Benbrook PD Called for Gun Tshirt in Park

[mojo84]

The crazed woman probably would have called the police if the man was concealed carrying under a plain shirt that rode up where she could see his legally carried self defense handgun.
Crazy (translate: progressive socialist low IQ voter) doesn't care about anything but their agenda.

It wouldn't surprise me if a person like her called the cops just because he was a man in the park with little kids around when most of the other adults were women. Why in the world would a man want to play in a park with little kids and women around if he wasn't a perv?

/sarcasm/

As a parent, my alert condition increases anytime that I see a single man in a place where there are a lot of kids. That's just basic threat profiling. This would be much more of an alert situation if the setting was something like a Chuck-E-Cheese, though, because unlike a park, there are very few adult men who would want to go to Chuck-E's without kids. Same situation at the latest Cartoon movie, etc. It also depends on what exactly the guy was doing. Is he playing with his dog? Is he relaxing on a bench and enjoying the sun? Or is he walking up to kids and trying to engage them in conversation? But even in the most extreme situation, it would just be a heightened alert on my part. Not a case of calling the police or harassing the guy. Maybe a "hi, how are you" if he is talking to my kid, but still no harassment.

BTW, I would actually feel better if the guy was OC'ing, as I believe most perverts would try to blend in and not draw attention to themselves.

Apparently you aren't a person like her.

I sure hope not.

By the way, I wasn't disagreeing with you. Just adding some thoughts.

[mojo84]

Too many have become too easily offended. There is no right to not be offended. Offended is not the same as being threatened, harassed or assaulted.

[WTR]

The woman needs to be charged with something similar to SWATing. She could have placed that man in danger had it been the wrong type Police Department and Officer. Kudos to the Officer who handled the situation.

[SewTexas]

So, I am curious about this statement: “gun holstered to his chest,”.

State law (PC §46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS) says "(a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a
handgun or club; and
(2) is not:
(A) on the person’s own premises or premises under the person’s control; or
(B) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned
by the person or under the person’s control.
(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or
recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or
watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person’s control at any time
in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view, unless the person is licensed to carry a
handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and the
handgun is carried in a shoulder or belt holster; or

So, if the handgun was "holstered to his chest", was it being carried in a shoulder holster? Or was he using some other sort of holster like a "tanker holster", and the police considered that close enough? I know that's not the sticking point of this post, but it's the sort of thing I'm always curious about.

I'm going to assume that the gun was in either a shoulder or belt holster, as required by law, since the police did not issue him a citation, but I could be wrong. Note that the phrasing apparently came from the woman who called in the complaint. I don't think that she is either unbiased or particularly knowledgeable about firearms.

from the article "The woman told police she was not worried about the gun – which officers noted was located on Johnston’s hip, consistent with the information he provided to Blue Lives Matter."
I'm not sure what was "holstered to his chest" other than a t-shirt.

[BBYC]

How is this different than somebody calling the cops because a father is in the park with his children and:

The father is black and dressed hip-hop style?

The father is middle eastern and wearing a taqiyah?

The father is transgender and wearing a dress?

[twomillenium]

So, I am curious about this statement: “gun holstered to his chest,”.

State law (PC §46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS) says "(a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a
handgun or club; and
(2) is not:
(A) on the person’s own premises or premises under the person’s control; or
(B) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned
by the person or under the person’s control.
(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or
recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or
watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person’s control at any time
in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view, unless the person is licensed to carry a
handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and the
handgun is carried in a shoulder or belt holster; or

So, if the handgun was "holstered to his chest", was it being carried in a shoulder holster? Or was he using some other sort of holster like a "tanker holster", and the police considered that close enough? I know that's not the sticking point of this post, but it's the sort of thing I'm always curious about.

If the handgun was holstered to his chest and the holster was to a harness that wrapped around a part of his body and reattached to itself that would be defined as a belt. A belt does not have to be a waist belt until the state defines it as such. Not legal advice, but I go buy what is actually written and not presumed. Presumptions can go 1000 different directions.

[chasfm11]

It can be argued, at least partially accurately, that open carry is "in your face" just by it's existence. I'm not arguing against it, or for it for that matter, just pointing out that openly carrying a firearm is an "in your face" action, at least to those who are anti-gun. I don't play poker with my cards laying face up on the table. I don't open carry. Either of those options is fine for anyone else who chooses to exercise them. I'll stand with the hand I have.

I was in social media discussions with women who said exactly what you said - that open carry by its very existence is an affront to them. By the way, they were the same women who said that they would pull their kids out of our school system if they every found out that any of the school staff were armed. I asked the most vocal one how she handles the fact that nearly everywhere she goes, she could be standing next to someone (or perhaps a whole group) who is carrying concealed. Her response was "I don't even want to think about that."

I personally refuse to deal with people who are at that level of denial. There are far too many Texas residents who have been carrying firearms in public for too long with an outstanding reputation that is beyond reproach for me to allow "those people" to dictate what I can do as long as it is within the law. I had that exact conversation with our chief of police before OC implementation went into effect. He agreed that a right not exercised was a right lost. I invited the OC detractors to some public forums that the chief held but none of them went.

I haven't OCed myself much because I didn't a good enough retention holster. I do now. I don't plan on wearing one of my provocative t-shirts when I OC but I will do in more when the weather is hotter.

Lastly, based on recent social media conversations, wearing an NRA ball cap is a big time "trigger", perhaps more so than OC. I cannot wait to go to the convention to watch what happens.

[bblhd672]

Lastly, based on recent social media conversations, wearing an NRA ball cap is a big time "trigger", perhaps more so than OC. I cannot wait to go to the convention to watch what happens.

Where did I put that NRA cap????

[rtschl]

I think the point is that the "tolerant" left is anything but and the Antifa type supporters not only want to stop the 2A but also the 1A. Look at them trying to shutdown free speech on college campuses.

Below is an article from 2015 that gun control group advocating calls to police if you they see someone open carrying or even concealed if you have "any doubts" about their intent. That is what this lady in the park did. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/01/gu ... es-at.html

Three days ago a Danish tourist in NYC was attacked for wearing a MAGA hat: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/13/ny ... e-say.html

All of this to say that if you have a conservative and/or libertarian shirt/hat/bumper sticker you are going to trigger a snowflake. They do not believe in your right to the 2nd Amendment nor the 1st.

This lady was following the left's playbook to the tee.

[Interblog]

Johnston wearing that shirt is analogous to the young woman with the perky little bottom wearing the short skirt discussed in a thread gone by. In that other thread, most of this forum's commenters acknowledged that, if the woman wears the skirt, then she has to accept the consequences that it brings her. We have to conclude that the very same principle of responsibility applies for a male wearing a provocative piece of clothing as it does for a female, or else we run the risk of endorsing a blatant double standard.

In other words, I see Sailor's point on this one. Yes, Johnston had every right to do what he did. He had every right to bait that woman just as young women have every right to bait men by wiggling their short-skirted bottoms in front of them. But Johnston is engaging in a form of showboating. That, to me, does not embody the humility and the respectful presence that should be projected by gun owners. Johnston erodes the image of gun owners just as Ms. Short Skirt erodes the image of us women.

I completely disagree with your analogy and premise. If this guy was just standing around seeking attention and baiting people into an argument or confrontation, that would may be different. However, he was going about his business and was not openly enticing a conflict or confrontation. People need to learn to consider the motivation and agenda of a person or group of people. Someone going about their day to day business and not actively drawing attention to themselves is totally different than someone that is.

Johnston admitted to self-awareness of his own provocation. He was quoted in the news article as such.

Each one of us must claim a healthy degree of ownership in the reactions that we elicit from others. There's another active thread on here titled "Is Deviancy the New Norm?" That thread's OP states, "If you look, act, appear to be a clown of some sort, I'm not going to go along and pretend seeing you and your infantile behavior as normal. I will not ignore you. I'll laugh and afford you zero credibility as a fellow human being." That is an example of what I'm talking about. No doubt many "clowns" consider themselves to be "just going about their business". But they do play a role in how they are perceived. Like it or not, that effect of perception is simple human nature.

And a great deal rests in the eye of the beholder. Soccerdad rebutted the general disavowal of responsibility for this effect far more persuasively than I could have, and using much milder examples.

[LDB415]

It can be argued, at least partially accurately, that open carry is "in your face" just by it's existence. I'm not arguing against it, or for it for that matter, just pointing out that openly carrying a firearm is an "in your face" action, at least to those who are anti-gun. I don't play poker with my cards laying face up on the table. I don't open carry. Either of those options is fine for anyone else who chooses to exercise them. I'll stand with the hand I have.

You address two completely different things in such a short post.

My attention span is very limited so I try to cover things succinctly. And actually I don't play poker at all so I'm not sure what your example is. It just seemed like a good analogy at the time. Perhaps not.

[mojo84]

Johnston wearing that shirt is analogous to the young woman with the perky little bottom wearing the short skirt discussed in a thread gone by. In that other thread, most of this forum's commenters acknowledged that, if the woman wears the skirt, then she has to accept the consequences that it brings her. We have to conclude that the very same principle of responsibility applies for a male wearing a provocative piece of clothing as it does for a female, or else we run the risk of endorsing a blatant double standard.

In other words, I see Sailor's point on this one. Yes, Johnston had every right to do what he did. He had every right to bait that woman just as young women have every right to bait men by wiggling their short-skirted bottoms in front of them. But Johnston is engaging in a form of showboating. That, to me, does not embody the humility and the respectful presence that should be projected by gun owners. Johnston erodes the image of gun owners just as Ms. Short Skirt erodes the image of us women.

I completely disagree with your analogy and premise. If this guy was just standing around seeking attention and baiting people into an argument or confrontation, that would may be different. However, he was going about his business and was not openly enticing a conflict or confrontation. People need to learn to consider the motivation and agenda of a person or group of people. Someone going about their day to day business and not actively drawing attention to themselves is totally different than someone that is.

Johnston admitted to self-awareness of his own provocation. He was quoted in the news article as such.

Each one of us must claim a healthy degree of ownership in the reactions that we elicit from others. There's another active thread on here titled "Is Deviancy the New Norm?" That thread's OP states, "If you look, act, appear to be a clown of some sort, I'm not going to go along and pretend seeing you and your infantile behavior as normal. I will not ignore you. I'll laugh and afford you zero credibility as a fellow human being." That is an example of what I'm talking about. No doubt many "clowns" consider themselves to be "just going about their business". But they do play a role in how they are perceived. Like it or not, that effect of perception is simple human nature.

And a great deal rests in the eye of the beholder. Soccerdad rebutted the general disavowal of responsibility for this effect far more persuasively than I could have, and using much milder examples.

Did he say he intended to illicit a confrontation or call to the police? There is a difference in making a point and asking for a confrontation.

[MechAg94]

Johnston admitted to self-awareness of his own provocation. He was quoted in the news article as such.

Each one of us must claim a healthy degree of ownership in the reactions that we elicit from others. There's another active thread on here titled "Is Deviancy the New Norm?" That thread's OP states, "If you look, act, appear to be a clown of some sort, I'm not going to go along and pretend seeing you and your infantile behavior as normal. I will not ignore you. I'll laugh and afford you zero credibility as a fellow human being." That is an example of what I'm talking about. No doubt many "clowns" consider themselves to be "just going about their business". But they do play a role in how they are perceived. Like it or not, that effect of perception is simple human nature.

And a great deal rests in the eye of the beholder. Soccerdad rebutted the general disavowal of responsibility for this effect far more persuasively than I could have, and using much milder examples.

Being aware of people's reaction and intentionally provoking a reaction are two completely different things. You are making the assumption that he is a troublemaker going out of his way to bait anti-gun people. I don't think we can assume that solely from that one quoted sentence.

[Grundy1133]

Johnston admitted to self-awareness of his own provocation. He was quoted in the news article as such.

Each one of us must claim a healthy degree of ownership in the reactions that we elicit from others. There's another active thread on here titled "Is Deviancy the New Norm?" That thread's OP states, "If you look, act, appear to be a clown of some sort, I'm not going to go along and pretend seeing you and your infantile behavior as normal. I will not ignore you. I'll laugh and afford you zero credibility as a fellow human being." That is an example of what I'm talking about. No doubt many "clowns" consider themselves to be "just going about their business". But they do play a role in how they are perceived. Like it or not, that effect of perception is simple human nature.

And a great deal rests in the eye of the beholder. Soccerdad rebutted the general disavowal of responsibility for this effect far more persuasively than I could have, and using much milder examples.

Being aware of people's reaction and intentionally provoking a reaction are two completely different things. You are making the assumption that he is a troublemaker going out of his way to bait anti-gun people. I don't think we can assume that solely from that one quoted sentence.

It's not like he was wearing the shirt at an anti gun rally or something. he was just out with his kids enjoying the day wearing a shirt that he likes. The whole situation is stupid. that woman never should have called the cops imo... That'd be like calling the cops for someone wearing a gay pride shirt and claiming it is making "others uncomfortable" who cares. let people live their own lives the way they want. mind your own business... THIS is why I don't like people.

[G.A. Heath]

The male could have exercised better judgement wearing a shirt about controlling guns and kids to a kids park while visibly armed, but he broke no law from what I have read. The female in the story was trying to cause a panic from what I understand by 'warning' people about 'A man with a gun in the park' from what I read. She could have exercised better judgement as well, and depending on how she called the police and how she 'warned' people she may have actually committed a crime. Without more facts and/or details we really do not know very much about the incident.