Here is a story that all the Pro and Anti Gun people can agree is stupid

[Monsterx]

You might think it is brandishing a weapon, but under the law it isn't. Brandish means to wave or threaten with. Tucked in a waistband is neither waving nor threatening with it.

And if you are on someone else's property while you are in a bucket/on a ladder then you are trespassing and they have the right to tell you to get off, even with a gun tucked in their waistband.

^^^This^^^

It doesn't say if he threatened them with the thought of the gun. It says they thought they saw a gun in his waistband.

Which, is allowed.

[habsheaven]

What is allowed and what a reasonable person views as a threat are two different things. Based on what we know from the story, it's reasonable to feel threatened if you viewed the tattoo as a real gun.

[Monsterx]

What is allowed and what a reasonable person views as a threat are two different things. Based on what we know from the story, it's reasonable to feel threatened if you viewed the tattoo as a real gun.

What Duane and I agree on is that he did nothing wrong.

Just because a trimmer felt threatened (which he wasn't), is the swat response necessary? Especially when the "gun" was tucked in his belt, which is not illegal?

[habsheaven]

I don't think he did anything wrong either. I just think it is reasonable for someone who thinks the person yelling at them with a gun in their waistband is a threat. The Swat response is based on the information they received. Since we don't know exactly what was told to the police we have to assume they acted appropriately.

Also, the landscaper was probably acting appropriately too. He was probably hired by the utility company that more than likely has a utility easement allowing them to be on the man's property to care for the power lines.

[Monsterx]

I don't think he did anything wrong either. I just think it is reasonable for someone who thinks the person yelling at them with a gun in their waistband is a threat. The Swat response is based on the information they received. Since we don't know exactly what was told to the police we have to assume they acted appropriately.

Also, the landscaper was probably acting appropriately too. He was probably hired by the utility company that more than likely has a utility easement allowing them to be on the man's property to care for the power lines.

You are correct about the utility hiring the company. I read that in another article.

The bold text is what I disagree with, though. We don't know what they were told, but we (as a society, not you and I) are seeing more and more overreaction by police, and more often.

[duane1969]

I don't think he did anything wrong either. I just think it is reasonable for someone who thinks the person yelling at them with a gun in their waistband is a threat. The Swat response is based on the information they received. Since we don't know exactly what was told to the police we have to assume they acted appropriately.

Also, the landscaper was probably acting appropriately too. He was probably hired by the utility company that more than likely has a utility easement allowing them to be on the man's property to care for the power lines.

A SWAT team responding to a guy who is on his property with a gun tucked in his belt is not an appropriate response, which was my point. A SWAT team should only be involved when there is an actual threat. The first people on the scene should be a uniformed officer(s) to assess the situation, not a tactically trained team with assault rifles.

This statement tells me it was an overreaction by the police.

“They weren’t 100% sure what he was saying,” Duff told the paper. “but he was yelling and they thought it could be some sort of a threat. They thought he was yelling something to the effect of doing harm, but when we got a hold of him, it ended up just being a tattoo.”

A SWAT team should not show up because someone yelled something and may have had a guy when they yelled it.

[centrehice]

If I am in a lift bucket/ladder trimming branches in the winter and a man comes out of his house bare chested, yelling, with what appears to be a gun tucked into his waistband from a hundred feet away, I might feel threatened and consider that "brandishing" a weapon. Do you have any concept of how a "reasonable person" acts?

You live in Canada. That would not happen anywhere, and not one moron in Canada has a tattoo like that in that very same place.


You know it

I know it

&

The Canadian People know it.

[habsheaven]

A SWAT team responding to a guy who is on his property with a gun tucked in his belt is not an appropriate response, which was my point. A SWAT team should only be involved when there is an actual threat. The first people on the scene should be a uniformed officer(s) to assess the situation, not a tactically trained team with assault rifles.

This statement tells me it was an overreaction by the police.




A SWAT team should not show up because someone yelled something and may have had a guy when they yelled it.

We had four RCMP officers go to home in Alberta a few years ago to investigate a complaint. All four were shot dead before they got to the door. Easy to assume it is an overreaction when it doesn't involve you and you know the end result.

[habsheaven]

You live in Canada. That would not happen anywhere, and not one moron in Canada has a tattoo like that in that very same place.


You know it

I know it

&

The Canadian People know it.

I personally know a guy that has " ... the cops" on his abdomen. You are kidding yourself if you think there are not similar tattoos on Canadians.

[Monsterx]

We had four RCMP officers go to home in Alberta a few years ago to investigate a complaint. All four were shot dead before they got to the door. Easy to assume it is an overreaction when it doesn't involve you and you know the end result.

By that reasoning, disturbance calls warrant swat response..?

I understand your point of over reacting rather than under reacting, but there's a fine line of abuse which is becoming less of a fine line and more the mainstream.