I think you should start leaving typewritten notes in his mailbox that read, “We don’t care about your wife and daughter. We are coming for YOU.”
Phlosphr, you are one of the posters here that I look forward to reading, and then I read something like this OP. I don’t want to read about you on the front page of The Courant, so just watch yourself with this guy, OK? He sounds like a nut (to use the technical term) and the rules we usually use to evaluate the behavior of other people don’t really apply to people like this.
<HIJACK>
I believe sane sensible members of the public should have the right to bare arms. This person mentioned clearly is not, why cannot he be dissarmed by the law of this country?
</HIJACK>
Phlosphr we all have a sence of whether someone is likely to attack or not, unfortunately it is never 100% accurate.
I believe that the laws here in CT may allow just that, Bippy. There was a law passed after a worker at the CT Lottery shot and killed his bosses and himself. It allows the local PD to confiscate arms on a judges order after certain triggering events, e.g., a permanent protective order. IANAL, so I don’t know the particulars of the law or whether Phlosphr’s neighbor falls into one of the defined categories.
Philospr wasn’t shot, let’s get past this already.
First of all, the guy is obviously a nut case, and definitely gives gun owners such as myself a bad name. But technically speaking, I’m not sure whether or not he broke the law. It has always been my understanding that if Person A points a gun at person B, and Person B is not threatening Person A’s life, then Person A is definitely committing a crime. As an example, let’s say I come home to find someone crawling out my living room window with my stereo in hand. Even though he is a criminal, and stealing my property while on my property, I am not allowed to shoot him. But if he lunges at me with a knife, then I am justified in shooting him.
So I guess the question to be asked is this: Was he using the firearm to threaten trick-or-treaters? I understand this is a judgment call, but if a reasonable person would say he was using a firearm to threaten innocent people, then he should have been immediately arrested. For whatever reason, I can only assume the cops felt that he was not using the firearm to threaten trick-or-treaters.
At any rate, the guy sounds like a paranoid loony. Stay clear of him.
It’s hard for me to imagine any scenario where a shotgun wielding homeowner yelling at trick-or-treaters is the fault of the kids – absent those pesky missing facts which might explain everything. But, really, what could explain waving a pellet gun at the aforementioned ankle biters?
Serious vandalism in the past might have something to do with the guy’s attitude. Or vice versa.
It’s not legal to threaten to kill people. There is a serious implied threat from waving around a loaded scattergun. Having the right to bear arms does not mean you can brandish them in a threatening fashion, even if you are standing on your property.
OTOH, being Halloween, maybe he jumped up later (actually stopped, rubbed his hands together, said “excellent”) cackling all the way into the house.
Well I’m certainly not saying it’s the fault of the kids. What I want to know is this: If he was threatening people with a shotgun, why didn’t the police arrest him?
If he was threatening people with a shotgun, and the police did not arrest him, the first thing I would do is march into the police station demanding to know why he wasn’t arrested.
I had to read a few books on the social history of the U.S. that went into this at some length in college. IIRC, “trick or treat” was a literal term, meant as a threat. I.e., “feed us in some fashion” (give out a treat) “or we will vandalize your property/hang out and refuse to go away” (play tricks). So, in these scenarios, opting out was not a viable option. Even today, in some neighborhoods, houses that perpetually refuse trick-or-treaters are much more likely to be TP-ed or egged by those same kids when they are older. At the very least, the neighbors will consider you unfriendly. Not saying it’s right or wrong, but that’s how it is over here in a lot of places.
To arrest him on the spot, the police would need cause, which they could have only obtained by personally witnessing him committing a crime, or if he’d pointed the gun at them personally. IIRC from my time as a crime reporter, just pointing a gun in a person’s general direction is not a crime, unless they are a cop, in which case it’s usually assault. Pointing it at someone and threatening to harm them is a crime, though, but the cops would’ve had to witness it themselves. The police don’t arrest people merely because they were TOLD of a criminal act; they need to justify the arrest with more than that. For an arrest to not be thrown out, it either results from eidence of a crime that is immediately obvious to an officer on the spot, or it is in response to an arrest warrant obtained after a criminal investigation. The scenario in the OP fits neither of these situations.
I thought the rules of arrest were: Misdemeanors needed to be witnessed; for felonies you need probable cause (without necessarily witnessing the violation). If true, then wouldn’t multiple reports of a gun wielding idiot plus walking up to said idiot who has possession of a shotgun, while being verbally agitated, constitute probable cause? I’m assuming his actions were felonious, right?
Fortunately you’re alive to consider it. 
Now you know who to avoid, and complain about.
ASP? Is that a security company?
I hope DCFS would investigate-he has a daughter? Yikes! Poor girl!
Let’s hope the police keep a closer eye on him!
This made me laugh. He’s right…only probably not in the way he intended!
Sorry, I’m just not buying the scenario.
You supposedly teach psychology on a university level. Your training in basic abnormal psychology your own freshman year should have disspelled any misconceptions that you had about people looking or not looking murderous. Further, this was not a situation which called for relying on your intuition that he wasn’t going to blow a hole through you with a shotgun.
That is all the more reason for you not to approach him and/or take the chance that your intuition might be wrong and he might start shooting at more than you.
I realize that you have apologized for this comment, but the insult is not what bothers me – especially since I am opposed to most NRA positions. The very idea that you you even think that there is an “NRA type” is so utterly uneducated as to be unthinkable for a university psychology professor.
If he has a school age daughter who is not attending school, he and his wife are breaking the law and can be held accountable. I do not believe that the police there are going to allow a man with a shotgun to continue to sit on his front porch on Halloween without finding a reason to question him downtown – especially if there is a college professor who can testify that he has aimed the gun and he was still holding the gun when the police arrived and two hundred children are scampering around.
If your sister-in-law has information that he doesn’t let his wife and child out of the house, I would certainly think that she would have reported that to the police prior to the incident. And if your SIL knew that he didn’t let the daughter out, she would also know that the daughter wasn’t going to school.
You do not write like someone who has a doctorate and your thought processes are very immature for an adult. For a long time you have struck me as being the product of an adolescent’s imagination of what it must be like to be an adult.
That is my opinion and if you are being honest, what I say shouldn’t matter to you one way or the other. You’ve also been a really nice guy in your posts here. I just think they are BS.
I won’t comment on the rest of the post, as I don’t have enough knowledge of anyone here to do so, but I wanted to comment on this one part. School-aged children do NOT have to attend school - the law is not written that broadly. There are any number of reasons why a child who appears to be school-age would not be attending a school. For starters, she might not BE school age - I have a four-year-old godson who appears to be nine or ten. I also have a nine-year old nephew who wears a toddler size 4 pants. Second - the child in question may be homeschooled. Third - the child may be unable to attend school for some reason - some physical and mental handicaps preclude going to a school.
If the girl is a registered student in a public school and is not attending, there are truancy laws that will hold the parents accountable. If someone can prove that the child is not receiving any education, the parents can be held accountable. That’s about it.
Yes, I know. I was a teacher. And they can be held accountable in all sorts of ways.
Philosopher said that the daughter looked to be about thirteen. I suppose she could be a young looking eighteen year old. In that case, the man would have to be holding two adult women prisoner.
Schools are required to provide education for the physically, mentally and emotionally handicapped. And this doesn’t really sound like a home schooling situation if the child and the mother are not allowed to leave the house.
While you may be allowed to carry a concealed handgun in Texas. Brandishing any firearm in public can and usually will get you locked up and possibly loose your weapon. The incident does not need to be witnessed by law enforcement either. If the witnesses are credible and they accurately describe a gun that you do actually possess. The odds are that you are going to jail and so is your gun. You may get out. It’s doubtful that you’ll be taking your weapon with you.
The argument is simple: How did they know about the gun?
I’ve seen this happen several times.
BTW- Your front yard is considered public because you are in public view and proximity. You can be arrested for public intoxication while sitting on your front porch or out in the yard. Not that it happens often but the law is there just in case.
Sorry 'bout the hijack.
and Phlosphr you were sneaking chocolate outta your neice’s bag weren’t you. Caffeine and sugar makes some people a little aggressive. Not exactly brain food. 
There’s been nothing in any of Phlosphr’s posts to indicate that the neighbor has a “deal” with the cops. It must be what people have been saying in this thread: not enough justification for an arrest.
The problem is, every incident of the cops coming to his house without arresting him reinforces his notion that he has nothing to fear from law enforcement.
Phlosphr makes up most of the stuff he posts. I don’t see why this thread should be regarded with anything but the usual skepticism.
Elaboration:
Every week, Phlosphr posts the most outrageous crap imaginable:
**Witness this Fuckwads!! Part II
You abhorrent specimen of junkyard genetics. Never cut a hungry man off.
Keep your God Damn hands off her ya FUCK! (not for the weak of heart)
I Paid my Dues you little Fucking Punk-Ass!!
Ok! Okay! WOMYN…instead of WOMAN: Part II
Go ahead keep blowing smoke in your baby’s face. Ignorant Bitch.
You are the lowest, most hated, despicable, asinine Fucktard I have ever met!
To that knuckle dragging fucktard on the subway this morning!
Here is a Stick of Holly: Now whip me for my terrible spelling and grasp of grammer!
Look Jerk. Don’t ever cook me a DEAD lobster again.
You Graffiti drawing, low-life ignorant fuck! Had I caught you red handed I’d have…
Dude you are a FREAK! Put the fucking Shot-Gun away! **
The smallest slight is turned into the greatest insult, no doubt for pit effect, but there’s no point other posters putting any emotional involvement into this, because it’s exaggerated for effect, if it happened at all.