TFred
Regular Member
imported post
SouthernBoy wrote:
I have a certain self-perceived reputation. I like to be correct. I tend to point out error, not for sport, but in situations where unchecked, that error may cause harm. I do not like being wrong. But it happens. It happens to all of us, it's a part of human nature. When I am wrong, I will admit it. Not happily, but in the interest of being right! I would 10 times rather admit being wrong than look like a fool.
That is the problem. If a LEO is wrong or is unsure, they need to admit it. Not necessarily to the OC at the time, but to themselves. It doesn't diminish manhood (or womanhood as the case may be), it shows a certain level of integrity and maturity to be able to respond to a situation in a professional manner.
Now we all know that LEOs are lied to every day. I understand that. But if a person who is clearly OCing as if it were legal (face it, Openly Carrying is not exactly a covert activity) is stopped and claims that they are breaking no laws, I would think that situation certainly deserves a double check with a supervisor, rather than some bogus charge of disorderly conduct, etc. as long as the OCer does behave in a courteous, professional manner.
It's all going to be found out in the end, and the LEO is going to be the fool, with potentially severe consequences.
Just some thoughts.
TFred
SouthernBoy wrote:
I think you have summed up the thesis of my irritation on the subject of LEOs who are not aware of OC legality, and who then threaten, and sometimes follow through with arrest, trumped up charges, the whole show.Before premption erased these "laws", there were areas in Virginia where you could not carry open and some even concealed. After premption, all of this was null and void.
The sad thing is if you are stopped and threatened with arrest for OC'ing and you repeatedly point out that there are no laws against doing this, the officer is going to be very reluctant to back off and admit his mistake. This can result in lost time, property,and money to the victim. And if he sues and wins, the taxpayer bears the burden of payment for the officer's ignorance.
I have a certain self-perceived reputation. I like to be correct. I tend to point out error, not for sport, but in situations where unchecked, that error may cause harm. I do not like being wrong. But it happens. It happens to all of us, it's a part of human nature. When I am wrong, I will admit it. Not happily, but in the interest of being right! I would 10 times rather admit being wrong than look like a fool.
That is the problem. If a LEO is wrong or is unsure, they need to admit it. Not necessarily to the OC at the time, but to themselves. It doesn't diminish manhood (or womanhood as the case may be), it shows a certain level of integrity and maturity to be able to respond to a situation in a professional manner.
Now we all know that LEOs are lied to every day. I understand that. But if a person who is clearly OCing as if it were legal (face it, Openly Carrying is not exactly a covert activity) is stopped and claims that they are breaking no laws, I would think that situation certainly deserves a double check with a supervisor, rather than some bogus charge of disorderly conduct, etc. as long as the OCer does behave in a courteous, professional manner.
It's all going to be found out in the end, and the LEO is going to be the fool, with potentially severe consequences.
Just some thoughts.
TFred