TexasCHLforum.com

steveincowtown wrote:

Keith B wrote:

McKnife wrote:You assume that Skidmark had an "attitude," but I can't find any time during this incident where Skidmark would have lost his professionalism. In fact, reading throughout the Open Carry forum and other members' description of Skidmark, he's a pretty stand-up guy. In your interpretation, merely having a civil disagreement with any authority figure (No, you can't see my drivers license, or No, you may not search my vehicle, or No, I was not speeding) can be viewed as arguing and lead to an arrest if a firearm is in sight. Ridiculous. Brandishing is unconstitutionally vague if it allows for the latter.

Was Skidmark within his rights to open carry and refuse searches? Yes. Did he violate the law? No. This is obviously a malicious charge against a man who stood up for his rights.

Instead of viewing this as a reason to not open carry, lets use this time to educate others on how our rights are constantly under attack.

You are just going on 'friends' statements at Open Carry. If I knew the guy, I might back him up too if I felt he was wronged, but I don't know him or his friends. And I don't take the word of 'friends' or Internet acquaintances as gospel. Remember, a fellow gang member will tell you another member of their gang is a 'stand up guy'. And, as they say, there are three sides to every story: His side, the other side , and the truth. The truth lies in the middle somewhere.

As for his attitude, it was stated he was pointing fingers, and challenging the security person and supervisor. Physical finger pointing during a disagreement is generally interpreted as a threatening gesture by most people. Psychology will tell you that.

As for what he HAD to do, he HAD to submit to a search if he wanted to board the ferry. Their rules state you must consent to a search if requested. He HAD the option to refuse, turn around and leave. He didn't and went in to challenge the supervisor on the rules. And, apparently there was enough of an issue that they felt they had to call in the Sheriff's department to settle the issue. That would have happened if he had just been calmly discussing the rules with the supervisor. So, the guy was mad that he had to submit to a search or couldn't go on the ferry, argued with the attendant, supervisor and apparently the deputy about the rules. I call that an attitude. Was it bad enough to be arrested for it? Apprently, but that will come out in court.

Here is a picture of one of the signs and their FAQ's for a ferry in Virginia that is ran by the VDOT.



http://www.virginiadot.org/travel/ferry ... n-faqs.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't post alot, so I can't tell if Keith if is being "tongue in cheek" here. Just because someone post a sign does not make it consitutional, legal, moral, or even right. I do agree with the truth being someone in the middle. Not that I know the cop, or know Skidmark, but I lived 5 miles from that ferry for 15 years and OC'd over 7 of it without an incident in VA at anytime or anywhere. I suspect the truth lies in the middle as well.

I also think that there are people in life (LEO and non-LEO) that if you challenge their authority, they will do everything in their power to ruin your day.

Bob in Big D wrote:This sure sounds like it will end up as the LEO's and the rent-a-cop's word against Skidmark unless there were witnesses to the fingerpointing (Brandishing) incident. If that is how it comes down I think we all know how that will turn out.
The thing I would really question is why the Sheriff let him go. I have a problem with the Sheriff changing his mind later and issueing an arrest warrent. That smacks of colusion with the rent-a-cop.

Keith B wrote:

Bob in Big D wrote:This sure sounds like it will end up as the LEO's and the rent-a-cop's word against Skidmark unless there were witnesses to the fingerpointing (Brandishing) incident. If that is how it comes down I think we all know how that will turn out.
The thing I would really question is why the Sheriff let him go. I have a problem with the Sheriff changing his mind later and issueing an arrest warrent. That smacks of colusion with the rent-a-cop.

This is not an uncommon practice. A report is taken by the responding LEO . Then, the report goes to Prosecutor to see if he wants to charge the individual. At that point, if the Prosecutor decides to charge him with a crime he issues an arrest warrant and the LEO's will go back and place him under arrest.

C-dub wrote:This thread popped into my head this morning and I started to wonder something. If the security person was going to check your trunk, why would you not want to get out of the car to make sure he didn't plant something or more likely walk off with something? It seems Skidmark's whole problem was that the security person wanted him to exit the vehicle and Skidmark didn't think he had the authority to require him to exit the vehicle. I would be more upset if someone wanted to search my trunk and wouldn't let me exit the vehicle to observe the search.

Oldgringo wrote:seamusTX, talk to us.

seamusTX wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:seamusTX, talk to us.

You can carry any legally possessed weapon on the Galveston-Bolivar ferry, including long guns, concealed handguns, and ammunition. I have done so with no trouble.

The Galveston-Bolivar ferry is operated by the Texas Department of Transportation and subject to state law.

The security inspections are operated by a private contractor. They have called the police on people for violations such as attempting to bypass the inspection station, drunk driving, smoking pot, open containers of alcohol, and disorderly conduct.

If anyone wants my opinion, messing with security personnel post-9/11 is going to get you a ride. Deal with that fact unless you can afford to take a case to the Supreme Court.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:If anyone wants my opinion, messing with security personnel post-9/11 is going to get you a ride. Deal with that fact unless you can afford to take a case to the Supreme Court.

Bullwhip wrote:

seamusTX wrote:If anyone wants my opinion, messing with security personnel post-9/11 is going to get you a ride. Deal with that fact unless you can afford to take a case to the Supreme Court.

From reports on the Virginia forums, it was the security guard who took a ride. Right to the unemployment line.

If I'm legal and I know it, I'll take the ride. I won't be happy about it, but I'll be legal and safe.

Oldgringo wrote:

Bullwhip wrote:

seamusTX wrote:If anyone wants my opinion, messing with security personnel post-9/11 is going to get you a ride. Deal with that fact unless you can afford to take a case to the Supreme Court.

From reports on the Virginia forums, it was the security guard who took a ride. Right to the unemployment line.

If I'm legal and I know it, I'll take the ride. I won't be happy about it, but I'll be legal and safe.

I wonder who paid the legal bills?