• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

NOLA: Physically detained and disarmed by Whole Foods store cop: Sgt. Wade Boswer

bad_astronaut

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
9
Location
Caldwell, Idaho
The moment the officer decided to step outside the boundaries of law he became a criminal.

I agree with you here. At times I tend to think in a "devil's advocate" manner. Example being, even though this officers assault of the OP was indeed criminal, how many witnesses to the assault would understand that? If the OP had killed or wounded the criminal officer in this encounter, how would the media cover it? How would the OP's life change at the moment he became a cop killer in the mainstream's view? Let me reiterate, I am not saying that the retention and ending of the threat would make the OP a criminal, just giving some food for thought.
 

4sooth

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
126
Location
, Louisiana, USA
Again--the officer's actions were outside the law--as such he is not protected by "color of law". R.S. 14:46.1-False imprisonment while armed with a deadly weapon. Up to ten years at hard labor.
 

PFC HALE

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
481
Location
earth
im sure the cop was not within S.O.P when he assaulted the OP. he is lucky he didnt get his arse handed to him with a lead infusion
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
All of this was gathered via chat with our local ......
He did say that he has seen it happen to a few.
Gun taken from a holder and used in a crime resulted in the carrier being held liable in a civil lawsuit .
I do not see it written into law, thus left to the judge to decide.
Sorry was advised to not start mentioning people .
Anyways this was all via a chat with some persons who should know more then others.
WHO saw WHAT?
Does this 'civil lawsuit' resulting from a gun stolen from a lawful carrier also apply to someone who's car is stolen and used in a bank robbery? What about someone's pen that is stolen and used to write a ransom note? If someone steals my dog and uses it to poach deer am I in danger of a civil lawsuit as well?

Your 'friend' needs to post a few citations, if such things are actually a danger then we should all be apprised of it.
And if these 'some persons' were in law enforcement, I'd advise taking anything they say with a grain of salt unless it's about traffic regulations. For legal opinions ask those who are involved in the law business, not those who are involved in the arrest business.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I just re-watched the video and I am laughing at this cop ... "get the drop on me" ... the idiot took the gun he could SEE and then leads YOU with his back towards you.

An easy kill ... if you wanted to kill him.

So much for his 25 yrs of experience
 

gauxtgrs

New member
Joined
Feb 17, 2013
Messages
1
Location
Baltimore
I laugh at everyone who's jumping all over the Officer for doing his job. First of all, he is correct about open carry laws. Private establishments have the right to set their own policy and it is your duty as the consumer to know what their policy is. They do not need to have a sign posted for firearms to be forbidden. That is a fact. As it was your duty to know the store's policy, the Officer, working a paid detail, was acting under color of law which allowed him to detain you and determine your intent. If you really think excessive force was used then I guess you should give up carrying a gun. Officers are not trained to walk up to an armed subject and say pretty please come with me. You had the potential to execute a deadly force assault thus the Officer was justified in taking restraining action to stop the threat. All your video proved is the Officer handled himself professionally and within the authority of his position, backed up by the store manager I might add. Good luck filing a frivilous lawsuit in either Civil District Court or in the Eastern District of LA. I for one am not fond of paying lawyers who routinely represent criminals against the government. It's usually better to be part of the solution than part of the problem.
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
Wowwie!!!

I laugh at everyone who's jumping all over the Officer for doing his job. First of all, he is correct about open carry laws. Private establishments have the right to set their own policy and it is your duty as the consumer to know what their policy is. They do not need to have a sign posted for firearms to be forbidden. That is a fact. As it was your duty to know the store's policy, the Officer, working a paid detail, was acting under color of law which allowed him to detain you and determine your intent. If you really think excessive force was used then I guess you should give up carrying a gun. Officers are not trained to walk up to an armed subject and say pretty please come with me. You had the potential to execute a deadly force assault thus the Officer was justified in taking restraining action to stop the threat. All your video proved is the Officer handled himself professionally and within the authority of his position, backed up by the store manager I might add. Good luck filing a frivilous lawsuit in either Civil District Court or in the Eastern District of LA. I for one am not fond of paying lawyers who routinely represent criminals against the government. It's usually better to be part of the solution than part of the problem.

Quoted for truth... Dont nobody go and forget what this highly edumacated NOOB wrote here tonight!
I... bet... this will be his one and only post...
 

ODA 226

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
1,603
Location
Etzenricht, Germany
I laugh at everyone who's jumping all over the Officer for doing his job. First of all, he is correct about open carry laws. Private establishments have the right to set their own policy and it is your duty as the consumer to know what their policy is. They do not need to have a sign posted for firearms to be forbidden. That is a fact. As it was your duty to know the store's policy, the Officer, working a paid detail, was acting under color of law which allowed him to detain you and determine your intent. If you really think excessive force was used then I guess you should give up carrying a gun. Officers are not trained to walk up to an armed subject and say pretty please come with me. You had the potential to execute a deadly force assault thus the Officer was justified in taking restraining action to stop the threat. All your video proved is the Officer handled himself professionally and within the authority of his position, backed up by the store manager I might add. Good luck filing a frivilous lawsuit in either Civil District Court or in the Eastern District of LA. I for one am not fond of paying lawyers who routinely represent criminals against the government. It's usually better to be part of the solution than part of the problem.

Mister: You really need to go to school before you come onto this board talking about things that you know absolutely nothing about. We have lawyers and Law Enforcement, active, reserve and retired here. This cop acted totally outside of the law and if you knew anything about law you would know that.
 

ATM

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
360
Location
Indiana, USA
I laugh at everyone who's jumping all over the Officer for doing his job. First of all, he is correct about open carry laws...

That's alright, now everyone is laughing right back at you.

Most folks on this forum understand legal principles and the specific laws of the states well enough to have stopped reading at that point in your post for anything beyond pure amusement purposes. Although, I must admit, it really did deliver in that regard! :lol:

Best of luck in whatever your actual purpose is, but I doubt you'll get anyone too riled up here with such a blatant and ill-informed first attempt to do so.
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
I laugh at everyone who's jumping all over the Officer for doing his job. First of all, he is correct about open carry laws. Private establishments have the right to set their own policy and it is your duty as the consumer to know what their policy is. They do not need to have a sign posted for firearms to be forbidden. That is a fact. As it was your duty to know the store's policy, the Officer, working a paid detail, was acting under color of law which allowed him to detain you and determine your intent. If you really think excessive force was used then I guess you should give up carrying a gun. Officers are not trained to walk up to an armed subject and say pretty please come with me. You had the potential to execute a deadly force assault thus the Officer was justified in taking restraining action to stop the threat. All your video proved is the Officer handled himself professionally and within the authority of his position, backed up by the store manager I might add. Good luck filing a frivilous lawsuit in either Civil District Court or in the Eastern District of LA. I for one am not fond of paying lawyers who routinely represent criminals against the government. It's usually better to be part of the solution than part of the problem.

Oh, Sweet Baby Jeebus on a Velvet Pogo Stick ChristonaPogoStick.gif

I saw this thread on the right-hand sidebar and peeked in to see what it was about. Read just enough (in reverse order) to get to this.

ultimatefacepalm-1.png

It would be so much fun to take gauxtgrs apart, but since 1) he is most likely a drive-by troll and 2) we already know, it would just be an exercise in figuring out the best order to put all the ways of describing the wrongness that is gauxtgrs. (And I'm not even suggesting anybody actually fisk his post.)

Thank you, gauxtgrs, for a laugh so early in my morning.

stay safe.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I laugh at everyone who's jumping all over the Officer for doing his job. First of all, he is correct about open carry laws. Private establishments have the right to set their own policy and it is your duty as the consumer to know what their policy is. They do not need to have a sign posted for firearms to be forbidden. That is a fact. As it was your duty to know the store's policy, the Officer, working a paid detail, was acting under color of law which allowed him to detain you and determine your intent. If you really think excessive force was used then I guess you should give up carrying a gun. Officers are not trained to walk up to an armed subject and say pretty please come with me. You had the potential to execute a deadly force assault thus the Officer was justified in taking restraining action to stop the threat. All your video proved is the Officer handled himself professionally and within the authority of his position, backed up by the store manager I might add. Good luck filing a frivilous lawsuit in either Civil District Court or in the Eastern District of LA. I for one am not fond of paying lawyers who routinely represent criminals against the government. It's usually better to be part of the solution than part of the problem.

lulz.

This post is so bad it has to be from one of our members, kind of a sarcastic joke.

Either that or it's Boswer himself.
 

ODA 226

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
1,603
Location
Etzenricht, Germany
lulz.

This post is so bad it has to be from one of our members, kind of a sarcastic joke.

Either that or it's Boswer himself.

I think it is Bowser himself. Take a look at his handle: gauxtgrs

It's pronounced in French "Go Tigers". The Holy Cross High School in New Orleans call their team the "Tigers". If it is him, he's a cowardly little **** isn't he?
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I laugh at everyone who's jumping all over the Officer for doing his job. First of all, he is correct about open carry laws. Private establishments have the right to set their own policy and it is your duty as the consumer to know what their policy is. They do not need to have a sign posted for firearms to be forbidden. That is a fact. As it was your duty to know the store's policy, the Officer, working a paid detail, was acting under color of law which allowed him to detain you and determine your intent. If you really think excessive force was used then I guess you should give up carrying a gun. Officers are not trained to walk up to an armed subject and say pretty please come with me. You had the potential to execute a deadly force assault thus the Officer was justified in taking restraining action to stop the threat. All your video proved is the Officer handled himself professionally and within the authority of his position, backed up by the store manager I might add. Good luck filing a frivilous lawsuit in either Civil District Court or in the Eastern District of LA. I for one am not fond of paying lawyers who routinely represent criminals against the government. It's usually better to be part of the solution than part of the problem.

Well by your post that what a rouge officer might be and could do, would really turn the tables on police. That would give everybody the authority to take defensive action on what is in their brain. That is the dumbest most ignorant stupid dangerous claim I have ever heard. I certainly hope you are not in a position of any authority. And if you are your dept does routine mental health checks. Please resign that would be a solution to a future problem.
 

SPOProds

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
464
Location
Orono, ME
I laugh at everyone who's jumping all over the Officer for doing his job. First of all, he is correct about open carry laws. Private establishments have the right to set their own policy and it is your duty as the consumer to know what their policy is. They do not need to have a sign posted for firearms to be forbidden. That is a fact. As it was your duty to know the store's policy, the Officer, working a paid detail, was acting under color of law which allowed him to detain you and determine your intent. If you really think excessive force was used then I guess you should give up carrying a gun. Officers are not trained to walk up to an armed subject and say pretty please come with me. You had the potential to execute a deadly force assault thus the Officer was justified in taking restraining action to stop the threat. All your video proved is the Officer handled himself professionally and within the authority of his position, backed up by the store manager I might add. Good luck filing a frivilous lawsuit in either Civil District Court or in the Eastern District of LA. I for one am not fond of paying lawyers who routinely represent criminals against the government. It's usually better to be part of the solution than part of the problem.

Holy monkey balls! Don't know if i should laugh or cry after reading this. But i do know you need to go follow some lemmings off a cliff.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
I think it is Bowser himself. Take a look at his handle: gauxtgrs

It's pronounced in French "Go Tigers". The Holy Cross High School in New Orleans call their team the "Tigers". If it is him, he's a cowardly little **** isn't he?

I think Marshaul hit the mark. It's Bowser.

Finishing ODA 226's point, gauxtgrs is not a french term as such. The "au" or "eaux" is typically pronounced as a long 'o' as in the names Breaux or Gauthier. It is common to use the term "geaux Saints" where the misspelling geaux is a play on the word "go".

In the case of the tgrs, that would probably indicate Tigers. However, I doubt that it refers to my alma mater Holy Cross High School's Tigers. It probably refers to the Louisiana State University Tigers.

Glad you could join us Officer Bowser and shame on you. You're a disgrace to the uniform.
 
Top