Pilot Facing Felony Charges After Allegedly Waiving Gun

[gutshotdraw]

Man if no one could see what I typed was tongue in cheek....It's called pointing out absurdity.

Still just the M4 on my end.


crj567- Having a fluffball dog that is pee-pad trained in the house, you get pretty good at finding the clean end of poop. ..with appropriate hand protection of course.

I keep telling you Peanuckle, irony, sarcasm, and humor just don't come across on FI. At least to some people.

 

[FlyinGuy]

I love my M4 and because of our "Prez", I just might buy another.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

gutshotdraw: oh so true!

I love my M4 and because of our "Prez", I just might buy another.

What kind you got? That is the smoothest firing gun... besides the huge concussion if fired indoors (but that's only after the bullet has left the barrel accurately on its way to the target )

 

[Flyingtom145]

How many times does your cell phone ring while driving and you accidently pick up your gun and put it to your ear. That is probably what happened and the two tree huggers in the car behind him thought he was waiving the gun towards them. Any lawyer can easily put that notion in the jurys head.

 

[avbug]

How many times does your cell phone ring while driving and you accidently pick up your gun and put it to your ear.

Aaaah...never.

After many years of carrying privately and professionally, I've never, not once, not remotely ever come close to mistaking my sidearm for a cell phone, let alone put it to my ear. A badly drugged idiot might do that, or one who is suicidal, or a badly drugged suicidal idiot...but, no.

What makes you suggest the subject in this case brandished a firearm at all? Both reporting parties claimed that the girl thought she saw what might have looked like a firearm...but neither ever claimed to have seen him pointing, waving, or threatening a firearm. Neither of them could identify specifically what the girl saw. Just something that looked like a firearm. This, after they claimed the subject nearly hit them coming from a side street...but then complained about nearly rear-ending him...how did he nearly hit them coming from a side street when he was in front of them...and why did they follow him to a supermarket after they feared for their lives from what *might* have been a firearm.

You, however, go right ahead when threatened with the weakest of cases and come up with some insane defense like holding your handgun to your head because you thought it was a cell phone. Go right ahead. Advising others to do so...perhaps not in their best interest (it shows lack of control of the firearm, irresponsibility, carelessness, and is still a crime).

What kind you got? That is the smoothest firing gun...

You've never really fired an M4, have you? If so, perhaps you've just nothing to compare it to...but the AR pattern rifles are far from the smoothest carbines on the block.

 

[Lebowski]

Aaaah...never.

What makes you suggest the subject in this case brandished a firearm at all? Both reporting parties claimed that the girl thought she saw what might have looked like a firearm...but neither ever claimed to have seen him pointing, waving, or threatening a firearm.

Maybe you missed this part:

"Police found Inman was carrying a gun after he stopped at a grocery store in Edmond. He had a license to carry the weapon, but had no right to waive it in a threatening manner, police say."

If you thought someone waived gun at you or your family, and immediately after that incident police found that person was in fact carrying a gun, don't you think that would lend some credibility to your perspective that maybe this person did threaten you? Who cares if he's an FFDO? Does that mean he didn't do something stupid?

Innocent until proven guilty, but there's no point in rushing to this guy's defense, either.

 

[GogglesPisano]

How many times does your cell phone ring while driving and you accidently pick up your gun and put it to your ear. .

That's some good stuff, right there. :erm:

 

[avbug]

"Police found Inman was carrying a gun after he stopped at a grocery store in Edmond. He had a license to carry the weapon, but had no right to waive it in a threatening manner, police say."

I didn't miss that at all. Nowhere in that statement does it say or indicate that the subject was waiving the weapon in a threatening manner. The police didn't observe this, or even make an effort to state that the subject waived, brandished, or threatened with the weapon. Find it. It's not there.

The police made three statements in the above quote. Inman was carrying a weapon. He was legally carrying the weapon. He has no right to waive it in a threatening manner.

I have no right to waive a firearm in a threatening manner. A police offer may say the same thing about me. However, this does not mean that I actually waive or have waived the firearm in a threatening manner.

Throughout the articles presented, the only witnesses who present testimony are the boyfriend and the girlfriend. The boyfriend at no time indicates he saw anything. He states that his girlfriend thought she saw what looked like a firearm. The girlfriend states she thought she saw a firearm. Period. They're not sure they ever saw a firearm. Their statements conflict.

The police never state they saw the subject brandish a firearm. The police state that they found two firearms, both legally concealed; one in the subject's pocket, the other under the seat of his truck. The actions of the police are based on the statements made by the two young complaintants who his their faces and talked in such generalities as to throw considerable doubt upon their statements.

That firearms were found in the possession of Mr. Inman aren't relevant, nor do they serve as any kind of proof, with respect to the statements of the girl or her boyfriend. Neither were sure what they saw at all. Neither offered testinomy or proof beyond that they thought they saw something that looked like a firearm.

No, I didn't miss anything at all...but thanks for playing.

 

[Lebowski]

That firearms were found in the possession of Mr. Inman aren't relevant, nor do they serve as any kind of proof, with respect to the statements of the girl or her boyfriend. Neither were sure what they saw at all. Neither offered testinomy or proof beyond that they thought they saw something that looked like a firearm.

No, I didn't miss anything at all...but thanks for playing.

You don't think the fact that he had two loaded guns in his car is relevant after someone accused him of pointing a gun at them? If that's the case, you absolutely are missing something. That's called evidence. It doesn't mean he's guilty or innocent, but to say it's not relevant is absurd. If no handgun had been found, I don't think he'd be facing felony charges later this month.

But thank you for thanking me for playing.

 

[avbug]

No, it's not called evidence. The only thing a lawfully concealed firearm proves is that it's lawfully concealed. It's not evidence at all that he committed any misdemeanor or felony act with that weapon.

You upset me. I make an offensive gesture at you. You cry foul, go whining to the police that you *think* you saw a weapon. I'm searched. A firearm is found, as it usually will be. This is not evidence. It's coincidence.

You do not understand the difference. Your lack of understanding does not make it evidence, either. It simply makes you a couple of bricks short of a full load.

In neither of the articles has any statement been made that Inman was brandishing, displaying, threatening, or waving the weapon. A police officer correctly stated that doing so is illegal.

The complaintants stated that the girl *thought* she saw something that might have been a firearm. The boy said the girl saw it. Even they don't state that the subject was brandishing the firearm.

Somehow you see what neither the police, nor the whitnesses saw. You're psychic, or simply feel comfortable reading into the report what isn't there? Which is it?