I looked at the video. To me it looks like younguns going out for attention seeking. They got their attention from a professional who was being professional. Admittedly I have seen worse on YouTube.
What I saw was two civil libertardian d- bags being attention whores and the cop doing his best to to his job without aggravating the situation. What exactly was "unprofessional" in the video, frizz? Give us a time stamp or some specific quotes. Don't just post and run.
I stand by my original judgement of you in the first Coptalk thread you posted. You're a "concern troll." You're slicker and more low key than most of our trolls, but a troll all the same.
I'm thinking the OP's post was sarcasm. The police officer in the video was quite professional. What I don't understand is why the OCers didn't walk away when the cop gave them that option multiple times...
I'm thinking the OP's post was sarcasm. The police officer in the video was quite professional. What I don't understand is why the OCers didn't walk away when the cop gave them that option multiple times...
Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that one must be an absolute ******* in order to exercise one's right guaranteed under that document. Too many people, including a number on this board, feel that confrontation is in order, merely to make themselves feel good about carrying a gun. They think, "Man, I really showed that jack booted thug, pig of a cop" when acting like an immature child.
Further, those same *******s get all upset about a cop getting a bit nasty during an encounter, also forgetting that the Constitution doesn't specify that law enforcement officers must be polite all the time.
So the instigator's (the video guy) hands and feet are out of view. The cop should just yell, "WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO KICK ME!" and then whoop the **** out of these guys.
I'm thinking the OP's post was sarcasm. The police officer in the video was quite professional. What I don't understand is why the OCers didn't walk away when the cop gave them that option multiple times...
Because, aside from being stupid POSs, their only purpose for going through town with rifles was to provoke a confrontation with police and put it on youtube. They want to show that the officer was violating their rights and to walk away when he told them they could would not create that impression.
What I want to see is the video when a non-officer takes their guns and beats their ###es. If you've ever dealt with or known people like these (and you aren't one) you know a 16-year-old gang banger could rob them without being in serious danger.
Too many people, including a number on this board, feel that confrontation is in order, merely to make themselves feel good about carrying a gun. They think, "Man, I really showed that jack booted thug, pig of a cop" when acting like an immature child.
My best guess is, in their minds, like that Leonard fellow with the orange AK, they think they will be some sort of heroes to gun owners. They don't get that the only people who think they're "cool" when they see these videos are their fellow mall-ninja-nerds who also just recently added guns alongside their comic book and sci-fi hobbies.
What I want to see is the video when a non-officer takes their guns and beats their ###es. If you've ever dealt with or known people like these (and you aren't one) you know a 16-year-old gang banger could rob them without being in serious danger.
Cop was professional didn't seem to be bullying them or anything made a contact.
The kids weren't total *********s but you could tell their adrenline was up and were talking at 1 million miles an hour. And the cop had much more knowledge on the law than they did and I was impressed with that
Misleading title is misleading and I'm usually very pro open carry and anti bad cop. This cop wasn't a bad guy.
I'm starting to think all this OC stuff was started by anti gun activists to make all gun owners look bad.
wprebeck, you hit the nail on the head. Nothing in the constitution says I have to be polite if you aren't. Of course people tend to equate an officer not being polite with having their rights violated. Do these states where this seems to occur frequently not have the charge of going armed to the terror of the public?
In Texas I don't have to provide ID unless I'm operating a motor vehicle or the officer believes I'm lying about my identity during a street contact. All I have to give them in that case is my name.
We need more officers like this guy. I thought he was being totally cool. What is the big deal about whipping out ID, letting the officer do his job and then be on your way? I just don't get it.
No if it was a handgun, maybe, maybe I could see being minorly put off. But why squeeze the officer's shoes about doing his job?
No such statute in Oregon. In a vehicle, someone can be charged with a misdemeanor, but DA's have said they will not accept it on it's own, it must be in combination with another charge.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Glock Talk
21M posts
185.2K members
Since 1999
A forum community dedicated to Glock firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, troubleshooting, accessories, classifieds, and more!