Felony Stop while OC'ing

imported post

smallmansyndrome wrote:

I dont find it? I think fear is an emotion, not a god given right.

Click to expand...

"Americans need not fear the federal government because
they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over
the people of almost every other nation."
- James Madison, Federalist 46

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -- T. Jefferson

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."-- G. Washington.

Now please drop this stupid line of argument. The founding fathers routinely touched upon the propriety of fearing government in most cases and provided safeguards precisely because of such fears. Are YOU better than they?

Charles

imported post

smallmansyndrome wrote:

Citizen wrote:

suntzu wrote:

SNIP Read the WHOLE thing, not just bits and pieces...

Click to expand...

He's just arguing for the sake of arguing. There is no way he could have taken your "right to fear" government so literally as to think you meant it as an enumerated or declared right. Well, maybe he can.

Trust that the rest of the forum knows what you are talking about.

By the way, the easy answer is the RKBA/2A. Even easier is the very existence of the Constitution. That such a document exists at all is an outright declaration that government is not to be trusted.

Click to expand...

True, most persons will do what serves them best at all times. Even those in government. Is anarchy the only answer?

Click to expand...

Anarchy? no. I just feel that government should be answerable to the people at all times.

imported post

smallmansyndrome wrote:

SNIPIs anarchy the only answer?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry. My fault entirely.

I wasn't really trying to continue thethread-drift discussion or take it on afurther tangent.

imported post

suntzu wrote:

Citizen wrote:

suntzu wrote:

SNIP Read the WHOLE thing, not just bits and pieces...

Click to expand...

He's just arguing for the sake of arguing. There is no way he could have taken your "right to fear" government so literally as to think you meant it as an enumerated or declared right. Well, maybe he can.

Trust that the rest of the forum knows what you are talking about.

By the way, the easy answer is the RKBA/2A. Even easier is the very existence of the Constitution. That such a document exists at all is an outright declaration that government is not to be trusted.

Click to expand...

I know....and i know I waste my time trying to educate someone who chooses to not be educated.

Click to expand...

thank you so much for granting me a right to an emotion that you have no means to control.

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

SNIP Now please drop this...line of argument.

Click to expand...

+1

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

smallmansyndrome wrote:

I dont find it? I think fear is an emotion, not a god given right.

Click to expand...

"Americans need not fear the federal government because
they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over
the people of almost every other nation."
- James Madison, Federalist 46

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -- T. Jefferson

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."-- G. Washington.

Now please drop this stupid line of argument. The founding fathers routinely touched upon the propriety of fearing government in most cases and provided safeguards precisely because of such fears. Are YOU better than they?

Charles

Click to expand...

+1

imported post

suntzu wrote:

smallmansyndrome wrote:

Citizen wrote:

suntzu wrote:

SNIP Read the WHOLE thing, not just bits and pieces...

Click to expand...

He's just arguing for the sake of arguing. There is no way he could have taken your "right to fear" government so literally as to think you meant it as an enumerated or declared right. Well, maybe he can.

Trust that the rest of the forum knows what you are talking about.

By the way, the easy answer is the RKBA/2A. Even easier is the very existence of the Constitution. That such a document exists at all is an outright declaration that government is not to be trusted.

Click to expand...

True, most persons will do what serves them best at all times. Even those in government. Is anarchy the only answer?

Click to expand...

Anarchy? no. I just feel that government should be answerable to the people at all times.

Click to expand...

do you think the government does not answer to the people? I think it does. I get frustrated when I don't agree with the choices the government makes. That is why I vote.

Sometimes I am not happy with how the Vote turns out.....

imported post

smallmansyndrome wrote:

SNIP do you think the government does not answer to the people? I think it does. I get frustrated when I don't agree with the choices the government makes. That is why I vote.

Sometimes I am not happy with how the Vote turns out.....

Click to expand...

Suntzu,

If you're smart, you won't reply. Just let it drop.

imported post

Natural rights are not "granted" by god, they are instead a reflection of the reality of human nature and our inherited (both through culture and genetics) moral guidelines for social interactions.

Think about that for a minute. Now consider that feeling emotion is an inevitable, necessary part of being human. There most certainly is a right to feal fear.

Although, I'm not sure what that's worth, or why anybody would dispute that. :question:

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Natural rights are not "granted" by god, they are instead a reflection of the reality of human nature and our inherited (both through culture and genetics) moral guidelines for social interactions.

Think about that for a minute. Now consider that feeling emotion is an inevitable, necessary part of being human. There most certainly is a right to feal fear.

Although, I'm not sure what that's worth, or why anybody would dispute that. :question:

Click to expand...

Now that is just silly.

I frankly am not sure what it is worth to even recognize emotions as a "right." The ability to feel emotion is simply a part of our makeup. emotions aren't even an "act" that could be regulated or controlled.
The subsequent thing is something that may be a right or a privilege. Acts that persons choose to make based upon emotion could be considered falling under the "right vs privilege" discussion, but the raw emotion is hardly worthy of discussion as "right vs privilege."

imported post

It's not about "rights vs privileges".

It may be somewhat silly to recognize a right to feel emotion, but it's downright absurd to declare it doesn't exist.

Which is what a poster was implying above.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

It's not about "rights vs privileges".

It may be somewhat silly to recognize a right to feel emotion, but it's downright absurd to declare it doesn't exist.

Which is what a poster was implying above.

Click to expand...

Where do you determine that it is "downright absurd" to declare that a right to feel emotiondoesn't exist? How is emotion a "right?" It simply IS a fact of human existence, and is not fitting about "rights."

imported post

The guy who infiltrated us and bitched about why we are suprised to be treated the way that guy was... the guy who is lost on our forum and obviously has a problem with open carry....which I think according to Sigmund Freud can be traced to sexual immaturity. I am replying to Marshaul's question to Count: "Who are you talking to? Quote please..."

imported post

gunsfreak4791 wrote:

Just want to bring this buy the group and see if my rights were violated

I just got off shift from my Employer at 0001 on 15January2009 I stopped bythe summer wood apartment complex entering from the left side road to look at the property in order to put a bid in for security services. I exited the property then went back around to look at the amenties the seconad round around. As I left the complex a Metro Security officer stopped me and asked what I was doing. I asked him if he was a police officer he said "NO" I asked him if I was under arrest he said "NO" He then told me I was on private property so I left. I thought nothing of it until I was almost home andstopped by SL County Sherriff Department. I was ordered off my motorcycle and Handcuffed at gun point by the sheriff's department. I was told I was being held for Taylorsville Police Department. Taylorsville Arrived and took custody of me Handcuffing me again after SL County released me. I was questioned by J Pierce of TVPD as to what I was doing at summer wood I told him.

Apparently the security officer told Taylorsville I brandished a firearm told the security officer to F@#% off and was verbaly abusive to the security officer.

For this My firearm was conficated and I was cited for Disorderly Conduct they told me my firearm was being kept for evidence and safe keeping. I was released and went home on my motorcycle.

The following day I was called by officer J Pierce and told my charges were dropped and I could pick up my firearm on Monday

Now this caused problems with my employer Embarrsed me in front of my neighbors and caused me time off work since I have to use my firearm for my job

This was due to a security officer who turned a small incident to a all out ATL because he saw my open carried firearm which is legal I do have my CFP and did nothing wrong

I never used profanity at the guard I never touched my firearm at anytime and left after he stated I was on private property

Can I hold TVPD liable or Metro Security liable

Also TVPD needs to be briefed on Open Carry laws he did not know it was legal

Thanks

Click to expand...

Might I offer some advice, first?

If when confronted by the Metro Security guard you would have extended your hand and said something like "Hi there, I'm John with Acme Co. I'm doing a quick preliminary evaluation for my employer to prepare a bid. How are you tonight?" That could have easily prevented the other chains in the event.

Mind you, I'm not being critical, just offering up some suggestions.

Now, to your main issue, do you have a case against the PD, the security company, or the individual. I'm not a lawyer, so this is just advice where to start looking for professional assistance (is my backside sufficiently covered now?).

What you need to do first is get a copy of the police report including the statement from the security guard. TVPD should be able to assist you with this.

If the statement is materially different from your side of the story you should ask the case-officer what you need to do to rebutt the statement and have it added to the case file; since the case is likely closed, they may not do this. Filing a false statement IS against the law (remember the SUPERDELL case from a few years back).

Next I would contact Metro Security and notify them of the false statement that their employee made to police while on-the-job. See if they'll work with you, you might get a written apology, you might get brushed off. If they don't want to work with you ask what their procedure is for filing a formal complaint against one of their employees.

TVPD was doing their job based on the statement of this other person, so you don't have a case against them that I can see. You were, however, "damaged" by the Metro Guard and therefore have a Civil Tort against him, and his employer since he was on the job at the time. Get a laywer and have him/her press civil charges against the Guard and the employeer (make sure they are both listed "severally" and "jointly" on the suit). Is your "damages" are minimal you could consider taking them to small claims court, but since your civil liberties are involved, I'd recommend lawyering up. At the very least you want to get the employee, under oath, admitting to making a false statement, which you can then give to the TVPD and ask that he be charged.

Thoughts?

- www.JoeLevi.com

imported post

wrightme wrote:

marshaul wrote:

It's not about "rights vs privileges".

It may be somewhat silly to recognize a right to feel emotion, but it's downright absurd to declare it doesn't exist.

Which is what a poster was implying above.

Click to expand...

Where do you determine that it is "downright absurd" to declare that a right to feel emotiondoesn't exist? How is emotion a "right?" It simply IS a fact of human existence, and is not fitting about "rights."

Click to expand...

What if I said it this way?For everybody.

Its not that it is or isn't a right. Its that you had better recognize it as a fundamental right.

You may care to deny someone the right to translate an emotion into action, but denying the right to experience an emotion is going to get you into all kinds of trouble. Possibly lethal. Possibly treated sadistically in a physical way. Diplomacy assumes the recognition of a right to various attitudes and emotions, for one example.

Just try remaining happily married without recognizing your wife's right to experience emotions. Remember John Wayne Bobbitt? Kinda disregarded her feelings about something, as I recall.

Now, lets get out of this discussion and back to the topic.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

wrightme wrote:

marshaul wrote:

It's not about "rights vs privileges".

It may be somewhat silly to recognize a right to feel emotion, but it's downright absurd to declare it doesn't exist.

Which is what a poster was implying above.

Click to expand...

Where do you determine that it is "downright absurd" to declare that a right to feel emotiondoesn't exist? How is emotion a "right?" It simply IS a fact of human existence, and is not fitting about "rights."

Click to expand...

What if I said it this way?For everybody.

Its not that it is or isn't a right. Its that you had better recognize it as a fundamental right.

You may care to deny someone the right to translate an emotion into action, but denying the right to experience an emotion is going to get you into all kinds of trouble. Possibly lethal. Possibly treated sadistically in a physical way. Diplomacy assumes the recognition of a right to various attitudes and emotions, for one example.

Just try remaining happily married without recognizing your wife's right to experience emotions. Remember John Wayne Bobbitt? Kinda disregarded her feelings about something, as I recall.

Now, lets get out of this discussion and back to the topic.

Click to expand...

I thougth about it today. Fear is an emotion that cannot be regulated. Some fear things that others dont. Fear is not a "logical" emotion.

imported post

smallmansyndrome wrote:

Citizen wrote:

wrightme wrote:

marshaul wrote:

It's not about "rights vs privileges".

It may be somewhat silly to recognize a right to feel emotion, but it's downright absurd to declare it doesn't exist.

Which is what a poster was implying above.

Click to expand...

Where do you determine that it is "downright absurd" to declare that a right to feel emotiondoesn't exist? How is emotion a "right?" It simply IS a fact of human existence, and is not fitting about "rights."

Click to expand...

What if I said it this way?For everybody.

Its not that it is or isn't a right. Its that you had better recognize it as a fundamental right.

You may care to deny someone the right to translate an emotion into action, but denying the right to experience an emotion is going to get you into all kinds of trouble. Possibly lethal. Possibly treated sadistically in a physical way. Diplomacy assumes the recognition of a right to various attitudes and emotions, for one example.

Just try remaining happily married without recognizing your wife's right to experience emotions. Remember John Wayne Bobbitt? Kinda disregarded her feelings about something, as I recall.

Now, lets get out of this discussion and back to the topic.

Click to expand...

I thougth about it today. Fear is an emotion that cannot be regulated. Some fear things that others dont. Fear is not a "logical" emotion.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Emotions cannot be regulated. It is not a matter of must not, or shall not, but can not. Absent the ability to regulate, it can easily be argued that emotions are not recognized as rights. They simply are.

imported post

I agree to a point. Some persons don't have the same reactions under similar conditions.

So having fear is personal. And there is nothing that gurantees your right to be free of fear. It simply is not possible to accomplish that.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

What if I said it this way?For everybody.

Its not that it is or isn't a right. Its that you had better recognize it as a fundamental right.

Click to expand...

No, there is simply no way to recognize emotion as a right.

Citizen wrote:

You may care to deny someone the right to translate an emotion into action, but denying the right to experience an emotion is going to get you into all kinds of trouble. Possibly lethal. Possibly treated sadistically in a physical way. Diplomacy assumes the recognition of a right to various attitudes and emotions, for one example.

Click to expand...

No, it is not that I care to deny someone a right to translate an emotion into action, but that I recognize that it is possible to infringe upon a right to translate emotion into speech or expression, as in the 1st amendment.
Likewise, I recognize that it is not possible to deny someone the ability to experience emotion.

Citizen wrote:

Just try remaining happily married without recognizing your wife's right to experience emotions. Remember John Wayne Bobbitt? Kinda disregarded her feelings about something, as I recall.

Now, lets get out of this discussion and back to the topic.

Click to expand...

There is no need to recognize such. Your wife will experience emotions whether you recognize it or not. You cannot deny her that experience in any way. She simply has emotions, and the problem is not a denial of a right, but a denial of a validity.
Your denial does not prevent her from experiencing emotion. You simply can't by action or denial prevent someone from experiencing emotion.

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Citizen wrote:

What if I said it this way?For everybody.

Its not that it is or isn't a right. Its that you had better recognize it as a fundamental right.

Click to expand...

No, there is simply no way to recognize emotion as a right. agree

Citizen wrote:

You may care to deny someone the right to translate an emotion into action, but denying the right to experience an emotion is going to get you into all kinds of trouble. Possibly lethal. Possibly treated sadistically in a physical way. Diplomacy assumes the recognition of a right to various attitudes and emotions, for one example.

Click to expand...

No, it is not that I care to deny someone a right to translate an emotion into action, but that I recognize that it is possible to infringe upon a right to translate emotion into speech or expression, as in the 1st amendment.
Likewise, I recognize that it is not possible to deny someone the ability to experience emotion.

Citizen wrote:

Just try remaining happily married without recognizing your wife's right to experience emotions. Remember John Wayne Bobbitt? Kinda disregarded her feelings about something, as I recall.

Now, lets get out of this discussion and back to the topic.

Click to expand...

There is no need to recognize such. Your wife will experience emotions whether you recognize it or not. You cannot deny her that experience in any way. She simply has emotions, and the problem is not a denial of a right, but a denial of a validity.
Your denial does not prevent her from experiencing emotion. You simply can't by action or denial prevent someone from experiencing emotion.

Click to expand...

WELL SAID.