Man Arrested for Turning Without Signaling

imported post

Unlike the late and not so great Hank, I'm not going to argue with you for the sake of arguing.
Let's be open about it. You're a statist, I'm the opposite. Statist will ALWAYS try to justify just about anything done to promote/enforce the state's agenda.
This is but one more example.
Good night.

imported post

I really don't see how you didn't understand what he meant.

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Unlike the late and not so great Hank, I'm not going to argue with you for the sake of arguing.
Let's be open about it. You're a statist, I'm the opposite. Statist will ALWAYS try to justify just about anything done to promote/enforce the state's agenda.
This is but one more example.
Good night.

Click to expand...

Isee or understand why many things are doneand you see the wrong and bad in just about everything done.

This is rather obvious when I post that"I agree.... it is ridiculous to take someone to jail over a minor traffic violation in this case." and then clarify "By proper I am indicating he did nothing wrong legally or by his department procedures."

and then you comment "but if that's YOUR idea of proper, maybe I need to send you a red armband with a black swastika"

I advised that I believed it was "ridiculous" and that nothing was done wrong by law and department regulations. I never saidthat what he did by arresting him for whatever his reasons were was proper.I am still trying to figureone how you came up with that.

Then you pretty much call me a Nazi?

You have issues... it seems that you are just too sour to read or want to read things clearly. Even after a clarification... you push forward with your negative opinions.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

It appears that it was legal and proper for the officer to physically arrest the driver. I would love to see his justification.

Now it is very odd to actually arrest someone for a turn signal violation as this is not really worth the paperwork and time involved.

The reporter stated that the driver"didadmit challenging the officer's questions during the stop."

I strongly feel this is why he was arrested. He challenged the officer and the officer had to win the battle. The arrest is the ultimate jab. Was it right...? Not really. But it was allowed.

Choose your battles.... It is better to remain silent than to challenge an officer. You canare only going to talk yourself into more trouble. But if you are feeling daring and want some adventure.....

I am sure the department will change their policy to limit physical arrests. This was a little embarrassing.

Click to expand...

The actions of this police officer appear immoral, immatureand thuggish, though it may not be illegal. Officers with such large egos and so little common sense that they resort to arresting a citizen with whom they disagree should find some other career, and leave law enforcement to those with the temperament and judgment required for the job.

Always challenge injustice andabuse of power, especially when the dirty deeds come from government agents. That is what being an activist is all about. Danbus did a great job in Hampton Roads. Just one free man standing up to bad police has ensured that open carrying is not challenged by police officers in Hampton Roads.

imported post

Well, its too bad there's not more info on this. But from what is given,it sound likethe police office was on a powertrip andwasted a bunch of tax dollars.

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

I guess "reading into everything" is what separates me from most Amerikans. Proper? Again, it very well may be "legal" and "within his department's policies," but if that's YOUR idea of proper, maybe I need to send you a red armband with a black swastika, consider it an early birthday present.

Click to expand...

You do know you lost right?

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

I guess "reading into everything" is what separates me from most Amerikans. Proper? Again, it very well may be "legal" and "within his department's policies," but if that's YOUR idea of proper, maybe I need to send you a red armband with a black swastika, consider it an early birthday present.

Click to expand...

OK... for the last time..... :banghead:

By proper I am indicating he did nothing wrong legally or by his department procedures.

Maybe you missed this post that conveys my opinion on the matter.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=10778&forum_id=65&jump_to=172393#p172393

Click to expand...

I'd draw an analogy to drug laws. Even if LEOs disagree with them, they are still expected to bring in someone who they see smoking a joint on the street. Granted, they have the discretion to ignore it, or to tell said joint-smoker to go somewhere else, but they can't be faulted for enforcing said law to its fullest extent.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

There really is no need to QFT what I say as I could just delete my post AND yours.

Click to expand...

QFT Just a clumsy attempt at humor?

MEM!+!+!+!+!

Moderation in all things including moderation!

Either we are equal or we are not. good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

imported post

longwatch wrote:

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

I guess "reading into everything" is what separates me from most Amerikans. Proper? Again, it very well may be "legal" and "within his department's policies," but if that's YOUR idea of proper, maybe I need to send you a red armband with a black swastika, consider it an early birthday present.

Click to expand...

You do know you lost right?

Click to expand...

Do you mean 'lost' as in this thread, in "Sieg Heil! Dickson City, PA police conduct ..."?

imported post

Anyone who has watched Cops or any of those World's Worst Driver type tv shows has seen examples of citizens being totally out of control jerk-offs over something minor and petty. We do not know what went down on this one.

I'll reserve judgment until we get more info or see the dashboard video. This could be a case of a misdeamenor citation turning into an arrest because the citizen was an out of control jerk-off. It could also be that polite disagreement or questions led a jerk-off LEO to arrest the citizen over a minor infraction. We have no way of knowing which it is.

imported post

You're (you are) right. Who is and who is not presumed innocent? How far do Constitutional protections extend and how far are they 'disrespected'? Have you read this thread? http://www.copwatch.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22768

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

imported post

Thundar wrote:

The actions of this police officer appear immoral, immatureand thuggish, though it may not be illegal. Officers with such large egos and so little common sense that they resort to arresting a citizen with whom they disagree should find some other career, and leave law enforcement to those with the temperament and judgment required for the job.

Always challenge injustice andabuse of power, especially when the dirty deeds come from government agents. That is what being an activist is all about. Danbus did a great job in Hampton Roads. Just one free man standing up to bad police has ensured that open carrying is not challenged by police officers in Hampton Roads.

Click to expand...

Not having all the facts as to what happened.... it would absolutely appear he went well beyond what was required for such a minor violation.

But I suspect the driver got real mouthy with him to the point the cop decided enough was enough and he exercised his rights. Call him an activist too. :lol:

Some here want to go open carry with long guns downtown.They are well within their rights to do that to and they would not be breaking any laws...

But it would not really be appropriate to do in a city. So in both cases... can you do it? Yes.... Should you do it? It depends on who you ask. But.... if you really want to you can.

I find both to be a little extreme and unnecessary.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Some here want to go open carry with long guns downtown.They are well within their rights to do that to and they would not be breaking any laws...

But it would not really be appropriate to do in a city. So in both cases... can you do it? Yes.... Should you do it? It depends on who you ask. But.... if you really want to you can.

I find both to be a little extreme and unnecessary.

Click to expand...

Ahh, but 229, who gets to decide what is appropriate and what isn't, the media?

Why wouldn't it be appropriate to you? After all, you support the armament of the Torch Teams and them patrolling our subways in NYCfor criminals with AK's that have yet to appear. Why not citizens? Is it a training discrepancy that concerns you and maybe someother citizens? If that's the case, what if that training had been gained?

I look at it like this. Citizens need to be prepared for any eventualities just like anyone else.While we don't necessarily need to carry with us force-projection weapons in our every day lives, I certainly don't find any fault with someone wanting to carry better armament with them, particularly in areas that are more concerning than others.Some criminals have shotguns and sub machine guns and assault rifles but the citizens are limited to sidearms and in some areas, not even that. All because the practice of carrying arms is shunned by the media, the people, and in some cases, the police.

Obviously, society has become an incredibly hoplophobic group of and I think that one way to off-set that is to slowly desensitize them by carrying firearms of any sort in a responsible manner, while practicing all of the rules of gun safety and acting as we would while carrying anything else on our person...

While legal in my state, I have yet to have the balls to stroll throughtown with a carbine or shotgun, although I have just at the outskirts.Hopefully after years of showing gun owners in a positive light instead of being demonized, that may change.

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Some here want to go open carry with long guns downtown.They are well within their rights to do that to and they would not be breaking any laws...

But it would not really be appropriate to do in a city. So in both cases... can you do it? Yes.... Should you do it? It depends on who you ask. But.... if you really want to you can.

I find both to be a little extreme and unnecessary.

Click to expand...

Ahh, but 229, who gets to decide what is appropriate and what isn't, the media?

Why wouldn't it be appropriate to you? After all, you support the armament of the Torch Teams and them patrolling our subways in NYCfor criminals with AK's that have yet to appear. Why not citizens? Is it a training discrepancy that concerns you and maybe someother citizens? If that's the case, what if that training had been gained?

I look at it like this. Citizens need to be prepared for any eventualities just like anyone else.While we don't necessarily need to carry with us force-projection weapons in our every day lives, I certainly don't find any fault with someone wanting to carry better armament with them, particularly in areas that are more concerning than others.Some criminals have shotguns and sub machine guns and assault rifles but the citizens are limited to sidearms and in some areas, not even that. All because the practice of carrying arms is shunned by the media, the people, and in some cases, the police.

Obviously, society has become an incredibly hoplophobic group of

and I think that one way to off-set that is to slowly desensitize them by carrying firearms of any sort in a responsible manner, while practicing all of the rules of gun safety and acting as we would while carrying anything else on our person...

While legal in my state, I have yet to have the balls to stroll throughtown with a carbine or shotgun, although I have just at the outskirts.Hopefully after years of showing gun owners in a positive light instead of being demonized, that may change.

Click to expand...

When I say appropriate I mean.... what people as a whole would see as needed.

Walking around with a rifle in the country would not be a big deal. Wearing a clown costume to a party is fine. But a rifle in a big city or a clown costume in court will both be viewed as a little odd.

The question is... what is the purpose. A rifle used for self defense in the city seems a little over the top. Why stop there... how about a rocket launcher!! :lol:

Ido not know many citizens who needed to carry around long guns to useat a scene that they were dispatched to of an active shooter.

If you think back there was a time when the people carried rifles in racks in their truck and even farther back everyone carried a six shooter on their hip.

But over time the need to carry a gun in a rack or on the hip was lessened. It was the people who decided to stop the practice with the exceptions on locations that decided to ban the practice. Even in Virginia most people do not carry a gun when they can.

So the perception by the people and not the media it what really counts. The people have long ago decided there was little need to carry guns openly.

imported post

I'll go on record as saying that Ithink it's dumb to carrya rifle in a city. Rifles are long range weapons and, unlike handguns, don't have much use in cities. I don't even think cops need rifles except in super-special situations (that SWAT usually handles)

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

I'll go on record as saying that Ithink it's dumb to carrya rifle in a city. Rifles are long range weapons and, unlike handguns, don't have much use in cities. I don't even think cops need rifles except in super-special situations (that SWAT usually handles)

Click to expand...

We have a shotguns in our cars and it is rare to break them out. We sure do not walk around with them on patrol and on traffic stops.

We use them only when they are needed for a specific task.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Flintlock wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Some here want to go open carry with long guns downtown.They are well within their rights to do that to and they would not be breaking any laws...

But it would not really be appropriate to do in a city. So in both cases... can you do it? Yes.... Should you do it? It depends on who you ask. But.... if you really want to you can.

I find both to be a little extreme and unnecessary.

Click to expand...

Ahh, but 229, who gets to decide what is appropriate and what isn't, the media?

Why wouldn't it be appropriate to you? After all, you support the armament of the Torch Teams and them patrolling our subways in NYCfor criminals with AK's that have yet to appear. Why not citizens? Is it a training discrepancy that concerns you and maybe someother citizens? If that's the case, what if that training had been gained?

I look at it like this. Citizens need to be prepared for any eventualities just like anyone else.While we don't necessarily need to carry with us force-projection weapons in our every day lives, I certainly don't find any fault with someone wanting to carry better armament with them, particularly in areas that are more concerning than others.Some criminals have shotguns and sub machine guns and assault rifles but the citizens are limited to sidearms and in some areas, not even that. All because the practice of carrying arms is shunned by the media, the people, and in some cases, the police.

Obviously, society has become an incredibly hoplophobic group of

and I think that one way to off-set that is to slowly desensitize them by carrying firearms of any sort in a responsible manner, while practicing all of the rules of gun safety and acting as we would while carrying anything else on our person...

While legal in my state, I have yet to have the balls to stroll throughtown with a carbine or shotgun, although I have just at the outskirts.Hopefully after years of showing gun owners in a positive light instead of being demonized, that may change.

Click to expand...

When I say appropriate I mean.... what people as a whole would see as needed.

Walking around with a rifle in the country would not be a big deal. Wearing a clown costume to a party is fine. But a rifle in a big city or a clown costume in court will both be viewed as a little odd.

The question is... what is the purpose. A rifle used for self defense in the city seems a little over the top. Why stop there... how about a rocket launcher!! :lol:

Ido not know many citizens who needed to carry around long guns to useat a scene that they were dispatched to of an active shooter.

If you think back there was a time when the people carried rifles in racks in their truck and even farther back everyone carried a six shooter on their hip.

But over time the need to carry a gun in a rack or on the hip was lessened. It was the people who decided to stop the practice with the exceptions on locations that decided to ban the practice. Even in Virginia most people do not carry a gun when they can.

So the perception by the people and not the media it what really counts. The people have long ago decided there was little need to carry guns openly.

Click to expand...

I still carry my SU-16A in my gun rack most of the time. I often carry a six shooter on my hip. I have carried a long gun downtown. Why would you think that the need to do so has lessened over time? It is sickening to think that our rights would be curtailed by what somebody else judges as "necessary."

There are many things that I find inappropriate, but the one that astounds me right now is a moderator of an open carry forum decrying the inappropriateness of open carry!! Irony can be quite enlightening.

There is a small book called Nordic Wisdom. It says:

Don't leave your

weapons behind

when you travel

in the open field,

for you never know

when on

the distant road

you may suddenly need

your spear.

"Why stop at long guns why not rocket launchers" is a variation of a well worn anti canard. Did thisstatement come from a moderator or was it really a troll?

imported post

Thundar wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

When I say appropriate I mean.... what people as a whole would see as needed.

Walking around with a rifle in the country would not be a big deal. Wearing a clown costume to a party is fine. But a rifle in a big city or a clown costume in court will both be viewed as a little odd.

The question is... what is the purpose. A rifle used for self defense in the city seems a little over the top. Why stop there... how about a rocket launcher!! :lol:

Ido not know many citizens who needed to carry around long guns to useat a scene that they were dispatched to of an active shooter.

If you think back there was a time when the people carried rifles in racks in their truck and even farther back everyone carried a six shooter on their hip.

But over time the need to carry a gun in a rack or on the hip was lessened. It was the people who decided to stop the practice with the exceptions on locations that decided to ban the practice. Even in Virginia most people do not carry a gun when they can.

So the perception by the people and not the media it what really counts. The people have long ago decided there was little need to carry guns openly.

Click to expand...

I still carry my SU-16A in my gun rack most of the time. I often carry a six shooter on my hip. I have carried a long gun downtown. Why would you think that the need to do so has lessened over time? It is sickening to think that our rights would be curtailed by what somebody else judges as "necessary."

There are many things that I find inappropriate, but the one that astounds me right now is a moderator of an open carry forum decrying the inappropriateness of open carry!! Irony can be quite enlightening.

There is a small book called Nordic Wisdom. It says:

Don't leave your

weapons behind

when you travel

in the open field,

for you never know

when on

the distant road

you may suddenly need

your spear.

"Why stop at long guns why not rocket launchers" is a variation of a well worn anti canard. Did thisstatement come from a moderator or was it really a troll?

Click to expand...

It appears you didnot get enough sleep last night. You clearly read things incorrectly.

I haveunderlined and made boldareas you need to view more clearly so that you better comprehend what was stated. The people have decided on their own to no longer carry on a daily basis.

The people do not get into shoot outs or need to shoot wild animals so frequentlythat theyfeel it is necessary any longer.

Do people still carry? Duh!! How many CC permits are issued??!!

So what I was identifying was that many people do not see "it" as a required item any longer.

The people can change their minds. Back in the day they did not see the need to remove the keys from ignitions or even lock the cars. But now they do.

You failed to fully post what I said too....

"The question is... what is the purpose. A rifle used for self defense in the city seems a little over the top. Why stop there... how about a rocket launcher!! :lol:"

I was joking around about a rocket launcher creating a straw man argument. I guess you either missed it or have not learned the purpose of the emoticon.

So when you see this -----> :lol:

It means I am laughing and joking around.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Thundar wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

When I say appropriate I mean.... what people as a whole would see as needed.

Walking around with a rifle in the country would not be a big deal. Wearing a clown costume to a party is fine. But a rifle in a big city or a clown costume in court will both be viewed as a little odd.

The question is... what is the purpose. A rifle used for self defense in the city seems a little over the top. Why stop there... how about a rocket launcher!! :lol:

Ido not know many citizens who needed to carry around long guns to useat a scene that they were dispatched to of an active shooter.

If you think back there was a time when the people carried rifles in racks in their truck and even farther back everyone carried a six shooter on their hip.

But over time the need to carry a gun in a rack or on the hip was lessened. It was the people who decided to stop the practice with the exceptions on locations that decided to ban the practice. Even in Virginia most people do not carry a gun when they can.

So the perception by the people and not the media it what really counts. The people have long ago decided there was little need to carry guns openly.

Click to expand...

I still carry my SU-16A in my gun rack most of the time. I often carry a six shooter on my hip. I have carried a long gun downtown. Why would you think that the need to do so has lessened over time? It is sickening to think that our rights would be curtailed by what somebody else judges as "necessary."

There are many things that I find inappropriate, but the one that astounds me right now is a moderator of an open carry forum decrying the inappropriateness of open carry!! Irony can be quite enlightening.

There is a small book called Nordic Wisdom. It says:

Don't leave your

weapons behind

when you travel

in the open field,

for you never know

when on

the distant road

you may suddenly need

your spear.

"Why stop at long guns why not rocket launchers" is a variation of a well worn anti canard. Did thisstatement come from a moderator or was it really a troll?

Click to expand...

It appears you didnot get enough sleep last night. You clearly read things incorrectly.

I haveunderlined and made boldareas you need to view more clearly so that you better comprehend what was stated. The people have decided on their own to no longer carry on a daily basis.

The people do not get into shoot outs or need to shoot wild animals so frequentlythat theyfeel it is necessary any longer.

Do people still carry? Duh!! How many CC permits are issued??!!

So what I was identifying was that many people do not see "it" as a required item any longer.

The people can change their minds. Back in the day they did not see the need to remove the keys from ignitions or even lock the cars. But now they do.

You failed to fully post what I said too....

"The question is... what is the purpose. A rifle used for self defense in the city seems a little over the top. Why stop there... how about a rocket launcher!! :lol:"

I was joking around about a rocket launcher creating a straw man argument. I guess you either missed it or have not learned the purpose of the emoticon.

So when you see this -----> :lol:

It means I am laughing and joking around.

Click to expand...

It seems youdidn'teat enough donuts today. Maybe you are hypoglycemic?:lol:

You clearly equate appropriateness with need. Thus that which is not needed is inappropriate. I have reread it twice and in your post you even go back to the need issue after the rocket launcher comment.:banghead: I do not think that we are evolving into a more civilized society that needs less firearms. I think that more firearms will allow us to be a more civilized society.

Your pejorative six shooter comment was not delivered with any fact. It is another common anti tactic. How do you measure the reduced need to carry today when compared to the past? :what:

Seriously LEO, does it do any good to assert that the need to carry has lessened from the past? Perhaps when compared to those on the frontier the need (maybe measured by danger) has decreased, but for most Americans the danger posed by crime and terrorism has increased and the need to wear a six shooter on the hip has IMHO increased. Another measure may be age of the population. The elderly are prey for the human scum and as the elderly population in America skyrockets, the need for them to carry the great equalizer also skyrockets.:idea:

imported post

Thundar wrote:

It seems youdidn'teat enough donuts today. Maybe you are hypoglycemic?:lol:

You clearly equate appropriateness with need. Thus that which is not needed is inappropriate. I have reread it twice and in your post you even go back to the need issue after the rocket launcher comment.:banghead: I do not think that we are evolving into a more civilized society that needs less firearms. I think that more firearms will allow us to be a more civilized society.

Your pejorative six shooter comment was not delivered with any fact. It is another common anti tactic. How do you measure the reduced need to carry today when compared to the past? :what:

Seriously LEO, does it do any good to assert that the need to carry has lessened from the past? Perhaps when compared to those on the frontier the need (maybe measured by danger) has decreased, but for most Americans the danger posed by crime and terrorism has increased and the need to wear a six shooter on the hip has IMHO increased. Another measure may be age of the population. The elderly are prey for the human scum and as the elderly population in America skyrockets, the need for them to carry the great equalizer also skyrockets.:idea:

Click to expand...

Actually.. I could use a donut!! :lol:

I was actually referring to the days of the old West. That is when people carried all the time. Over time..... this became less common.

You asked for proof? OK... in 1860 you could see most every male with a pistol and a rifle on the street. And today.... it would be extremely rare. Gee.. what did they call it when they see someone OC on here?A unicorn??

Now you are fixated on a word... "appropriate" :?

Maybe I should use the word "necessary". Do not get to caught up in the word being used that may actually be inappropriate. I think you understood my meaningand jumped on the wordas something to attack. :?