Philosophical question regarding how we handle ourselves while OCing.

[DamonK]

So I have an honest question about our demeanor while carrying. Let me say right up front that as long as you are legal, I support your right to carry. I believe that it's as much a right as free speech or not incriminating yourself. That said, I notice that there are some that would prefer to argue with LEOs, and some that will do anything they say, just to keep things smooth. I've also seen and read about folks that have treated the general public in the same manner, both ways. For me personally, I've never given up my ID while legally carrying(exception of traffic stops of course) But I have no trouble being civil or even friendly with an officer if possible. I keep it brief, but I always try to leave it on a positive note when I can. I do the same thing a lot of us do, go for walks and what-not in areas looking for a chance to re-educate folks when I can, but I always try to push the friendly helpful do-gooder image as much as I can. I make it a point to spend at least half of one day every week looking for folks to help out. Not with my sidearm, but maybe changing a tire, or helping someone carry something. I've even helped neighbors with yard work and done some volunteer work. I think that the more positive contacts we can have with folks out there, the stronger our cause will be. Every gun owner we convince to carry, every person who's never seen one that now feel comfortable around us, every liberal or "progressive" that we can convince that the second amendment is as important as the rest of them, that a big win for out team. It's because of this that I personally have a problem with the guys that go out there looking for trouble. I see them on Youtube all the time, just like most of you folks probably do. I like some of the youtube videos, the ones where the guy is courteous and at the same time stands his ground and sticks to his rights. Those are good stuff and I use them as learning tools myself. But the ones where our people are rude, or aggressive, or especially baiting, those really bug me. What does that really accomplish? Other than maybe getting the LEOs to do something you can suit over not much. And in my opinion, if you're going out there to make money off of law suits, you're no better than those westboro yahoos. Those of you that do that hurt our cause. Sure you might win a settlement, and the police will abide more strictly to the law for the next year or so. But what have you really done? You've turned the social environment toxic to our cause while if you're lucky filling your pockets with the local community's money. Is it your right? Yes. But why would you want to be so damaging to your own cause?

I realize that I ramble a bit, I'm going to blame that on my lack of coffee so far this morning. But my question stands. Pros and Cons to both sides. Maybe there's benefits to being aggressive that I'm just not seeing. Just bear in mind, I'm looking at the long term effects that we can have. Good or bad.

Now please, be gentle... It's my first time outside my beloved Washington State forum

[skidmark]

.... What does that really accomplish? ....

I'm guessing that this is the central question you wanted to ask.

Let's say there is a Constitutional guarantee that the minions of the government will not walk up to you and give you a wedgie. And yet there are a small number of minions that like to go around giving folks random wedgies just because they can get away with it - meaning folks are not going to go to fisticuffs to stop them from trying to give a person a wedgie.

What do you do if you do not like getting a government wedgie, and do not like seeing/hearing/reading about other folks getting government wedgies?

Perhaps the first step is to document that some of the government minions are in fact giving folks wedgies in spite of the Constitutional guarantee against government minions doing that. You and I may disagree about how assertively a person can wiggle-waggle their butt (wiggle-wagging being an activity that is not illegal) in the face of a government minion, but the bottom line should not be your opinion or my opinion - it should be a careful examination of whether or not the government minion illegally gave someone a wedgie. Saying someone was "asking for" a minion to give them a wedgie is the same thing as saying a woman "asked" to be raped because of the clothing she wore or the place she was at. I'm guessing you do not support that philosophy. Which makes me wonder why you would support some government minions giving some people wedgies because they were "asking for it" by blatently and ostentatiously wiggle-wagging their butts in front of the minion.

You do see yourself holding to that viewpoint, don't you?

If basic training and public education about the fact that wiggle-wagging your butt is not illegal, and that giving people wedgies if you are a government minion is prohibited by the Constitution, do not work, how would you go about trying to stop the current crop of wedgie-giving minions and try to influence future minions not to do that prohibited act?

You could punch them in the face - but punching a government minion in the face, regardless of the provocation, means you commit an illegal act yourself. And that you most likely will suffer more than a wedgie at the hands of not only that minion but several of his buddy minions that he has called to come protect him from you.

You could turn around and shoot the minion, but that has its own set of problems and complications attached, along with probably being greatly illegal, seeing as once you get the wedgie you are no longer in imminent danger of being wedgied.

I guess your best choice is to use the system that has been set up to seek redress from the actions of the government as represented by their minion(s). Sue them back to the stone age - which for some minions might not be that far.

It's not just my Constitutional and God-given right to wiggle-waggle my butt, it's my right to be free from being wedgied by government minions for having wiggle-waggled my butt.

stay safe.

[LkWd_Don]

~~ snip ~~ But the ones where our people are rude, or aggressive, or especially baiting, those really bug me. What does that really accomplish? Other than maybe getting the LEOs to do something you can suit over not much. And in my opinion, if you're going out there to make money off of law suits, you're no better than those westboro yahoos. Those of you that do that hurt our cause. Sure you might win a settlement, and the police will abide more strictly to the law for the next year or so. But what have you really done? You've turned the social environment toxic to our cause while if you're lucky filling your pockets with the local community's money. Is it your right? Yes. But why would you want to be so damaging to your own cause?

I realize that I ramble a bit, I'm going to blame that on my lack of coffee so far this morning. But my question stands. Pros and Cons to both sides. Maybe there's benefits to being aggressive that I'm just not seeing. Just bear in mind, I'm looking at the long term effects that we can have. Good or bad.

Now please, be gentle... It's my first time outside my beloved Washington State forum

I agree with most all of what you wrote in that while I OC, I try to present a positive outlook to others around me. I also find that those who seem to carry with a clear display of having an ego, do little for helping to end the many restrictive laws across the nation.

I know that this isn't a forum for 1A discussions, but in your post, I found something that while the post is generally in reference to our 2A Rights and while I agree that bringing law suits is a poor choice of doing things, where I must disagree with you is contained in the quoted section above. (adding emphasis to help it stand out)

Though petitioning our Government for a redress of Grievance's is in fact a "right" guaranteed by our Constitutions 1A.. I question where having an ability to bring a Legal Suit with potential monetary gain is really an individual "Right"?

I know that many will say that just because they can do something, it is a Right and therefore makes it right that they do it. That is my disagreement.

Yes, I understand that sometimes by hitting our elected or appointed officials, the various agencies and employees of our Government in the pocket book is a means to change, however, I would suggest that such actions should avoid monetary penalties or that such suits would serve us best if they voluntarily redirected the proceeds over cost of the suit to some charity that would help society where the Government has failed. In otherwords converting the perception of personal gain into one of community gain.

[DamonK]

I do see what you're saying, but you're missing the bulk of my comment completely. I'm questioning how we conduct ourselves in the public eye. Sure you can "waggle your butt" in rebellion, or you could stand your ground politely with a smile on your face. When we are confronted by LEOs, rightly or not, we need to keep in mind that it isn't just about us. Perfect example, this weekend we had a little get together at a state park here in WA. The fist guy to show up was working on about 2 hours of sleep and the head ranger guy was one of "those" guys. It could have ended with us arguing and having to whip out the proverbial rulers, but instead we kept friendly and polite and in about 15 minutes won the rangers over. Now in the future those rangers are educated and one of them may start carrying. And anyone those guys run into that might have a problem with, now gets to hear from a gov. official that it's ok. See how working from a positive stand point works better than reacting with hostility? Honey, not vinegar folks...

[DamonK]

I agree with most all of what you wrote in that while I OC, I try to present a positive outlook to others around me. I also find that those who seem to carry with a clear display of having an ego, do little for helping to end the many restrictive laws across the nation.

I know that this isn't a forum for 1A discussions, but in your post, I found something that while the post is generally in reference to our 2A Rights and while I agree that bringing law suits is a poor choice of doing things, where I must disagree with you is contained in the quoted section above. (adding emphasis to help it stand out)

Though petitioning our Government for a redress of Grievance's is in fact a "right" guaranteed by our Constitutions 1A.. I question where having an ability to bring a Legal Suit with potential monetary gain is really an individual "Right"?

I know that many will say that just because they can do something, it is a Right and therefore makes it right that they do it. That is my disagreement.

Yes, I understand that sometimes by hitting our elected or appointed officials, the various agencies and employees of our Government in the pocket book is a means to change, however, I would suggest that such actions should avoid monetary penalties or that such suits would serve us best if they voluntarily redirected the proceeds over cost of the suit to some charity that would help society where the Government has failed. In otherwords converting the perception of personal gain into one of community gain.

I think we are on the same page. I hate that some folks do this. But there are quite a few that see it as a right, and I see the right to redress as a right. I just think that way too many abuse it.

[rushcreek2]

I agree with DamonK - except for the monetary damage actions. You have to motivate "minions" with some concept of VALUE in order to bring about a change in their behavior. Money that might well have gone to LEO pay raises - going to an OC'er kind of fits that bill -I think. I agree with skidmark entirely and like the "wiggle-waggle" analogy. There are EXTREMISMS at both ends of the "wiggle-waggle" vs submit to a "wedgie exam" spectrum.

My favorite analogy is to imagine the public square as being a "dance-floor". When the accepted norm of the other dancers that we must share the floor with is to either dance to "Somewhere Over the Rainbow", or " I'm Back in the Saddle Again" - and we jump into their "happy feet" experience with some version of "Rock -a-Billy", or "The March of the Wooden Soldiers" we are apt to raise a few eyebrows - as well as ELBOWS !

If we want to INTRODUCE a "new dance" that will likely increase the "tempo" on our public square "dance floor " it may be wise to "handle the stick GENTLY" so as to avoid stall outs, and nose-dives, and actually succeed in getting this movement off the ground.

[OC for ME]

How do you conduct yourself when not armed (OC)?

How do you conduct yourself when armed (OC)?

[DamonK]

How do you conduct yourself when not armed (OC)?

How do you conduct yourself when armed (OC)?

Just about exactly the same. That's because with the exception of being in uniform on Ft. Lewis, I'm always carrying. I choose to live my life by a set of standards so that I never need to second guess myself, and can feel good about myself when I go to bed at night. I choose to be what I like to call a "cheerful realist" I'm realistic in my expectations of this world we live in, but I choose to face the good and the bad with as positive an attitude as is possible. You would be shocked by how quickly this can mentally disarm the most aggressive of LEOs or antis.

Just so you folks know, I haven't had an easy life. I've been through a lot that I wont go into on here. But I am being medically retired from the Army thanks to a few too many IEDs and I actually saw that as a damn good year. Try not to let life over-whelm you, because that's when it's start to pass you by. You can never get your spent time back, so why spend it angry?

[twoskinsonemanns]

I've never given up my ID while legally carrying..........I always try to leave it on a positive note when I can

For educational purposes I wouldn't mine seeing a video of you refusing to give your ID to a LEO when OCing, and then showing how the encounter ended on a positive note where you furthered the OCing image.





Also brilliant post Skidmark. Very good.

[hjmoosejaw]

Just so you folks know, I haven't had an easy life. I've been through a lot that I wont go into on here. But I am being medically retired from the Army thanks to a few too many IEDs and I actually saw that as a damn good year. Try not to let life over-whelm you, because that's when it's start to pass you by. You can never get your spent time back, so why spend it angry?[/QUOTE]

Well said! Good Luck in all of your future endeavors, and Thanks You!

[DamonK]

For educational purposes I wouldn't mine seeing a video of you refusing to give your ID to a LEO when OCing, and then showing how the encounter ended on a positive note where you furthered the OCing image.





Also brilliant post Skidmark. Very good.

I generally don't video, but I do usually keep a recording. Next time it comes up I'll see about posting it. If you're trying to infer that I'm lying and that what I'm say couldn't possibly be true, I'd invite you to watch some of the youtubers out there that post their positive encounters. There's a few out there. Unfortunately the negative ones get more hits, so they are the more commonly posted. But really and truely, not all LEOs are out to get you. Some are ********, no doubt at all, but that's what their chain of command is for. Does it always work? Nope. But most of the time it does.

[DamonK]

Here's a decent example that I'm sure a lot of us have seen on the 'tube. He's a typical LEO, looking for info, looking for a crime, and ensuring that the MWAG call wasn't something to be concerned about. Sure Jeremy (the OCer) could have gotten confrontational. But all that would have done is escalate the situation. The example that I'm hoping that you get from this is that you can stand your ground while being civil.

Edit: Also, as I said previously, I do not allow anyone to remove my firearm. If they want to do that, then they would need to officially detain me and put me in cuffs. I've never been in that situation, but I have thought about the words that I would choose to use.

http://youtu.be/wKA3V_vd07c

[rushcreek2]

There was at least one delegate to the 1845 Texas Constitution Convention that didn't believe that any need existed in a "civilized society" for citizens to be armed against fellow citizens. As I recall his name was Ogletree.

Referring back to my "dance floor" illustration - WHO says that we have a RIGHT to force our way onto that dance floor with a "six-gun" strapped to our hip - when most of the other dancers are unarmed ?

Concerning this open carry RIGHT issue - we ARE absolutely right. The federal government of these United States has NO LEGITIMATE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER whatsoever to INFRINGE UPON our right to bear arms. That was SETTLED LAW way back in 1791 with the ratification of the Second Amendment. Now the SCOTUS has weighed in on the issue once again in an effort to co-opt, re-package, and claim a "patent" on a RIGHT that truly doesn't even fall under its constitutional purview-period.

Now we find ourselves increasingly tempted to rely upon the federal courts to enforce its limited version of the 2A upon State & local governments - when that 2A was intended to hog-tie the federal government-period. Recalling the recent (January 2012) Texas CHL related federal court decision in Lubbock, Texas wherein the court held that the 2A "does not CONVEY (?) a right to keep & bear arms OUTSIDE OF THE HOME." ?????? That court was right on one count. The 2A doesn't "convey" ANYTHING.

Are we sure we want to ally ourselves with the SCOTUS, and its reluctant lower courts to define the 2A ? Would it not be better to concentrate on our state legislatures to redress transgressions upon this right ?

Getting back to the topic at hand - our posture exhibited when exercising the 2A right is the "packaging" of our "product".

Even during the 18th, and 19th centuries there were those who had serious concerns about the practice of carrying deadly weapons in their midst. This is not a new problem at all.

Let us not be "brash" in our exuberance to reverse direction of attitudes. We are confronted by the serious challenge of convincing a substantial percentage of the electorate that being responsibly armed for lawful defense in the public square is a wise, and prudent endeavor.

Getting in antagonistic postures with LEO's, and having flame-outs with anti's in public isn't going to help restore respect, and appreciation for the 2A right.

A successful salesperson - is ALWAYS "selling" his product.

[DamonK]

Getting back to the topic at hand - our posture exhibited when exercising the 2A right is the "packaging" of our "product".

Even during the 18th, and 19th centuries there were those who had serious concerns about the practice of carrying deadly weapons in their midst. This is not a new problem at all.

Let us not be "brash" in our exuberance to reverse direction of attitudes. We are confronted by the serious challenge of convincing a substantial percentage of the electorate that being responsibly armed for lawful defense in the public square is a wise, and prudent endeavor.

Getting in antagonistic postures with LEO's, and having flame-outs with anti's in public isn't going to help restore respect, and appreciation for the 2A right.

A successful salesperson - is ALWAYS "selling" his product.

+10
Perfectly said!

[LkWd_Don]

Getting back to the topic at hand - our posture exhibited when exercising the 2A right is the "packaging" of our "product".

Even during the 18th, and 19th centuries there were those who had serious concerns about the practice of carrying deadly weapons in their midst. This is not a new problem at all.

Let us not be "brash" in our exuberance to reverse direction of attitudes. We are confronted by the serious challenge of convincing a substantial percentage of the electorate that being responsibly armed for lawful defense in the public square is a wise, and prudent endeavor.

Getting in antagonistic postures with LEO's, and having flame-outs with anti's in public isn't going to help restore respect, and appreciation for the 2A right.

A successful salesperson - is ALWAYS "selling" his product.

I also agree.

[OC for ME]

Just about exactly the same. That's because with the exception of being in uniform on Ft. Lewis, I'm always carrying. I choose to live my life by a set of standards so that I never need to second guess myself, and can feel good about myself when I go to bed at night. I choose to be what I like to call a "cheerful realist" I'm realistic in my expectations of this world we live in, but I choose to face the good and the bad with as positive an attitude as is possible. You would be shocked by how quickly this can mentally disarm the most aggressive of LEOs or antis.

Just so you folks know, I haven't had an easy life. I've been through a lot that I wont go into on here. But I am being medically retired from the Army thanks to a few too many IEDs and I actually saw that as a damn good year. Try not to let life over-whelm you, because that's when it's start to pass you by. You can never get your spent time back, so why spend it angry?

Then what is the point of your OP?

If you conduct yourself the 'same' whether you are armed or not, why does someone else not conducting themselves in a manner 'similar' to yours matter to you?

The OC 'movement' is not about perceptions the citizenry has of OCers, it is about the perception LE has, or more appropriately, attempts to engender in the eyes of the cotizenry, of OCers. That perception is negative as a matter of policy in the majority of LEAs. The citizenry is largely ambivalent towards OCers.

It is the state and their hired thugs at all levels of a LEA and every LEA has thugs, that are working to paint a negative picture of OCers. The only way to change the paradigm in LE is to hit them in our wallet and to paint every LEA as a thug agency based on the actions of the extreme minority in each LEA. Oddly it is the beat cop who usually does not have a problem with OCers. The 'chain of command' is the problem. But it is the beat cop who gets sued by simply going along to get along.

Folks must understand that LEOs do not have to stop a OCer to 'just check him out' based on a phone call absent any other visible facts. I believe there is even case law that supports and confirms my view. I do not give LEOs the benefit of the doubt when they initiate a 'consensual encounter', they are, each and every LEO that initiates these 'consensual encounters', thugs and mindless drone thugs at that.

There is a couple of lines that a thug cop gave a OCer that epitomizes the thug cop mentality. That thug cop is likely a very nice fellow and usually may not stop a OCer 'just to check him out'. yet he and three other thugs were/are not professional enough to take the high road and 'just observe' and keep on, keeping on.

Cop: "You could have just strong-armed...." and "Are you trying to incite?"

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...tate-Patrolman

I have a problem with some OCers who like to 'educate' thug cops. I do not have the time or patients or inclination to 'refresh' a thug cops knowledge on what he should already know. What is being paid to know.

I don't know how complicated your state and local 'unlawful use of weapon' laws are, but here in Missouri they are exceptionally simple to find, read, and remember. Cops who claim that they thought this, or understood that, or did not know that, are idiots no matter how much effort into "trying to push the friendly helpful do-gooder image".

You may find pleasure and satisfaction in such endeavors, I will not waste my time. The thug cop is on the clock and getting paid to interfere with my liberty.

[twoskinsonemanns]

I generally don't video, but I do usually keep a recording. Next time it comes up I'll see about posting it. If you're trying to infer ...

I was not inferring anything, I was politely implying skepticism, you inferred it.

[PistolPackingMomma]

Then what is the point of your OP?

If you conduct yourself the 'same' whether you are armed or not, why does someone else not conducting themselves in a manner 'similar' to yours matter to you?

The OC 'movement' is not about perceptions the citizenry has of OCers, it is about the perception LE has, or more appropriately, attempts to engender in the eyes of the cotizenry, of OCers. That perception is negative as a matter of policy in the majority of LEAs. The citizenry is largely ambivalent towards OCers.

It is the state and their hired thugs at all levels of a LEA and every LEA has thugs, that are working to paint a negative picture of OCers. The only way to change the paradigm in LE is to hit them in our wallet and to paint every LEA as a thug agency based on the actions of the extreme minority in each LEA. Oddly it is the beat cop who usually does not have a problem with OCers. The 'chain of command' is the problem. But it is the beat cop who gets sued by simply going along to get along.

Folks must understand that LEOs do not have to stop a OCer to 'just check him out' based on a phone call absent any other visible facts. I believe there is even case law that supports and confirms my view. I do not give LEOs the benefit of the doubt when they initiate a 'consensual encounter', they are, each and every LEO that initiates these 'consensual encounters', thugs and mindless drone thugs at that.

There is a couple of lines that a thug cop gave a OCer that epitomizes the thug cop mentality. That thug cop is likely a very nice fellow and usually may not stop a OCer 'just to check him out'. yet he and three other thugs were/are not professional enough to take the high road and 'just observe' and keep on, keeping on.

Cop: "You could have just strong-armed...." and "Are you trying to incite?"

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...tate-Patrolman

I have a problem with some OCers who like to 'educate' thug cops. I do not have the time or patients or inclination to 'refresh' a thug cops knowledge on what he should already know. What is being paid to know.

I don't know how complicated your state and local 'unlawful use of weapon' laws are, but here in Missouri they are exceptionally simple to find, read, and remember. Cops who claim that they thought this, or understood that, or did not know that, are idiots no matter how much effort into "trying to push the friendly helpful do-gooder image".

You may find pleasure and satisfaction in such endeavors, I will not waste my time. The thug cop is on the clock and getting paid to interfere with my liberty.

+1

I fail to see why I should be any more polite to a cop then I am to anyone else. Perhaps even less so, actually. The purpose of a cop is to find a criminal and bring him before the hungry jaws of "justice". If the cop is approaching me, I am going to be suspicious of his or her intent, and I am not going to smile and play the "nice, obedient, respectful citizen" game. I'm going to cooperate to the extent required by law, and have a recording device going for my protection.

[DamonK]

Then what is the point of your OP?

If you conduct yourself the 'same' whether you are armed or not, why does someone else not conducting themselves in a manner 'similar' to yours matter to you?

The OC 'movement' is not about perceptions the citizenry has of OCers, it is about the perception LE has, or more appropriately, attempts to engender in the eyes of the cotizenry, of OCers. That perception is negative as a matter of policy in the majority of LEAs. The citizenry is largely ambivalent towards OCers.It is the state and their hired thugs at all levels of a LEA and every LEA has thugs, that are working to paint a negative picture of OCers. The only way to change the paradigm in LE is to hit them in our wallet and to paint every LEA as a thug agency based on the actions of the extreme minority in each LEA. Oddly it is the beat cop who usually does not have a problem with OCers. The 'chain of command' is the problem. But it is the beat cop who gets sued by simply going along to get along.

Folks must understand that LEOs do not have to stop a OCer to 'just check him out' based on a phone call absent any other visible facts. I believe there is even case law that supports and confirms my view. I do not give LEOs the benefit of the doubt when they initiate a 'consensual encounter', they are, each and every LEO that initiates these 'consensual encounters', thugs and mindless drone thugs at that.

There is a couple of lines that a thug cop gave a OCer that epitomizes the thug cop mentality. That thug cop is likely a very nice fellow and usually may not stop a OCer 'just to check him out'. yet he and three other thugs were/are not professional enough to take the high road and 'just observe' and keep on, keeping on.

Cop: "You could have just strong-armed...." and "Are you trying to incite?"

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...tate-Patrolman

I have a problem with some OCers who like to 'educate' thug cops. I do not have the time or patients or inclination to 'refresh' a thug cops knowledge on what he should already know. What is being paid to know.

I don't know how complicated your state and local 'unlawful use of weapon' laws are, but here in Missouri they are exceptionally simple to find, read, and remember. Cops who claim that they thought this, or understood that, or did not know that, are idiots no matter how much effort into "trying to push the friendly helpful do-gooder image".

You may find pleasure and satisfaction in such endeavors, I will not waste my time. The thug cop is on the clock and getting paid to interfere with my liberty.

So what, did you have bad experiences with LEOs on the past? Is that why all are bad guys or "thugs" to you now? In the bolded part of your quote I have the most disagreement. The rest of your statement makes it very clear that you have something against LE and have something to prove. But the bolded part is what gets to me a little. Are you really so short-sighted? Who elects the officials that control the LEAs?

As for your opening statement, it matters to me and should matter to all of us because the people that you piss off and offend could easily be decision makers, politicians, activists, and even the very "thug cop" that you complain about some day because of you. Those people that don't like what we do, don't like it due mostly to their own ignorance. Seeing you going off on a LEO just because it's your "right" just enforces that ignorance. You might as well collect a paycheck from the Brady folks, because you are doing them more good than us in the long run.

Remember, just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

[DamonK]

Just got done watching the video at that link. He deffinately got railroaded. The LEOs were deffinately in the wrong, there can be no debate about it at all. As for how he handled himself, he walked away from a bad situation without getting arrested or shot, so not to bad I'd say.

But... That isn't the same thing as a policeman walking up to you, say in a park, and just asking you how things are going. All he's doing is making a casual contact to see if you seem mentally stable or not. The way you choose to react right then usually sets the pace for the rest of the encounter. If you avoid eye contact, or refuse to respond ie. avoidance techniques, you make yourself look very suspisious. If you're overly friendly, same thing. I prefer to keep it short and polite. That way the officer is easily satisfied that I'm no danger to the public, but I have't given up any information. I'm sure that it doesn't hurt that I keep a clean cut appearance.

[OC for ME]

^^AND THAT^^ is why cops continue to interfere with OCer's liberty, just to make sure you are not 'X', because some OCers think that it is OK to enable a 'friendly' little chat with cops. Cops know this.

The law is what it is, if you had violated the law there would be no 'friendly' little chat. The thug cop fishing for a violation garners zero respect and cooperation mandated by law. Cops know this too.

[OC for ME]

So what, did you have bad experiences with LEOs on the past? Is that why all are bad guys or "thugs" to you now? In the bolded part of your quote I have the most disagreement. The rest of your statement makes it very clear that you have something against LE and have something to prove. But the bolded part is what gets to me a little. Are you really so short-sighted? Who elects the officials that control the LEAs?

As for your opening statement, it matters to me and should matter to all of us because the people that you piss off and offend could easily be decision makers, politicians, activists, and even the very "thug cop" that you complain about some day because of you. Those people that don't like what we do, don't like it due mostly to their own ignorance. Seeing you going off on a LEO just because it's your "right" just enforces that ignorance. You might as well collect a paycheck from the Brady folks, because you are doing them more good than us in the long run.

Remember, just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

I have had exactly two encounters with LE and both encounters were 'casual' in nature, two years apart. The last one four years ago. Those two incidents were the exception regarding the LEOs on my little town's force. Their behavior was anything but friendly, a 'professional matter of factness' if you will.

My approach to the actions of LE are different than yours, and your disagreement with my approach influences your opinion of me, and others I imagine.

I am friendly to friendly people. If cops and I never meet, officially, how can I give any cop a bad name? I do not seek out 'casual contacts' with cops.

Only cops can give cops a bad name.

[Tucker6900]

Let me start by saying this: My personality doesnt change whether I am armed or not. The only difference is that I go into what I call "critical awareness" mode when carrying. Its almost like a switch. When my side arm is on....awareness is up. I take more care to be aware of my surroundings, and question things, mentally, more often than I do when I am not carrying.

Unlike alot of stories you will hear on OCDO and youtube, most of my LEO encounters have gone well. But I treat each encounter differently, depending on the officers attitude. If an officer walks up, and politely asks to talk, then I will generally agree. If he continues to be polite, I will as well. I may tell him my first name, but will not give up my ID. His questions will go unanswered, but I will continue to be polite. After a few minutes to be sure he is aware that I am not a criminal, just by our "conversation", I will ask if I am free to go, and go on my way.

On the other hand, if an officer walks up with a bad attitude, things change quickly. I immediatley inform him that "I do not consent to this conversation. I do not consent to a search and seizure of my person or property. Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" And thats it. Conversation, at least from my end, is over. Wash, rinse, repeat.

I have recorded 7 police encounters. 5 of which were deleted, because I use the rule, "No Harm, No Foul." I dont complain to their superiors, as long as I am not overly detained and harassed. The other two recordings were brought to the chief and the sheriff, respectively, with complaints filed. The reason that most people havent heard about the two bad ones, is that the situations were taken care of to my satisfaction.

I dont bait police. I dont go out trying to draw attention to myself. I simply go out to do my thing, then go home.

[DamonK]

I have had exactly two encounters with LE and both encounters were 'casual' in nature, two years apart. The last one four years ago. Those two incidents were the exception regarding the LEOs on my little town's force. Their behavior was anything but friendly, a 'professional matter of factness' if you will.

My approach to the actions of LE are different than yours, and your disagreement with my approach influences your opinion of me, and others I imagine.

I am friendly to friendly people. If cops and I never meet, officially, how can I give any cop a bad name? I do not seek out 'casual contacts' with cops.

Only cops can give cops a bad name.

I'm a little confused... if the only encounters that you've ever had with LEOs stayed casual, then how can they be the "exception" 2 of 2 would be 100% by my math.

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk 2

[Herr Heckler Koch]

If an officer walks up, and politely asks to talk, then I will generally agree. If he continues to be polite, I will as well.

You do know that Bitte is always polite, as in Papieren Bitte!