Man Arrested for Turning Without Signaling

Flintlock · May 12, 2008

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)

Well, you made a very verbally agressive comment and then never really explained why it is dumb other than it is "long range". The "need" of a long arm is necessary in a city where there is a higher degree of an encounter witha violent criminal than in rural areas, IMO. The chances are that the criminal will be as armed, or better armed than you.

Aside from that, it is the hoplophobic public that I feel is caused by the mass media through demonizing guns every opportunity they can. What real difference does it make that you open carry a sidearm for all to see and not anything else? I am not suggesting carrying it around with two hands, etc. but it could be in a holster/scabbard just like you keep a sidearm in a holster.

I wouldn't consider Pistol caliber carbines, MP5's, shotguns, etc. "long range" weapons, per sey.

And lastly, with all due respect, it is a similar argument that the anti's make. I read all-the-time from them how "dumb" it is to OC or carry at all in our society. Why would you "need" to flaunt your weapons in public, it will scare people, etc.. That's what the police are for, etc...

If that's your true stance, then why don't you just conceal carry and not draw any attention to yourself in the exercise of your civil rights?

tarzan1888 · May 12, 2008

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

.....Of course, I could be like HankT and keep a copy of useful posts on my own computer for future needling.

Funny how months after he disappeared Hank is still an OCDO legend...

Yes SHE is.

Tarzan

tarzan1888 · May 12, 2008

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

I'll go on record as saying that I think it's dumb to carry a 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)

I would agree with that.

It is true, though, as a boy and young man, I would leave my home with my rifle, walk to the store and buy a box of shells, walk through the middle of town to the outskirts, load my weapon, shoot up the countryside, and then walk home.

Doug Huffman · May 12, 2008

imported post

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master— that's all."

Appropriate, responsible and safe; all are value judgements.

AbNo · May 12, 2008

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.

....

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.

Yeah, but... just because the officer CAN do something doesn't mean he SHOULD.... That's true for, well, anyone.

Also, the second section of quote kinda makes it sound like the arresting officer felt he needed to do so for... well, ego reasons.

"Here's your ticket, sir." would've been the best way to win that argument, not arrests-for-ego. It saves a LOT of hassle for someone being a jack-ass, like this kid probably was.

In fact, I can just see that kid, ticket in hand, yelling at the LEO's tail lights as he drives away. :lol:

Still, I think the whole issue should just be dropped on both ends.

LEO 229 · May 12, 2008

imported post

AbNo wrote:

Yeah, but... just because the officer CAN do something doesn't mean he SHOULD.... That's true for, well, anyone.

Also, the second section of quote kinda makes it sound like the arresting officer felt he needed to do so for... well, ego reasons.

"Here's your ticket, sir." would've been the best way to win that argument, not arrests-for-ego. It saves a LOT of hassle for someone being a jack-ass, like this kid probably was.

In fact, I can just see that kid, ticket in hand, yelling at the LEO's tail lights as he drives away. :lol:

Still, I think the whole issue should just be dropped on both ends.

Oh, I agree... But you know how it is when you get into a pi$$ing match with someone. If you have a card up your sleeve and you can play it.... you will!!

There are some people that are just nasty for no reason to the police. Mostly for just getting stopped. I know that I was going to give this gal a warning ticket for speeding but once she opened her mouth I changed my mind and she got one for reckless. Why? Because it was my option and she was driving reckless.

I am sure the officer never intended to arrest him prior to the stop. I am sure it was after the driver started yapping. But even I would draw the line at a physical arrest for that violation. I would be embarrassed.

Tomahawk · May 12, 2008

imported post

I like this cop, he really knew how to keep his cool! (warning foul language)

[flash=320,256]http://www.youtube.com/v/osO7FgcQk_k&hl=en[/flash]

UTOC-45-44 · May 12, 2008

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.

Well, then I don't see the need for SWAT teams to have their rifles, (ASS)AULT rifles, officers their shotguns cuz that "seems a little over the top" to me too. What makes them so much more special.:cuss:

You have a hand gun to get to the rifle/shotgun I just have a faster way to get to it as it's ON MY BACK:celebrate

It's the same arguemant you get for a LEO for just carrying a "little" sidearm.

"I am the ONLY special one that can carry a sidearm/shotgun/rifle cuz I have a badge":uhoh::quirky.

TJ

UTOC-45-44 · May 12, 2008

imported post

tarzan1888 wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

.....Of course, I could be like HankT and keep a copy of useful posts on my own computer for future needling.

Funny how months after he disappeared Hank is still an OCDOlegend...

Click to expand...

Yes SHE is.

Tarzan

ROTFLMAO. You're fuuuny T:lol:

TJ

UTOC-45-44 · May 12, 2008

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

AbNo wrote:

Yeah, but... just because the officer CAN do something doesn't mean he SHOULD.... That's true for, well, anyone.

Also, the second section of quote kinda makes it sound like the arresting officer felt he needed to do so for... well, ego reasons.

"Here's your ticket, sir." would've been the best way to win that argument, not arrests-for-ego. It saves a LOT of hassle for someone being a jack-ass, like this kid probably was.

In fact, I can just see that kid, ticket in hand, yelling at the LEO's tail lights as he drives away. :lol:

Still, I think the whole issue should just be dropped on both ends.

Click to expand...

Oh, I agree... But you know how it is when you get into a pi$$ing match with someone. If you have a card up your sleeve and you can play it.... you will!!

There are some people that are just nasty for no reason to the police. Mostly for just getting stopped. I know that I was going to give this gal a warning ticket for speeding but once she opened her mouth I changed my mind and she got one for reckless. Why? Because it was my option and she was driving reckless.

I am sure the officer never intended to arrest him prior to the stop. I am sure it was after the driver started yapping. But even I would draw the line at a physical arrest for that violation. I would be embarrassed.

I had a "pissing match" with a Sergeant and I won cuz the Utah AG was there to help me out. Of course it takes the State Chief of Police to tell the officer but....he LOST. In front of all the STATE DELEGATES even.

LEO 229 · May 12, 2008

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

I like this cop, he really knew how to keep his cool! (warning foul language)

When I think of Citizen.... this is the guy I see. :lol: I am kidding!!!

This is the type of people we stop at times. They go off and hit mood swings just like him. This cop kept his cool even after taking all this guys abuse.

hsmith · May 12, 2008

imported post

I hope cops start ticketing CYCLISTS who don't obey the laws of the road. Nothing is worse than some dumbass on a bike crusing through red lights and stop signs. With more people picking up cycling due to gas prices, it is only getting worse.

Tomahawk · May 12, 2008

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

I like this cop, he really knew how to keep his cool! (warning foul language)

Click to expand...

When I think of Citizen.... this is the guy I see. :lol: I am kidding!!!

Nice.

AbNo · May 13, 2008

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Oh, I agree... But you know how it is when you get into a pi$$ing match with someone. If you have a card up your sleeve and you can play it.... you will!!

Actually, I was thinking of the cop in Tomahawk's video when I typed that up.

Doug Huffman · May 13, 2008

imported post

hsmith wrote:

I hope cops start ticketing CYCLISTS who don't obey the laws of the road. Nothing is worse than some dumbass on a bike crusing through red lights and stop signs. With more people picking up cycling due to gas prices, it is only getting worse.

'Nothing is worse', really, not even a scofflaw motorist?

Dumbass maybe, but not lethal. Idaho's experience after legislating STOP signs as Yield signs for cyclists has been, without exception, good.

I hope that you complain as well about scofflaw motorists that present a much greater risk to you personally than scofflaw cyclists or guns.

There is as much controversy about cyclists' Rights (First Amendment; Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to peaceably assemble.) as about the Second Amendment.

I bicycled about fifty thousand miles before moving to Wisconsin, the vast majority (like 40,000 miles) of them while legally armed. As an armed cyclist my consciousness as a cyclist and as an armed citizen was much raised.

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$$ in this post LAB KMA$$ for precisely the same reasons.

Weak 9mm · May 13, 2008

imported post

NRA FBG MONEY MONEY. KGB FBI MONEY MONEY.

hsmith · May 13, 2008

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

'Nothing is worse', really, not even a scofflaw motorist?

Dumbass maybe, but not lethal. Idaho's experience after legislating STOP signs as Yield signs for cyclists has been, without exception, good.

I hope that you complain as well about scofflaw motorists that present a much greater risk to you personally than scofflaw cyclists or guns.

There is as much controversy about cyclists' Rights (First Amendment; Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to peaceably assemble.) as about the Second Amendment.

I bicycled about fifty thousand miles before moving to Wisconsin, the vast majority (like 40,000 miles) of them while legally armed. As an armed cyclist my consciousness as a cyclist and as an armed citizen was much raised.

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$$ in this post LAB KMA$$ for precisely the same reasons.

If people want to cycle, they more than can. I don't have an issue with it. But cyclists can present dangers to drivers. You are going to get manhandled by the law if you hit a cyclist. Just how it is. A dangerous cyclist is just as dangerous as a bad driver.

I don't care if people cycle. Obey the laws of the road which I must follow as well.

LEO 229 · May 13, 2008

imported post

They are required to obey the same laws as vehicles while on the road.... but so few actually are involved in accidents it is not a big deal.

hsmith · May 13, 2008

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

They are required to obey the same laws as vehicles while on the road.... but so few actually are involved in accidents it is not a big deal.

I think it is because most are familiar with the rules of the road. But as more switch to biking due to gas prices, inexperience breds trouble!

By no means do I think bikers are bad in general. Those that break the laws and operate dangersouly are a danger to themselves and others. Thats it

Thundar · May 13, 2008

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

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. :?

________________________________
Actually LEO I do not want to attack anybody.

There are some that are mean spirited anti-police here but I think they are inavery smallminority.

There are many points of view here and the ability to exchangeviewpoints in a rational manner isthe reason I use this forum instead ofsome of the brain dead sites out there.

I, like many on this website, would like to be left alone as I walk armed through life. We come to this web site because there are those that would rob us of our rights and turn us into criminals. The problem is that many times we are forced to endure injustice at the hands of government when no law has been broken. I do admit to having a hair trigger when it comes to the 2nd, 4th and 10th Amendments.

What I find distressing about somehere is their categorization of differing viewpoints as somebody that does not know what they are talking about. As if they alone could understand. A perfect example is the police officer brandishing discussion. There was a wish to use simulators to "show us" non LEO types why we are wrong. I have used the simulators. They are not as good as the live-exercises using markers or the urban live fire ranges (also known as kill houses.) Pointing a firearm at another will, over time, create mistakes in the live fire exercises. I know, I have made those mistakes. I wish that we could have open discussions and agree to disagree about our opinions. Disagreeing with the "LEO faction" here on OCDO does not have to be hostile or disagreeable. We all resort to some silly generalizations and insults which really do not add to the discussion. If you think my jabs were offensive I sincerely apologize. If you think I use this forum to attack somebody I can assure you I am sincere and do nothave the desire or the energy to engage in petty squabbling.

Live Free or Die,

Thundar

Man Arrested for Turning Without Signaling

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member