Man detained for carrying shotgun in Gallatin.

[10-Ring]

Although I'd say it's not the smartest thing to do.  I honestly don't even see why this is news.  The man broke no laws.  Probably treading on Kwik territory here but as long as law abiding citizens are being detained I think we have a problem.

 

Link:  http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/gallatin/2014/09/02/man-shotgun-detained-near-sumner-county-courthouse/14997313/

 

Story: 

 

A Hendersonville man carrying a double-barrel shotgun on his back in downtown Gallatin was detained by police for a short time Tuesday.

Martine Barros was detained around noon on the square across from the Sumner County Courthouse as officers verified the shotgun was unloaded and ran a criminal background check on the 26-year-old to make sure he was allowed to possess the weapon.

“We did talk to him and we ran his criminal history,” Sumner County Sheriff Sonny Weatherford said. “Once we found out that he didn’t have a felony charge, which means he can possess the weapon, then he was turned loose.”

Barros, a 2006 graduate of Hendersonville High School who went on to Middle Tennessee State University and received his commercial pilot’s license, said he was protesting a 2011 arrest and subsequent reckless driving conviction. The conviction resulted in his pilot’s license being revoked about two months ago.

“Do you know how hard I worked to get my pilot’s license, to get to the point where I was and as a black man to have my rights completely (expletive) taken and shattered like that?” Barros said. “Instead of aiming for the skies and getting the American Dream, what you get from your own community, which you served, is a pile of (expletive).”

On March 4, 2011, Barros was pulled over by a Sumner County Sheriff’s deputy at Saundersville Road and Indian Lake Boulevard in Hendersonville for having a headlight out. The deputy stated that he could smell alcohol on Barros’ breath and that the then 22-year-old could not perform the field sobriety tests “as directed.”

Barros was arrested and charged with driving under the influence. He was found guilty in April 2012 of the lesser charge of reckless driving.

Weatherford said that at the time prosecutors worked with Barros to lessen the charge in an attempt to allow him to remain a pilot.

“Everything was done by the book,” Weatherford said. “The district attorney at the time was trying to work with him to keep him from possibly losing his job. I don’t know what else we could have done.”

Barros said he wants the officer who arrested him to be fired.

Increased security downtown

While an uncommon sight, carrying an unloaded shotgun on the square in downtown Gallatin is not against the law, depending on the individual’s past criminal history, said Sumner County District Attorney Ray Whitley.

“As long as the gun is unloaded and he did not try to conceal it, it’s not a crime,” Whitley said, adding that ammunition for the weapon should not be kept within reach.

A heightened police presence, both on foot and in passing patrol cars, was present Tuesday in downtown. Police Chief Don Bandy said Barros had contacted the department prior to the protest to inform them about the demonstration.

“At that point we want to make sure that everybody is safe and I know that the citizens would be alarmed if they saw somebody carrying a long gun strapped to them walking the square, which is not something that you see every day,” Bandy said. “Again, he has that right, and we’re just there to make sure that everybody is safe.”

Additional security was also present at the Sumner County Courthouse on Tuesday as a precautionary measure, Weatherford said. He added that unless complaints are filed against Barros, officers will just be monitoring the man to make sure he does not take the weapon into any county buildings.

“I wish he would do something else if he’s not happy,” Weatherford said. “The problem is if he starts getting complaints eventually he’ll probably end up getting into trouble.”

Barros said he plans to continue his demonstration until “action is taken” against the officer that arrested him.

“I’m going to be here until I get justice,” Barros said. “Obviously, I plan to stay peaceful. I have my defense on my back if I have to defend myself.”

Reach Josh Cross at 615-575-7115.

 

[RED333]

The cry babies have won, people used to carry open all the time, back windows of your truck, in a holster on your hip.

Now it aint so, all that said, carrying a double barrel shot gun and protesting aint all that smart.

[dcloudy777]

How the heck is carrying an empty shotgun around the courthouse protesting against a pleaded-down DUI arrest?

[bersaguy]

He would get  a lot more favorable reaction if he carried a sign with his grievance on it so folks would know what he is protesting. He may even find someone that could help him with his problem..............jmho

[DWARREN123]

Don't do dumb stuff and don't loose the ability to fly!

[Mike.357]

I grew up in a time where no one walked around with long guns.  If someone was carrying a pistol I never saw it nor did anyone else.

 

Walk around with a visible gun and wonder why you draw attention to yourself?  How F'ing dumb are you?

[JohnC]

He kind of sounds like a person that might snap, hearing how bitter he is over getting caught driving drunk. He couldn't pass field sobriety test, got the charge lowered to reckless driving, and he's still bitter enough to want the LEO fired and is protesting it with a gun? They might want to keep an eye on this one.

[DaveTN]

He agreed to a plea bargain. What’s a drunk pilot have to do with guns?

Maybe he should have paid attention in the part of the class that dealt with DUI offenses. Many careers are ended over drunk driving. Think about that before you drink and drive.

I looked to see if a DUI kept you getting a commercial pilots license; only took a minute to find this.
 

There are some cases, though, when your examiner will not be able to issue a medical certificate. Even with just one DUI or DWI, your application cannot be approved, and will be deferred to the FAA if any of the following conditions exist:

•Your blood alcohol content was above 0.15
•You are unable to provide necessary documentation within 14 days
•You refused to submit to a blood alcohol test
•You had any other arrests, convictions or corrective actions against you within preceding two years
•You've been arrested three or more times in your lifetime, or
• You've had two arrests, convictions or corrective actions against you in the previous ten years.

Deferred?
Don't panic: There's still hope that your aviation medical certificate will be approved. If your medical certificate was deferred to the FAA, then you'll probably end up in paperwork up to your ears. Some of these deferments will be approved, and some will be denied. For example, a DUI with a clinically diagnosed substance abuse problem is a disqualifying situation, unless you can provide evidence of recovery (total abstinence) for a minimum of two years.

So, while a single DUI will hurt you, there's hope. Some people may end up waiting a year or two to get a medical certificate, but it's possible to get back in the game if you have, indeed, cleaned up your act.


http://aviation.about.com/od/Regulations/a/Aviation-Medical-Exams-Can-You-Fly-After-A-Dui.htm

[TMF]

He agreed to a plea bargain. What’s a drunk pilot have to do with guns?

Maybe he should have paid attention in the part of the class that dealt with DUI offenses. Many careers are ended over drunk driving. Think about that before you drink and drive.

I looked to see if a DUI kept you getting a commercial pilots license; only took a minute to find this.

Typical whiny American cry baby; he is absolutely responsible for the negative ramifications of his actions, yet he blames everyone else but himself.

Wants a cop to be fired for arresting him for driving drunk? C'mon. I'm tired of hearing people complain about the circumstances THEY created.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[monkeylizard]

Typical whiny American cry baby; he is absolutely responsible for the negative ramifications of his actions, yet he blames everyone else but himself.

Wants a cop to be fired for arresting him for driving drunk?

 

Maybe. You're assuming that he was indeed driving drunk. If he wasn't, it wouldn't be the first time someone was wrongly arrested. An officer lying about smelling alcohol and failing a field sobriety test would be a pretty easy way to screw someone over, should that officer be so inclined. 100 out of 100 times, the judge is going to believe the officer. Without objective evidence like a blood draw or a breathalyzer reading, there's no way to know for sure. It's Sheriff Weatherford and the DA that make me suspicious. Why would they bend over backwards to work out the lesser charge to try to keep him from losing his job? Was it simply because he's a young man that has a long future and they wanted to help him? Or was it because the officer made a "driving while black" arrest and getting a lesser conviction was the best way to protect the department from a lawsuit while not totally screwing over an innocent victim? Inquiring minds want to know. Add in the fact that he wants the arresting officer fired, and it tells me that he obviously thinks the officer did something wrong. A wrongful arrest in this case is the only thing that comes to mind.

 

If he was DUI, screw him. I tend to lean towards this but there's some doubt in my mind, based solely on what's presented in the article.

Edited September 4, 2014 by monkeylizard

[Omega]

While failing a field sobriety test is a first step, a breathalyzer should of been able to confirm it one way or another. If I am not intoxicated I would ask for a breathalyzer or blood test to prove it, since if it goes to a judge without one you are sure to lose. While I think the justice system is flawed and heavily weighed towards the LEO side I would not resort to this type of behavior in his case. Making threats, his last statement, while carrying a shotgun is not a good way to protest what happened. This is just a way to get some 2A supporters come to his side without bringing all the facts into it; even if it has nothing to do with the 2A.

[TMF]

Maybe. You're assuming that he was indeed driving drunk. If he wasn't, it wouldn't be the first time someone was wrongly arrested. An officer lying about smelling alcohol and failing a field sobriety test would be a pretty easy way to screw someone over, should that officer be so inclined. 100 out of 100 times, the judge is going to believe the officer. Without objective evidence like a blood draw or a breathalyzer reading, there's no way to know for sure. It's Sheriff Weatherford and the DA that make me suspicious. Why would they bend over backwards to work out the lesser charge to try to keep him from losing his job? Was it simply because he's a young man that has a long future and they wanted to help him? Or was it because the officer made a "driving while black" arrest and getting a lesser conviction was the best way to protect the department from a lawsuit while not totally screwing over an innocent victim? Inquiring minds want to know. Add in the fact that he wants the arresting officer fired, and it tells me that he obviously thinks the officer did something wrong. A wrongful arrest in this case is the only thing that comes to mind.

If he was DUI, screw him. I tend to lean towards this but there's some doubt in my mind, based solely on what's presented in the article.

If he was innocent then he shouldn't have pled guilty. Whether or not he was drunk, he is the one who pled to reckless driving.

He said he wanted the officer fired for arresting him for being drunk. He failed a sobriety test and the officer smelled alcohol on him. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is enough to meet the criteria for an arrest, so the officer did his job properly. The article doesn't mention why he wasn't given a breathalyzer. For all we know he refused to. Either way, he admitted guilt in front of a judge and that is why he lost his pilot's license. He has no one but himself to blame.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bersaguy]

If I ever got stopped and questioned about have I been drinking? If I have I will say yes I have and take the field sobriety test. If the officer said I failed it I would then request a blood alcohol test and a breathalyzer test as well. I would want all tests the law allows me to get. If that officer believes he can prove his case he will give me the rest of the tests. If he is not sure then he will let me off with a warning. If you request the other tests they have to give you them or turn you loose. I think he may have been thinking the race card would get his charges dismissed and all it did was get them reduced. He may still be able to save his future as a pilot but he won't do it with a double barreled parading around the town square when folks don't even know what he is protesting...........jmho

[monkeylizard]

If he was innocent then he shouldn't have pled guilty. Whether or not he was drunk, he is the one who pled to reckless driving.

 

That's the ideal, but it's not unheard of for an innocent person to plead to a lesser charge because they don't think they'll win at trial. A plea also avoids/reduces jail time and court/lawyer fees that the innocent person can't afford.

 

He failed a sobriety test and the officer smelled alcohol on him. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is enough to meet the criteria for an arrest, so the officer did his job properly.

The officer reported that he smelled alcohol and that the guy failed the field sobriety. Assuming that the officer is one of the majority who are good cops, then yes it's a good arrest. If he's a dirty SOB and trumped up the "I smell alcohol" and that even if the guy could cross a tightrope over the Grand Canyon backwards on a unicycle, he was going to fail to complete the FST as instructed, then we have another thing entirely. There's no witness and no objective evidence one way or the other.

 

He has no one but himself to blame.

If he was DUI, we agree. If he wasn't, then there's a broken criminal law system to blame.
 

 

 

I'm saying that the story as written, introduces more questions about the DUI arrest than it answers. If it was a good stop, then screw this guy. No doubt that his current antics are misguided, at best.

[TMF]

That's the ideal, but it's not unheard of for an innocent person to plead to a lesser charge because they don't think they'll win at trial. A plea also avoids/reduces jail time and court/lawyer fees that the innocent person can't afford.

The officer reported that he smelled alcohol and that the guy failed the field sobriety. Assuming that the officer is one of the majority who are good cops, then yes it's a good arrest. If he's a dirty SOB and trumped up the "I smell alcohol" and that even if the guy could cross a tightrope over the Grand Canyon backwards on a unicycle, he was going to fail to complete the FST as instructed, then we have another thing entirely. There's no witness and no objective evidence one way or the other.

If he was DUI, we agree. If he wasn't, then there's a broken criminal law system to blame.



I'm saying that the story as written, introduces more questions about the DUI arrest than it answers. If it was a good stop, then screw this guy. No doubt that his current antics are misguided, at best.

There is no information in the story. Bringing up that the officer could have lied, simply because it could happen, is to negate testimony of all law enforcement everywhere all throughout history. Yes, the officer could have lied. In a parallel universe the officer might be a potato. I don't see how there is any evidence to make that argument relevant.

Also, on the surface of this, I'd be more apt to take the word of a law enforcement officer, sight unseen, than a crazy man carrying a shotgun through the streets and hollering obscenities. But that's just me. I base my judgement on a wealth of experience dealing with dishonest people.

The thing that makes all of this moot to me is that he pled guilty to a crime. One might argue that he took a plea deal because he was facing a more serious charge and hedged his bets. That doesn't matter. It is still your word before God and men. If you are willing to give false testimony, your word means nothing. So, he either committed the offense he pled to, or he is a man whose word means nothing. Either way, he remains at fault.

Perhaps this is just me, but I will never admit to doing something I didn't do. I don't care what the stakes are. If there are folks willing to do that, then that is their problem. I refuse to feel sorry for them. We all get to make choices. He made his. So **** him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bersaguy]

There is no information in the story. Bringing up that the officer could have lied, simply because it could happen, is to negate testimony of all law enforcement everywhere all throughout history. Yes, the officer could have lied. In a parallel universe the officer might be a potato. I don't see how there is any evidence to make that argument relevant.

Also, on the surface of this, I'd be more apt to take the word of a law enforcement officer, sight unseen, than a crazy man carrying a shotgun through the streets and hollering obscenities. But that's just me. I base my judgement on a wealth of experience dealing with dishonest people.

The thing that makes all of this moot to me is that he pled guilty to a crime. One might argue that he took a plea deal because he was facing a more serious charge and hedged his bets. That doesn't matter. It is still your word before God and men. If you are willing to give false testimony, your word means nothing. So, he either committed the offense he pled to, or he is a man whose word means nothing. Either way, he remains at fault.

Perhaps this is just me, but I will never admit to doing something I didn't do. I don't care what the stakes are. If there are folks willing to do that, then that is their problem. I refuse to feel sorry for them. We all get to make choices. He made his. So **** him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There is no information in the story. Bringing up that the officer could have lied, simply because it could happen, is to negate testimony of all law enforcement everywhere all throughout history. Yes, the officer could have lied. In a parallel universe the officer might be a potato. I don't see how there is any evidence to make that argument relevant.

Also, on the surface of this, I'd be more apt to take the word of a law enforcement officer, sight unseen, than a crazy man carrying a shotgun through the streets and hollering obscenities. But that's just me. I base my judgement on a wealth of experience dealing with dishonest people.

The thing that makes all of this moot to me is that he pled guilty to a crime. One might argue that he took a plea deal because he was facing a more serious charge and hedged his bets. That doesn't matter. It is still your word before God and men. If you are willing to give false testimony, your word means nothing. So, he either committed the offense he pled to, or he is a man whose word means nothing. Either way, he remains at fault.

Perhaps this is just me, but I will never admit to doing something I didn't do. I don't care what the stakes are. If there are folks willing to do that, then that is their problem. I refuse to feel sorry for them. We all get to make choices. He made his. So **** him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hate to say it TMF but they just released two brothers yesterday from Prison after they pleaded guilty to a case 30 years ago that was proven to not be guilty but they spent 30 years in prison because they signed confessions that were placed in front of them. All people that plead guilty at the advice of an attorney are not guilty. Proven fact...................jmho

[TMF]

Hate to say it TMF but they just released two brothers yesterday from Prison after they pleaded guilty to a case 30 years ago that was proven to not be guilty but they spent 30 years in prison because they signed confessions that were placed in front of them. All people that plead guilty at the advice of an attorney are not guilty. Proven fact...................jmho

Well in that case let's empty all the prisons! They all must be innocent, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Omega]

There is no information in the story. Bringing up that the officer could have lied, simply because it could happen, is to negate testimony of all law enforcement everywhere all throughout history. Yes, the officer could have lied. In a parallel universe the officer might be a potato. I don't see how there is any evidence to make that argument relevant.

Also, on the surface of this, I'd be more apt to take the word of a law enforcement officer, sight unseen, than a crazy man carrying a shotgun through the streets and hollering obscenities. But that's just me. I base my judgement on a wealth of experience dealing with dishonest people.

The thing that makes all of this moot to me is that he pled guilty to a crime. One might argue that he took a plea deal because he was facing a more serious charge and hedged his bets. That doesn't matter. It is still your word before God and men. If you are willing to give false testimony, your word means nothing. So, he either committed the offense he pled to, or he is a man whose word means nothing. Either way, he remains at fault.

Perhaps this is just me, but I will never admit to doing something I didn't do. I don't care what the stakes are. If there are folks willing to do that, then that is their problem. I refuse to feel sorry for them. We all get to make choices. He made his. So **** him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I had a situation a few years ago with a Game Warden who charged me for hunting over bait when I was not hunting at all. I refused to plea it down and it cost me more to be found guilty than to of just pled to reduced charges. I defended others rights in the military for 21 years, I'd be danged if I would just give mine away. Others may think differently but I think it was worth it to uphold my convictions even if it cost me more in the end.

Even though I feel I was unjustly convicted, I am out a rifle, paid for an attorney (Over $1000 in all)and lost a year of hunting privileges I didn't parade around like a lunatic. And carrying a weapon during my protest would of made more sense than for a DUI. If he was unjustly railroaded to accept a plea deal he should of chosen the deal that still allowed him to fly if that was what he was worried about. Its not like he didn't plea deal at all and was found guilty anyway.

[bersaguy]

Well in that case let's empty all the prisons! They all must be innocent, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well in that case let's empty all the prisons! They all must be innocent, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did not say that but it has been proven that there are innocent people in Prisons. I have worked a short time in law enforcement and was an IA investigator for State of Tennessee for almost 5 years so It's not like I am completely ignorant to law enforcement I am sure if you ask any lifer of long time criminal if they are guilty your going to get a an "Of course not I am totally innocent and I was framed."    It's the fact that there are people that are innocent in jail. and many guilty ones walking the streets...........jmho

[monkeylizard]

There is no information in the story.

 

Sure there is. We know that he was arrested and charged for DUI. We know that he plead to a lesser charge or reckless driving. We We know that he's calling for action to be taken against the arresting officer. I suspect (because it's unclear in the story) that the arrest was based solely on the officer's sense of smell and FST, without hard evidence.

 

It's those last two parts that made my mind go to trumped up charges as a possibility. A normal person wouldn't get arrested for something they were actually doing, then plea it down, then try to get the arresting officer fired. The only logical process I can come up with for this is that the charge was trumped, he plead to save money/time/felony conviction and was told that his pilots license would be OK, turned out that was wrong, now he's sorry he took the plea deal to make some bogus charge go away and wants the officer fired.

 

 

That's the only way I can logically get from "I was driving drunk" to "fire that officer for arresting me for driving drunk!".

 

The other possibility is that this guy is loony tunes. Judging by his current protest, I'd say that's a likely possibility and applying logic is pointless.

Edited September 4, 2014 by monkeylizard

[jtmaze]

It sounds like he didn't take a breathalyzer and that is why his flying privileges were suspended. JTM Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Edited September 4, 2014 by jtmaze

[DaveTN]

When you are accused of driving with a BAC over .08 it is very easy to take a BAC test. I would guess that in this state like many others they will even take you to the hospital for a test on your own.

The guy pled guilty to a reduced offense; but the DUI arrest is still there. Apparently the requirements for a commercial pilot’s license are as strict as many other professions and companies when it comes to alcohol abuse; they want to know about arrests and they will make their own decisions.

I’ve tried to explain to young people that there are misdemeanors that can impact a career; DUI, drug possession and Domestic Violence are three of them.

Not being convicted is not the same as being innocent; people hiring you will do with that information what they want. Just like they will make judgments about a nut case parading around with a gun.

[bersaguy]

He has stated that he license was for commercial which I am assuming it could apply to cargo or passenger and they have been cracking down really hard after catching pilots leaving lounges at airports and boarding plane they were about to fly with passengers on board.........It might be sometime before he gets his license back and the display he is putting on from what I have heard will only make it harder on him....................jmho

[TMF]

I did not say that but it has been proven that there are innocent people in Prisons. I have worked a short time in law enforcement and was an IA investigator for State of Tennessee for almost 5 years so It's not like I am completely ignorant to law enforcement I am sure if you ask any lifer of long time criminal if they are guilty your going to get a an "Of course not I am totally innocent and I was framed." It's the fact that there are people that are innocent in jail. and many guilty ones walking the streets...........jmho

What's your point? This drunk driver is innocent simply because he says he is? He pled guilty. Case closed. He's a grown man who made a choice, not his lawyers. He is not a man if he whines about living with the choices HE made and blames them on someone else, end of story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TMF]

That's the only way I can logically get from "I was driving drunk" to "fire that officer for arresting me for driving drunk!".

Have you ever met a criminal before?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk