08:55 pm |
|
time for an AR15/AKM open carry hike
|
me812
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 109 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 19th, 2009 06:57 pm |
|
I'm reserving judgment on this, until after the case is tried. It seems hard to believe that someone was arrested just for walking around in the desert with an airsoft rifle. I'm guessing that the kid did something stupid, like try to scare some people with it.
Last edited on Wed Aug 19th, 2009 06:57 pm by me812
|
JesseL
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 19th, 2009 08:22 pm |
|
An email received from Officer Clark by one of the members over on thehighroad.us:
The title of your email tells me that you have no idea what the facts of this arrest are. Hiking/PT with an airsoft rifle had very little to do with his arrest. Here's what I've sent to a few other folks concerned about this arrest. This young man was in a dedicated preserve area where these types of air guns are not legal to possess, and clearly posted as such. You can expect to be cited or arrested if you are so equipped in the McDowell Preserve area in Scottsdale. This was not an open hunting area or state land. Its a city park used by kids, families and recreational hikers. The rifle this young man was carrying/handling was altered to look real, so any reasonable person would assume it to be a genuine assault rifle. He (admittedly) was standing on a hill overlooking an elementary school within an hour of hundreds of school children showing up for their day of school. He had the rifle in his hands at the "low ready" position when he was perched above the grade school. Hikers were, quite literally, were fleeing from this person exhibiting this behavior. If you see this, you would to foolish to assume it was an ROTC student in training. This was a reasonable reaction by these hikers to seeing this on recreational use, municipal hiking trail where these types of guns/toys are prohibited. (And clearly marked as such). Unfortunately, there are enough incidents with real guns in the news that our citizens are compelled to call the police when they see this behavior. If you are basing your opinion on the TV news coverage, then you saw his actions AFTER the incident, when he was knowingly going to meet the police. Obviously, he was just hiking and carrying his rifle slung over his shoulder when the news helicopter showed up to beam his image to the television station. So please don't assume you have all the facts, unless you were there or have the police report on the incident. If you've already made up your mind that we are the "bad police", then there's nothing more to say. If you are interested in the facts, then you will see that our actions were completely justified. You can also call me if you wish to discuss our actions any further. http://www.thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=411948
The discussion on thehighroad mentions that the nearest school is over a mile away and the way the Scottsdale law on guns in the nature preserve is being enforced appears to be in violation of Arizona's preemption law.
|
o->i
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Aug 12th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 50 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 19th, 2009 08:32 pm |
|
sieg heil officer clark
"assault rifles" and their exploding bullet are deadly to kids and jumbo jets at 1 mile.
Last edited on Wed Aug 19th, 2009 08:33 pm by o->i
|
protector84
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 488 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20th, 2009 01:04 am |
|
Since I have a CCW permit, I can carry (OC or CC) in city and state parks even if they are posted "No Weapons." State preemption does allow parks to limit firearms to permit holders but they can't outright ban them. If Scottsdale PD doesn't like that, tough.
|
JesseL
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20th, 2009 06:01 pm |
|
Thank to azredhawk over at THR, it's been discovered that the posting at the McDowell Preserve is illegal per ARS 13-3108.
|
Current time is 01:01 am | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
