A frightening look into the minds of some LEO's & OC

http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Sa...n-sues-cops-guard-over-arrest-for-open-carry/

Not many posts about upholding the constitution. : (

The other side of the story from the OCer.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ed-quot-Suspicious-quot&p=1747342#post1747342

But what did you expect - from either side?

Now we (OCDO, OCers) might have more of the moral high ground, but one of the reasons we do not have it all is because of the "attidude" some have/display regarding the cops. They (all of them) are not always "the enemy" and not all of them are "the enemy" at all.

My experience is that folks over here at OCDO tend to have less trouble remembering that than the folks over at PoliceOne.

stay safe.

Says only cops can post comments on articles. That sounds about as useful as **** on rice. It's like they're interested in perpetuating the us against them stereotypes. I guess it's good though, since cops like complaining, and it's like they have their own little private emo crying corner.

For me, I don't care what they think. One of the greatest fears of thug cops is for people to learn that the cops actually serve them, and that the people aren't servants to the cops. But I already know this, and thus, their opinions are almost completely meaningless to me.

skidmark said:

But what did you expect - from either side?

Now we (OCDO, OCers) might have more of the moral high ground, but one of the reasons we do not have it all is because of the "attidude" some have/display regarding the cops. They (all of them) are not always "the enemy" and not all of them are "the enemy" at all.

My experience is that folks over here at OCDO tend to have less trouble remembering that than the folks over at PoliceOne.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

You get what you give. I doubt there would be as many people praying for war without the presence of the tyrants.

Some of the officers commenting on the article have actually given me hope of reasonable and intelligent law enforcement. Others have said Wyatt Earp enough times I wanna punch them.

One thought, and it really shows the cops' mindset.

'Guys who OC with a gun strapped to their waist have a 'don't fsk with me' attitude.'

First, LEOs walk around with a gun strapped to their waist and a 'don fsk w.me' attitude, not OC-er (the majority). Most OC-ers are low key, don't wear drop holsters and gear.

But it DOESN'T MATTER, what the perceived attitude is, if the OC-er is not bothering anyone, not being pushy, not having an arrogant stance it's not ILLEGAL(*). Cops should realize they can't get involved with all 'moral' behavior and only need to intercede if it's illegal.

WHY don't they get that? It's that they are testosterone poisoned and have an entitlement attitude. Some of them realize this, but are probably reluctant to say so on a cop-only board.

But it doesn't take a "genius" to realize they're talking about their own attitudes...

Oh well. Protect yourself, run your vid and audio recorders and be a LAC - it's all you can do. (oh and educate where feasible, and remove yourself if you get that spidey sense. Don't stay and invite trouble in the 1 in 100 occasions where you are getting stink eyed or told to leave).

FWIW

ETA: (*) that's not illegal either!

I only needed to read a few of the posts to understand that the real point of contention was that OC hurts some officers authoritative egos.

Especially after reading the posts of joe319 I fear my overall opinion of LEO has gone down..... Even here in Colorado I am going to have to order a clandestine recording device.

Whoooooo... there's an interesting cultural insight! I like the 'Wyatt Earp' reference especially... since Earp was not only 'a cop', but a gun grabber. It's obvious these guys don't get around much with the same old tired 'projections' of what OC is about... and who gets shot 1st... and people grabbin' the guns. 'Been goin' on here and elsewhere for 100 years 'n more w/o all that concealed carry only 'n permit shizzle and none the worse for it all. Easterners tend to be a rather myopic bunch.

Doesn't happen. Ignorance on parade in the comments. However... the carrier screwed up arguing and playing cute. Not a good thing to do. The cop may be wrong but he's still the cop. The street is no place to argue the point while you're armed.

F350 said:

Especially after reading the posts of joe319 I fear my overall opinion of LEO has gone down..... Even here in Colorado I am going to have to order a clandestine recording device.

Click to expand...

I would like to offer a gentle objection to the categorization of audio/video recording of public officials performing their public service activities in public as "clandestine".

Even if the recording device is not overtly and obviously visible, there is nothing "sneaky" or "underhanded" about the recording of public offiials performing ... in public -- well, you know what I'm getting at. The courts have (for the most part) said that there is nothing wrong with doing it, and the courts are slowly moving away from two party/all party permission requirements when it comes to recording public officials performing ... in public. The courts are moving towards the notion (that the rest of us have had for a long time) that public officials are in fact less entitled to privacy protections because they are public officials.

[I had a long and detailed diatribe about why we ought to be allowed to record public officials performing ... in public without needing to first securing their permission, and why that would be good for them as well as for us. I cut it because 1) we all know that already and 2) it's the direction the courts are inexorably moving.]

We need to think of our recording our contacts and interactions with public officials performing ... in public in the same way as they think about their recording their interactions with us. It offers independent and objective information about a subjective matter. And until there is a way to get cops who break the law out of society as quickly and easily as it is to get non-cops who break the law out of society, it's going to be necessary for both sides to feel a need to have independent, objective information that can be presented to support what makes the interaction between us and them subjective.*

stay safe.

Good grief! I'm saying that one of the reasons I have and use a recording decice is to show the cops are doing their job properly. I'm on their side!??! (at least part of the time)

Posted by wrlowe on Sunday, May 06, 2012 05:23 PM Pacific Report Abuse
According to the article the man stated that the birthday on his pistol permit is incorrect. So it's not a valid pistol permit... you're under arrest for carrying a pistol without a permit. Probably won't fly in court. But...

Click to expand...

OK, here the LEO doesn't know the law, i.e. you don't arrest someone based on an incorrect permit. The most that can happen in Va is a fine of $25 if you're not carrying it when you're stopped.

Second, he's advocating IN FRONT OF OTHER COPS the idea of doing something that won't stand up in court. That's like crapping where you eat - overloading the courts with frivolous arrests. WHY? Because the LEOs on that board are power tripping. Can you imaging 'fudging your work' on a board of like professionals? "Oh, I get too busy to test samples, I just make up a result and throw the sample out". Why doesn't it matter that they're not doing a professional job and, apparently, not ashamed of it?

skidmark said:

I would like to offer a gentle objection to the categorization of audio/video recording of public officials performing their public service activities in public as "clandestine".

Even if the recording device is not overtly and obviously visible, there is nothing "sneaky" or "underhanded" about the recording of public offiials performing ... in public -- well, you know what I'm getting at. The courts have (for the most part) said that there is nothing wrong with doing it, and the courts are slowly moving away from two party/all party permission requirements when it comes to recording public officials performing ... in public. The courts are moving towards the notion (that the rest of us have had for a long time) that public officials are in fact less entitled to privacy protections because they are public officials.

[I had a long and detailed diatribe about why we ought to be allowed to record public officials performing ... in public without needing to first securing their permission, and why that would be good for them as well as for us. I cut it because 1) we all know that already and 2) it's the direction the courts are inexorably moving.]

We need to think of our recording our contacts and interactions with public officials performing ... in public in the same way as they think about their recording their interactions with us. It offers independent and objective information about a subjective matter. And until there is a way to get cops who break the law out of society as quickly and easily as it is to get non-cops who break the law out of society, it's going to be necessary for both sides to feel a need to have independent, objective information that can be presented to support what makes the interaction between us and them subjective.*

stay safe.

Good grief! I'm saying that one of the reasons I have and use a recording decice is to show the cops are doing their job properly. I'm on their side!??! (at least part of the time)

Click to expand...

I agree with you 95%, that 5% relates to the part of your post I bolded; if abusive/unlawful LEO KNOW you are recording they will behave like good little choirboys and continue to abuse the defenseless. ONLY by recording them when they don't suspect it will the rotten apples be removed from the barrel.

skidmark said:

I would like to offer a gentle objection to the categorization of audio/video recording of public officials performing their public service activities in public as "clandestine".

...

Click to expand...

Makes it sound like the person is a "terrorist"... you know, the 21st century equivalent of the "communist" of the 20th century. It's a loaded statement.

DrTodd

Makes it sound like the person is a "terrorist"

Click to expand...

If you are referring to rouge LEO like joe319; then YES very much so!!


Origin of CLANDESTINE

Middle French or Latin;
Middle French clandestin,
from Latin clandestinus,
from clam secretly;
akin to Latin celare to hide

LE records me and calls it necessary for officer safety... I record officers and call it covering my ass.

I call that even.

I'm not a LEO, so I can't reply on their comment sections, but here's what I would post if I could:

Joe319: **"I agree. Sit back and be patient. Some yo yo walking down the street with a gun strapped on their hip is the type that's just itching for trouble. It's only a matter of time before someone pulls their chain and they respond by pulling their piece and using it. Then watch the backlash!" **

That's the same BS argument anti-gun folks used against shall issue concealed carry, and look the streets aren't running with blood.

I was in the military for 10 years, and I bet I have more firearms training than most police officers. Now that I'm a civilian, I OC all the time, and I continue to train the same way I did while I was in the military (minus the automatic weapons). I hold the highest security clearance, and have passed numerous background checks. In every way you referenced, I am just as "qualified" to carry a firearm as you or any other LEO. But you wouldn't know that if you saw me carrying. You would just see a civilian, carrying a firearm openly. If you don't know someone personally, then you don't know what they might do, or what training/experience they've had. There can be some clues based on how they dress or act, but those are only indicators, and could be completely wrong. It's the same when someone is driving a car. A car can be just as deadly as a firearm, but you don't pull over any driver you feel like because they might be unstable. They have to be violating a law, or give you RAS.

Finally, your assertion that people don't need to OC because it's not their job to "run into dangerous situations" is absolutely ridiculous. Remember, we don't have a bill of needs in this country, we have a bill of rights. If you are a LEO, I seriously hope you look deep within yourself and remember that your job is to enforce the law, not your opinion, not your prejudice, but the law as it is written. Too many police are guilty of more crimes than the "criminals" they arrest. Of course not all police are, but even one is one too many.

** Yes I used the bill of needs thing because I really liked it, and I'll continue to use it **

xarmy9 said:

** Yes I used the bill of needs thing because I really liked it, and I'll continue to use it **

Click to expand...

By all means.

It works, you should have seen the look that guy gave me. lol