Unprofessional cop with open carry activist - Page 6

frizz · 10-09-2012, 07:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hack

To feel safe? Is it a right to feel safe? Is it a right for the one calling in to feel safe? Is it a right for the responding police officer to the man with a gun call to feel safe? Interesting questions? Perhaps. How do we balance the right to open carry with the rights of others? What rights would we intrude upon by open carrying?

I have to see any right to feel safe about the same way I see the right to not be offended. If it exists, the right to free expression.

As far as open carry goes, I see both sides. It does boil down to a social norm. In some places in time, it was not uncommon to see open carry. Maybe the old west, but I don't know if that is just the movies.

frizz · 10-09-2012, 07:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio Copper

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Kind of open to interpretation, eh?

No. It is a collective right.

Never mind the fact that a "right" enforceable by no-one isn't a right at all.

frizz · 10-09-2012, 07:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by use2b6L32

This video would've been WAY BETTER if instead of saying "Just to let you know, we're audio taping!!" they would've said "Just to let you know, WE'RE ******-BAGS!!"

Ass-wipes.

I have not seen one in which they are NOT dbags!

This one is the smoothest cop response EVAR! Cooler than the other side of the pillow.

frizz · 10-09-2012, 07:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patchman

In the same place where people are granted the right to get married and divorced. Yes, that's state rights but all states follow the Fed constitution and impose very, very few hoops (and reasonably low fees) to jump through to get married or divorced.

There was a line is my undergrad business law textbook that I have never seen expressed elsewhere so clearly. I was something like this:

"The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to legislate pretty much anywhere they please."

If they can ban food grown for self-consumption, what limits are there? Yeah, they did this: Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

**RussP** · 10-09-2012, 08:01

Okay, here's the thing, as I've said before. When people find that normal OC is not getting them the negative response from law enforcement they seek, they amp up their presentation, increase the drama. It might be carrying a larger firearm. It might be carrying a rifle caliber pistol. It might be carrying semi-auto versions of well known full-auto firearms. It might be changing locations and times. It might be any or a combination of those things.

Go back a few years. Honestly, some of the recordings made then, mostly audio, did support legitimate complaints and led to changes in ordinances, laws and policies after traditional complaint formats failed.

When video started appearing it became somewhat of a contest to see whose video could get the most views on YouTube. The trolling for negative encounters began in earnest, leading to videos like the one in this thread. Trying to resolve issues through normal channels became even less popular, replaced by "15-Minutes-of-Fame" Syndrome.

Oh, there are still groups and organizations working with local governments, local LE, legislatures all across the country to achieve the goals needed to secure the 2nd Amendment for all. BUT, are some of these videos actually hurting the work being done? I say yes. They are putting forth images that others say are representative of all of us who carry. That is absolutely untrue.

Now, threads like this create problems. Specifically, some of the posts responding to the video, the ones denigrating the OCers and OCers in general, they ain't helping LE's image as seen by some people who carry. And those are the most vocal people in these threads, those who have their feelings hurt by the JBTs.

Well, when someone opens a thread like this in Cop Talk, the forum on GT created by Eric specifically for LE members, the reception is going to be a bit difference than, say, if it were opened in another forum, like, oh what is it called, oh, yeah, Carry Issues. LE members here in CT are going to be critical in evaluating intent, defensive if hostility is sensed, and bluntly honest with their opinions.

This isn't a closed, by invitation only forum. It is, however, a tight knit community forum where it sometimes takes those not involved in that community time to establish credibility. Patience is a virtue. Want to jump in with both feet? Look at your LZ. Make sure you're not jumping into a pile of excrement. Not sure? PM me. Run the idea past me. Some of the cops here do before posting in CI.

Are there ways to start a thread like this without drawing battle lines? Yep.

Quote:

Title: I'd like your opinion about this OCer vs. LEO video

Post Comment: I believe the LEO did a great job. The OCers, not so good. What are your thoughts?

There will still be those that are skeptical about intent, but that is a better start.

Or, just try to be as confrontational, controversial as you can.

Beware Owner · 10-09-2012, 08:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayhem like Me

The right Not to be subjected to Massive dewchbagary

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

If that was the case, we wouldn't even have a GT forum to go to...

**RussP** · 10-09-2012, 08:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by frizz

I don't understand your question then. I can be slow on the uptake, so can you reword it, por favor?

The question is simple enough as is.

Patchman · 10-09-2012, 08:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by frizz

There was a line is my undergrad business law textbook that I have never seen expressed elsewhere so clearly. I was something like this:

"The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to legislate pretty much anywhere they please."

If they can ban food grown for self-consumption, what limits are there? Yeah, they did this: Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

The commerce clause is how the Feds got their foot in the door regarding civil rights, which up to that time had been considered a state matter.

Patchman · 10-09-2012, 08:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by frizz

There was a line is my undergrad business law textbook that I have never seen expressed elsewhere so clearly. I was something like this:

"The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to legislate pretty much anywhere they please."

If they can ban food grown for self-consumption, what limits are there? Yeah, they did this: Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

The commerce clause is how the Feds got their foot in the door regarding civil rights, which up to that time (late 1950s, early 1960s?) had been considered a state matter.

TheExplorer · 10-09-2012, 09:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussP

Okay, here's the thing, as I've said before. When people find that normal OC is not getting them the negative response from law enforcement they seek, they amp up their presentation, increase the drama. It might be carrying a larger firearm. It might be carrying a rifle caliber pistol. It might be carrying semi-auto versions of well known full-auto firearms. It might be changing locations and times. It might be any or a combination of those things.

Go back a few years. Honestly, some of the recordings made then, mostly audio, did support legitimate complaints and led to changes in ordinances, laws and policies after traditional complaint formats failed.

When video started appearing it became somewhat of a contest to see whose video could get the most views on YouTube. The trolling for negative encounters began in earnest, leading to videos like the one in this thread. Trying to resolve issues through normal channels became even less popular, replaced by "15-Minutes-of-Fame" Syndrome.

Oh, there are still groups and organizations working with local governments, local LE, legislatures all across the country to achieve the goals needed to secure the 2nd Amendment for all. BUT, are some of these videos actually hurting the work being done? I say yes. They are putting forth images that others say are representative of all of us who carry. That is absolutely untrue.

Now, threads like this create problems. Specifically, some of the posts responding to the video, the ones denigrating the OCers and OCers in general, they ain't helping LE's image as seen by some people who carry. And those are the most vocal people in these threads, those who have their feelings hurt by the JBTs.

Well, when someone opens a thread like this in Cop Talk, the forum on GT created by Eric specifically for LE members, the reception is going to be a bit difference than, say, if it were opened in another forum, like, oh what is it called, oh, yeah, Carry Issues. LE members here in CT are going to be critical in evaluating intent, defensive if hostility is sensed, and bluntly honest with their opinions.

This isn't a closed, by invitation only forum. It is, however, a tight knit community forum where it sometimes takes those not involved in that community time to establish credibility. Patience is a virtue. Want to jump in with both feet? Look at your LZ. Make sure you're not jumping into a pile of excrement. Not sure? PM me. Run the idea past me. Some of the cops here do before posting in CI.

Are there ways to start a thread like this without drawing battle lines? Yep.There will still be those that are skeptical about intent, but that is a better start.

Or, just try to be as confrontational, controversial as you can.

While I don't agree with everything RussP has ever said, this post deserves to be a sticky.

Billy10mm · 10-09-2012, 10:04

Awesome cop. These kids are stupid.

frizz · 10-09-2012, 10:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussP

The question is simple enough as is.

OK, lemme see if this helps you see my failure to understand.

The anonymity of the net has brought out lots of kooks and cranks with wild conspiracy theories. Add to that, even odd, out-of-the-ordinary views are expressed on the net that wouldn't be expressed in person.

Because if that, it can sometimes be hard to tell if someone is pulling your leg. Consequently sarcasm (or more accurately irony) can be hard to pick up on.

I say, "We all run into it online." We meaning pretty much everyone online. Is that it?

frizz · 10-09-2012, 10:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patchman

The commerce clause is how the Feds got their foot in the door regarding civil rights, which up to that time had been considered a state matter.

I think the 14th Amendment had a lot to do with that, too. It is, as we know, the vehicle by which the Bill of Rights has been applied to the states.

While I like the result, I have to admit that I find it to be bad law.

jeepinbandit · 10-09-2012, 10:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gombey

Well, how about the right to keep and bear arms?

Idiots like these pushed the legislators in CA to make open carry illegal. For many this was the only way they could legally carry a firearm.

These "activist" have effectively stripped many of this right.

So what you're saying is that they lost their right by exercising their right? So it might as well have been illegal in the first place.

frizz · 10-09-2012, 11:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeepinbandit

So what you're saying is that they lost their right by exercising their right? So it might as well have been illegal in the first place.

Well, the right IS gone, is it not?

They exercised the right in a foolish, obnoxious manner, and screwed it up for everyone else.

"Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive." T. Roosevelt

JuneyBooney · 10-09-2012, 13:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by frizz

When will these cops ever learn? I mean, I just don't understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=...ture=endscreen

I fully support gun rights but if the guys had the gun in a case they probably would have not been messed with. The cop made valid points and if he was a jerk he could have come with a number of cops and proned them out. I agree with what Russ said above. I think these guys may have been trying to make a point but if it would have gone to court I think the cop would win. I don't think he was being unreasonable by wanting to check them out after the Colorado lunatic shooting.

Beware Owner · 10-09-2012, 13:22

He tried to win them over while doing his job. These kids should respect that. He even offered to show them HIS rifle, which is even cooler. Come on, now.

Roering · 10-09-2012, 15:46

There should be a law against D-bags being able to open carry.

This should be a 3 min. stop at most.

Check ID/examine weapon(s)/say goodbye.

Gombey · 10-09-2012, 16:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeepinbandit

So what you're saying is that they lost their right by exercising their right? So it might as well have been illegal in the first place.

Negative! I am saying they lost the right because of how they exercised the right.

Had they just carries their pistols in accordance w/the law sans cameras and negative attitudes they would still have that right.

As I have said a few times here, prior to getting my citizenship the only way I could carry my firearm was via open carry. Had I pulled the mess that these "activist" pull I may have ended up losing that and a bunch of other rights. I may have even lost the privilege to get into LE.

I'm not anti open carry. I am anti stupidity, and this mess is stupidity.

jeepinbandit · 10-09-2012, 16:38

However even when they were carrying cameras they were still within the confines of the law and were still accosted. Yeah the attitude could have been fixed but being a dick isn't against the law.

Gombey · 10-09-2012, 17:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeepinbandit

However even when they were carrying cameras they were still within the confines of the law and were still accosted. Yeah the attitude could have been fixed but being a dick isn't against the law.

I wouldn't say accosted, and I agree being a dick isn't against the law. I'm grateful for that, if it where I'd be in some serious trouble!

That said, if someone calls the police and says there is a man with a gun walking around the police have to check it out. The individuals with the camera are looking for a confrontation with LE. The officer is just doing his job.

Just for arguments sake, this guy has a plan to kill his co-workers, the department gets calls about a MWAG and just do a cursory check like many are advocating. Don't dig any deeper, don't try to talk to the guy. He makes it to his destination and kills a bunch of people. Now what? What will the response be?

Just let the officers do their jobs. They have to answer calls. This is not the way to change laws in a positive way.

Honey is needed, not vinegar.

Gombey · 10-09-2012, 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roering

There should be a law against D-bags being able to open carry.

See the above, this is the kind of change this type of activism creates!

Roering, I was just using your post as an example. No offense intended and I understand the spirit of your post.

jbglock · 10-09-2012, 17:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gombey

I wouldn't say accosted, and I agree being a dick isn't against the law. I'm grateful for that, if it where I'd be in some serious trouble!

That said, if someone calls the police and says there is a man with a gun walking around the police have to check it out. The individuals with the camera are looking for a confrontation with LE. The officer is just doing his job.

Just for arguments sake, this guy has a plan to kill his co-workers, the department gets calls about a MWAG and just do a cursory check like many are advocating. Don't dig any deeper, don't try to talk to the guy. He makes it to his destination and kills a bunch of people. Now what? What will the response be?

Just let the officers do their jobs. They have to answer calls. This is not the way to change laws in a positive way.

Honey is needed, not vinegar.

I agree with all of your post. The attitude that someone is being harassed just because they have to speak to an officer amazes me.

I stand by my point that if I was an anti 2a activist this is just the type of thing I would do to make 2a supporters look bad.

Roering · 10-09-2012, 17:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gombey

See the above, this is the kind of change this type of activism creates!

Roering, I was just using your post as an example. No offense intended and I understand the spirit of your post.

No worries. I get what you're saying.

Goldendog Redux · 10-09-2012, 18:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by frizz

When will these cops ever learn? I mean, I just don't understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=...ture=endscreen

Hidden in your post is the absolute truth which reveals more about you than you can possibly imagine