PHX doctor arrested for pointing rifle at KPHX terminal

The problem here is that things like this are all about perception. Someone only has to "feel" threatened to report someone like the Dr. I wasn't there, I don't know to what degree the weapon was manipulated and to what degree those manipulations caused the other persons to feel threatened.

What I do know is that the Dr, by his own actions of needlessly bringing a rifle to the airport, opened himself up to problems that were completely unnecessary and had zero bearing on anything productive, bringing unneeded attention to himself as well as his employer. And for what?
Apparently security video footage shows that the accusations made against him don't exactly match what really happened.
 
Apparently security video footage shows that the accusations made against him don't exactly match what really happened.

I'm not going to believe that until its from a source that isn't titled www.fapfapfapgunzmerica.com.

This isn't just because I think its a dumb idea to be walking through a terminal with a gun, but for the same reason I, as an animal lover, don't believe a damn word that PETA says.
 
Apparently security video footage shows that the accusations made against him don't exactly match what really happened.

If that's the case, then he would be very lucky that those security cameras were there. Still, it begs the question of "what was the purpose for doing what he was doing; why did he think it was a good idea?" His reasoning was given to the police, and while that's fine and legal..."because I can"....as I said, to me it just opens up the potential for problems that one really doesn't need. Time wasted that one doesn't need, and negative press that one doesn't need and one's employer sure wouldn't want. Again, for what? A latte he could've gotten at 100 other Starbucks locations around town?

Legal? Yes. Poor as hell judgment? Yes.
 
I'm not going to believe that until its from a source that isn't titled www.fapfapfapgunzmerica.com.

This isn't just because I think its a dumb idea to be walking through a terminal with a gun, but for the same reason I, as an animal lover, don't believe a damn word that PETA says.
You could, you know, read the sources quoted in the link I provided. Or not. No biggie.

If that's the case, then he would be very lucky that those security cameras were there. Still, it begs the question of "what was the purpose for doing what he was doing; why did he think it was a good idea?" His reasoning was given to the police, and while that's fine and legal..."because I can"....as I said, to me it just opens up the potential for problems that one really doesn't need. Time wasted that one doesn't need, and negative press that one doesn't need and one's employer sure wouldn't want. Again, for what? A latte he could've gotten at 100 other Starbucks locations around town?

Legal? Yes. Poor as hell judgment? Yes.

I'm not personally interested in the debate about whether or not his actions were in good taste or not, but more so about the lack of concern that someone was allegedly falsely arrested for lawfully exercising a civil right. I'm a strong supporter of gun-rights and I live in Phoenix. What he did is not something I would personally do. If the scenario was slightly different, i.e. arrested while lawfully exercising any other civil right, I can't imagine that the lack of public concern would be the same.
 
I'm not personally interested in the debate about whether or not his actions were in good taste or not, but more so about the lack of concern that someone was allegedly falsely arrested for lawfully exercising a civil right. I'm a strong supporter of gun-rights and I live in Phoenix. What he did is not something I would personally do. If the scenario was slightly different, i.e. arrested while lawfully exercising any other civil right, I can't imagine that the lack of public concern would be the same.

If that indeed turns out to be the case, that he was falsely arrested, then that's a definite argument to be made at that time that's shown to be the case. Any false arrest is a bad thing, not just one in the exercise of a civil right. And yes I agree, some rights are "more equal" than others in the eyes of the public in terms of importance, unfortunately.
 
Same could easily be said for the left-leaning main-stream media sources, all with headlines proclaiming in lock-step that a man was pointing a rifle at people. Yet we don't seem to be as concerned about that bias.

Left leaning is a different thing than a source devoted only to one side of a single argument.

I'm not anti gun or against people carrying them in public. But what I am concerned about is having a factual debate on the subject. Information bias is a HUGE problem nowadays...on every side of an argument. Just as MSNBC is likely to paint this guy as a nut bag with no regard for the safety of the public, I have a gut feeling that the website you posted would be willing to overlook any fault had this guy accidentally discharged his weapon into the frappucinno machine as he reached for his wallet.
 
I have a gut feeling that the website you posted would be willing to overlook any fault had this guy accidentally discharged his weapon into the frappucinno machine as he reached for his wallet.

Being a regular reader of that website, I can say that that isn't the case. They place blame where blame is due, gun owner or not. That is one of the things I like about that site over many other pro-gun forums. I can't blame you for expecting as much as you are, but in fairness, these guys do a pretty good job of keeping it balanced.
 
I'm not personally interested in the debate about whether or not his actions were in good taste or not, but more so about the lack of concern that someone was allegedly falsely arrested for lawfully exercising a civil right.

Oh, don't think for a minute that the person filing the complaint is out of the woods. If indeed they reported something that in fact did not happen, they may very well be charged with filing a false police report. But regardless, this idiot does not need to be carrying because what the video does show is that he propped up a weapon that could have been accidentally brushed against and knocked to the floor (in which case it would have swept a bunch of people, and very dangerously to boot), and that he did not have physical control of the weapon at all times in an area in which anyone could have snatched the weapon from beyond his reach (including a child, I might add).

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb . . . and at the very least criminally negligent in my view. Enough so I believe to warrant a charge on that basis.
 
This guy doesn't seem threatening. Not pointing the barrel at anyone, and a holstered pistol. But that's just me. Still, anyone open carrying a rifle or in many cases a pistol, will cause some people to feel threatened or intimidated, regardless of race.

View attachment 28519



Ever since the black panther party's (original open carry movement) when blacks in America, there has always been a fear of a black person with a gun. The only exception are LEO's.

I won't say all people though:

About 16 years ago, I was hunting on a snowy and cold day. I had gotten extremely turned around, cold, and lost. I ended up on a highway 10 miles from the house. This extremely nice ederly couple ( total strangers) noticed that I was in a bit of trouble. They stopped and picked me up (2 guns and all) and took me home. I was so grateful!

A few months ago they stopped by my mom's house and asked about me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ever since the black panther party's (original open carry movement) when blacks in America, there has always been a fear of a black person with a gun. The only exception are LEO's.

I won't say all people though:

About 16 years ago, I was hunting on a snowy and cold day. I had gotten extremely turned around, cold, and lost. I ended up on a highway 10 miles from the house. This extremely nice ederly couple ( total strangers) noticed that I was in a bit of trouble. They stopped and picked me up (2 guns and all) and took me home. I was so grateful!

A few months ago they stopped by my mom's house and asked about me.

That's a cool story! There are good people around still and that's nice to know.

I'll be honest, even though I come from a state that has always had legal open carry and am used to seeing people open carry; I still take a bit of a double-take at anyone I see open carrying, just to get a warm fuzzy that I don't detect anything obviously nefarious. And that goes for anybody I encounter. Legal and one's right to do, and something I'm used to, but still that's the response that gets elicited.
 
That's a cool story! There are good people around still and that's nice to know.

I'll be honest, even though I come from a state that has always had legal open carry and am used to seeing people open carry; I still take a bit of a double-take at anyone I see open carrying, just to get a warm fuzzy that I don't detect anything obviously nefarious. And that goes for anybody I encounter. Legal and one's right to do, and something I'm used to, but still that's the response that gets elicited.

I grew up mostly in Mississippi where it wasn't uncommon to see people parked on the town square with a shotgun hanging on a gun rack on the back window of a truck or to see a rifle hanging off a gun rack on the front end of a 4 wheeler. But people just didn't walk around with guns in places of business.
 
I'm not opposed in principle to the idea of open carry, but for those ardent supporters, how am I supposed to tell the difference between a good guy with an AR 15 in a mall and a bad guy with an AR 15 in a mall? Because in my opinion it's too late once they've fired a shot.

I like concealed carry laws, but open carry of long rifles only make things less clear in my opinion.
 
Same could easily be said for the left-leaning main-stream media sources, all with headlines proclaiming in lock-step that a man was pointing a rifle at people. Yet we don't seem to be as concerned about that bias.

By you calling the main-stream media "left-leaning," you demonstrate that you're completely biased against reality. If you want to call Mother Jones or MSNBC left-leaning, then no one is going to argue, but if you want to paint the main-stream press as biased, you're just going to look like another right-wing loon who thinks that Faux is an honest source of information.
 
Back
Top