conservative1985
Regular Member
imported post
My 2 cents Bad Hat fields and McCoys story No proof of LEO involvement Your actions are to be commended. Nice job.At approx. 1810 hrs. on 11/26while purchasing an alcoholic beverage at a BP on the corner of Linden& Grand Blanc rd. the cashier motioned me away from the line, asked me if that was a gun on my side. I replied yes. She said "even tho you might have ccw, (it was not concealed)that a cop was behind you last night (11-25-08)& saw you purchase a can of beer" she continued by saying that he stated that it was illegal to sell alcohol to some one with a gun, and he also told her that she could have gone to jail. She stated that she asked her manager and the manager also agreed and said it was there policy not to sell to people with guns.
I politely replied no problem I will be right back. I went to my truck unloaded my fire arm, placed it in a case, shut the trk off, & locked the door. I went in grabbed my alcoholic beverage went to the counter, & I told her I had no problem with her but if it was true what the cop saidwhy did he not stop me...she replied "hewas off duty" (I know what your allthinking about that but lets continue)I told her that there is no such law but that if she or her manager do not want to sell to us (oc'ers and cpl'ers) that that was their right, but that they should post a sign(by law) I told her if I was hiding she would have never known she was selling to a person with a gun. I assured her that I had no problem with her, and I left. I believe she her self and herself alone had a problem & just made up the story to lend leverage to her story.Tho I would not put it past a leo to tell some poor uneducated sap a story like that...
Ignorance of the law is no excuse for a citizen. Why should it be for a man whose vocation is defined by knowledge of the law? The LEO in question is lucky to be referred to as "dishonest" by the OP. I will refer to any LEO who makes a misstatement of fact regarding the law as a "liar", regardless of intent.I think you are jumping to conclusions here when you state dishonest LEO. Dishonest implies an attempt to obtain something from illegal methods. I think he was probably honest. And I think he was probably honestly ignorant and had an arrogance problem associated with his ignorance.
And yes, good job attempting to educate the victim's of his ignorance.
I think you are jumping to conclusions here when you state dishonest LEO. Dishonest implies an attempt to obtain something from illegal methods. I think he was probably honest. And I think he was probably honestly ignorant and had an arrogance problem associated with his ignorance.
And yes, good job attempting to educate the victim's of his ignorance.
Outstanding!NavyLT wrote:I think you are jumping to conclusions here when you state dishonest LEO. Dishonest implies an attempt to obtain something from illegal methods. I think he was probably honest. And I think he was probably honestly ignorant and had an arrogance problem associated with his ignorance.
And yes, good job attempting to educate the victim's of his ignorance.
I understand what NavyLT is trying to say.
I disagree, however.
The cop was dishonest; but not necessarily in the way NavyLT is taking the OP.
The dishonesty, if in fact there is no law against it,is more fundamental. And easily overlooked.
Basically, if there is no law against it, then the officer cannot be ignorant or mistaken. He can't possibly have read a law against it if there is no law. Thus there is nothing to be mistaken about. Nothing tobe ignorant about.
So what was he doing giving out law unless he could clearly say to himself, "I have read this law; I know for a fact it is illegal"?
Don't fall for the "honest mistake" or fall into giving an LEO a pass on this sort of thing. Unless he can clearly say to himself with certainty that he knows its illegal he has no business detaining an OCer or giving out false law. He needs to be calling a magistrate or consult the Code before taking action.
Thanks for laying out this rationale. You make our position nearly impossible to refute.
Citizen wrote:Outstanding!NavyLT wrote: Don't fall for the "honest mistake" or fall into giving an LEO a pass on this sort of thing. Unless he can clearly say to himself with certainty that he knows its illegal he has no business detaining an OCer or giving out false law. He needs to be calling a magistrate or consult the Code before taking action.
My 2 cents Bad Hat fields and McCoys story No proof of LEO involvement .Your PS: my be bs.warlockmatized wrote:Citizen wrote:Outstanding!NavyLT wrote: Don't fall for the "honest mistake" or fall into giving an LEO a pass on this sort of thing. Unless he can clearly say to himself with certainty that he knows its illegal he has no business detaining an OCer or giving out false law. He needs to be calling a magistrate or consult the Code before taking action.
Thank you.
Actually, itsa little known fact that once you donate enough to become a Founders Club member, vast wisdom, poise, insight, and humility are conferred upon you. So, make those donations today!!
PS: Your ability to tell whoppers also grows exponentially.