diesel556
Lone Star Veteran
imported post
TexasNative wrote:
TexasNative wrote:
Well done. +1
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Strange behaviour by ACPD Officer towards OCer, caught on film
- Thread starter longwatch
- Start date
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
TexasNative wrote:
Ad hominem is a fallacy in logic related to the validity of knowledge.
A disparaging epithet is only uncivil.
TexasNative wrote:
Using a disparaging epithet referring to another is not a personal attack ad hominem.
Ad hominem is a fallacy in logic related to the validity of knowledge.
A disparaging epithet is only uncivil.
hawgasm
Regular Member
imported post
i think the pete was looking for an encounter worthy of youtube.
i think the responding leo was polite. the leo knew he was being video taped. i dont know what his demeanor would have been without the camera there. i think he cut his "brother" a break by not ticketing him. i think he seemed irritated when pete asked for his badge number.
i think the leo in the illegally parked car didnt need to wait around with the door open listening to pete and the responding leo. i wonder why he took a bag just to move his car.
i dont know how they ended up meeting each other at the apartment complex that neither of them lived in. i think the leo walking in full stride was more than ready to give pete his encounter. i think the leo was tring to get pete to make an agressive move.
i think that the leo was following pete after the encounter.
but this is my opinion based on what i heard and saw from the two videos.
i think the pete was looking for an encounter worthy of youtube.
i think the responding leo was polite. the leo knew he was being video taped. i dont know what his demeanor would have been without the camera there. i think he cut his "brother" a break by not ticketing him. i think he seemed irritated when pete asked for his badge number.
i think the leo in the illegally parked car didnt need to wait around with the door open listening to pete and the responding leo. i wonder why he took a bag just to move his car.
i dont know how they ended up meeting each other at the apartment complex that neither of them lived in. i think the leo walking in full stride was more than ready to give pete his encounter. i think the leo was tring to get pete to make an agressive move.
i think that the leo was following pete after the encounter.
but this is my opinion based on what i heard and saw from the two videos.
diesel556
Lone Star Veteran
imported post
Doug Huffman wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
*shrug*
Doug Huffman wrote:
"In common language, any personal attack, regardless of whether it is part of an argument, is often referred to as ad hominem."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
*shrug*
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
Doug Huffman wrote:
Doug Huffman wrote:
True, but that was still really funny.
Sheriff
Regular Member
imported post
Reverend73 wrote:
I agree with you. 100%
But, fess up, the same is true of the cop. :shock:
This is one of those things that should never have happened. If the cop had repeatedly parked in an illegal manner, address it then.
Reverend73 wrote:
I agree with you. 100%
But, fess up, the same is true of the cop. :shock:
This is one of those things that should never have happened. If the cop had repeatedly parked in an illegal manner, address it then.
mkl
Regular Member
imported post
Sheriff wrote:
How many times are police allowed to break the law before we can complain? Is it like a 3 times rule?
Sheriff wrote:
How many times are police allowed to break the law before we can complain? Is it like a 3 times rule?
Sheriff
Regular Member
imported post
mkl wrote:
MKL, I understand what you are saying. But even I, the forum's cop basher according to some, think this way just way over the top. It was a big deal over nothing. The caller reported it and should have gone back in his apartment and sat down. There was simply no excuse for anything that took place after the original call was placed to the Arlington Police Department --the illegally parked cop and the complainant were both acting like 6-year-old children, IMHO. And even if the illegally parked cop didn't get a ticket, he was certainly put on notice that people were watching him and would most likely report him the next time he tried to park illegally as well. So once the Lt asked the cop to move his car, the problem was over then, and forever most likley. I am saying the cop definitely deserved a ticket if he did it a second or third time, even if the original caller had to get the Chief of Police to come down and issue it himself personally.
I would have a totally different opinion if the responding Lt had drawn down on the original caller, disarmed him, and handcuffed him. I would be standing on a 12 foot ladder yelling out, "What a moron, the cop broke the parking laws but the citizen is treated like a common criminal!"
mkl wrote:
MKL, I understand what you are saying. But even I, the forum's cop basher according to some, think this way just way over the top. It was a big deal over nothing. The caller reported it and should have gone back in his apartment and sat down. There was simply no excuse for anything that took place after the original call was placed to the Arlington Police Department --the illegally parked cop and the complainant were both acting like 6-year-old children, IMHO. And even if the illegally parked cop didn't get a ticket, he was certainly put on notice that people were watching him and would most likely report him the next time he tried to park illegally as well. So once the Lt asked the cop to move his car, the problem was over then, and forever most likley. I am saying the cop definitely deserved a ticket if he did it a second or third time, even if the original caller had to get the Chief of Police to come down and issue it himself personally.
I would have a totally different opinion if the responding Lt had drawn down on the original caller, disarmed him, and handcuffed him. I would be standing on a 12 foot ladder yelling out, "What a moron, the cop broke the parking laws but the citizen is treated like a common criminal!"
mkl
Regular Member
imported post
Sheriff wrote:
You are probably right, I think it pisses me off more just because Arlington is so crazy about issuing parking tickets. Sometimes it seems like they fine you for just looking at an expired meter.
Sheriff wrote:
You are probably right, I think it pisses me off more just because Arlington is so crazy about issuing parking tickets. Sometimes it seems like they fine you for just looking at an expired meter.
Sheriff
Regular Member
imported post
mkl wrote:
Ahh, OK. I wasn't aware of that. This could be the reason the original caller was so perplexed that the cop didn't get a parking ticket.
I have only had one experience withNOVA cops, and I sure hopethis total nightmare of an experience isn't indicative of the way "normal" cops act up there.
mkl wrote:
Ahh, OK. I wasn't aware of that. This could be the reason the original caller was so perplexed that the cop didn't get a parking ticket.
I have only had one experience withNOVA cops, and I sure hopethis total nightmare of an experience isn't indicative of the way "normal" cops act up there.
mkl
Regular Member
imported post
Sheriff wrote:
The history you have experiences always tints your perspective.
Pete (the guy who made this video we are talking about) was the guy who was previously detained by ten Arlington PD officers for an hour for open carrying. He refused to provide SSN and other details they were requesting, then stood his ground and refused to allow the police to take his picture.
Maybe he should have left, but he is a freedom activist and he will probably continue to push the issues he cares about when he can. I really can't find much fault with him for standing up for himself, but I can understand that it will seem unnecessary at times to some.
Sheriff wrote:
The history you have experiences always tints your perspective.
Pete (the guy who made this video we are talking about) was the guy who was previously detained by ten Arlington PD officers for an hour for open carrying. He refused to provide SSN and other details they were requesting, then stood his ground and refused to allow the police to take his picture.
Maybe he should have left, but he is a freedom activist and he will probably continue to push the issues he cares about when he can. I really can't find much fault with him for standing up for himself, but I can understand that it will seem unnecessary at times to some.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
Look I understand both sides of this argument....IT looks like this guy had a personal agenda against this towns particular cops to me ....I wish he didn't do it as an open carry member myself but I understand where he is coming from. Sometimes it can get so frustrating to see the double standard applied to LEO's than to the common civiliean.
Sherrif I always apreciate your incite and comments on matters and like to hear from level headed LEO such as yourself. In Washington SV-Libertarian posted a thread about LEO's and and many of our attitudes you might find interesting and maybe want to make a comment or two on.
Look I understand both sides of this argument....IT looks like this guy had a personal agenda against this towns particular cops to me ....I wish he didn't do it as an open carry member myself but I understand where he is coming from. Sometimes it can get so frustrating to see the double standard applied to LEO's than to the common civiliean.
Sherrif I always apreciate your incite and comments on matters and like to hear from level headed LEO such as yourself. In Washington SV-Libertarian posted a thread about LEO's and and many of our attitudes you might find interesting and maybe want to make a comment or two on.
wolf-father
Regular Member
imported post
It looked to me like he was baiting the cop. standing behind the dumpster and stoping the cop. I would have went to talk to the guy right them armed guy standing on the corner with a cam. The cops probably knew of him. If you look at a encounter he had before that. He was called in as a bald guy with no shirt and tatoo on the arm. That sounds like the stereotypical THUG. Some one will call. And was stoped by ACPD. yes they did wrong then.
It looked to me like he was baiting the cop. standing behind the dumpster and stoping the cop. I would have went to talk to the guy right them armed guy standing on the corner with a cam. The cops probably knew of him. If you look at a encounter he had before that. He was called in as a bald guy with no shirt and tatoo on the arm. That sounds like the stereotypical THUG. Some one will call. And was stoped by ACPD. yes they did wrong then.
MackTheKnife
Regular Member
imported post
What is disconcerting to me is the LEO's attitude towards OC and his statement about the NRA giving us the right to carry. I wonder if he meant to say the NRA has fought for our right to carry? But the attitude he articulated about OC not being the best way to go about educating people shows his bias against OC. And his statement about police response if you are OC'ing and they get called.LE shouldn't be dispatched in any OC-legal state unless you are doing something else warranting LE response. This LEO obviously doesn't agree with OC. Bad cop- No donuts for you! LOL.
What is disconcerting to me is the LEO's attitude towards OC and his statement about the NRA giving us the right to carry. I wonder if he meant to say the NRA has fought for our right to carry? But the attitude he articulated about OC not being the best way to go about educating people shows his bias against OC. And his statement about police response if you are OC'ing and they get called.LE shouldn't be dispatched in any OC-legal state unless you are doing something else warranting LE response. This LEO obviously doesn't agree with OC. Bad cop- No donuts for you! LOL.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Sheriff wrote:
We ain't got no normal cops up here.
Ours are all truly dedicated, selfless individuals putting themselves in harms way for the rest of us. Driving crime into the shadows where the criminals cower in fear of our heroes in uniform. Masters of the streets, our police afford us the opportunity to go about our business in complete safety.
This whole business in the OP was obviously just a very rare aberration.Just a simplemisunderstanding that I predict will beeasily cleared up.
(Feed me another straight line.)
Sheriff wrote:
We ain't got no normal cops up here.
Ours are all truly dedicated, selfless individuals putting themselves in harms way for the rest of us. Driving crime into the shadows where the criminals cower in fear of our heroes in uniform. Masters of the streets, our police afford us the opportunity to go about our business in complete safety.
This whole business in the OP was obviously just a very rare aberration.Just a simplemisunderstanding that I predict will beeasily cleared up.
(Feed me another straight line.)
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Sheriff wrote:
I'm working this side of the street.
Sheriff wrote:
Ahem.
I'm working this side of the street.
TorinoCobra070
New member
imported post
I'm not sure who followed who, or any of that. But I think that the officer was talking out against OCing and trying to discourage it. I find this a little disturbing since it IS a right. I doubt he would discourage a citizen from taking advantage of any other right. The officer did have a point that it might startle some people, but it shouldn't. Its because of people like the officer that it isn't common and that some people do look down upon it. At least both the camera man and policeman were at least semi-professional haha.
I'm not sure who followed who, or any of that. But I think that the officer was talking out against OCing and trying to discourage it. I find this a little disturbing since it IS a right. I doubt he would discourage a citizen from taking advantage of any other right. The officer did have a point that it might startle some people, but it shouldn't. Its because of people like the officer that it isn't common and that some people do look down upon it. At least both the camera man and policeman were at least semi-professional haha.
marine2000
Regular Member
imported post
I think Pete should have just walked away minding his own business and not hassle the cop in the first place.
He is after allhuman and we all make poor sound judgment on things we are doing in life.
One thing for sure, I think the officer was just trying to make a point on the matter where he followed the individual.
I also loved the fact that his cruiser was parked in a clear visible spot where any one with cruel intent would see and realize that there is a police officer somewhere in the vicinity.It's just like having a smoke detector alarm , or a fire extinguisher.It's good to have and don't have the need for it..... but a pain if you don'thave it and have the need for it.
Just my 2 cents...All and all ...the video seemed like comedy and i think it was a win-win situation.
One word of advice.....
We are trying to exercise our 2A rights......the last thing we need is to start up a fight with PD. I would sure love to have these guys on our side than against us.
I think Pete should have just walked away minding his own business and not hassle the cop in the first place.
He is after allhuman and we all make poor sound judgment on things we are doing in life.
One thing for sure, I think the officer was just trying to make a point on the matter where he followed the individual.
I also loved the fact that his cruiser was parked in a clear visible spot where any one with cruel intent would see and realize that there is a police officer somewhere in the vicinity.It's just like having a smoke detector alarm , or a fire extinguisher.It's good to have and don't have the need for it..... but a pain if you don'thave it and have the need for it.
Just my 2 cents...All and all ...the video seemed like comedy and i think it was a win-win situation.
One word of advice.....
We are trying to exercise our 2A rights......the last thing we need is to start up a fight with PD. I would sure love to have these guys on our side than against us.
rob99vmi04
Regular Member
imported post
My 02 cents....
I would offer the video taker this piece of advice.
Good defensive training teaches awareness and avoidance. Avoidance relates to any negative encounter.
Why did he the caller have to confront. If you want to make a concerned citizen complaint, call make your voice heard and be on your way. There maybe other factors that you do not know that could be reasons for their presence.
Yes, I understand its legal to OC, and I have no problem with people doing it to educate, but I think its wrong possible dangerous to yourself to walk around and wear your gun (ego) on your shoulder.
Nobody knows why the cop car was their, maybe he was asked to just be a presence in the area, or maybe it was there because people slow down when they see a cop car, therefore, in that neighborhood it could prevent any kid from getting hit by a speeder. Who knows. IMHO the caller was the idiot.
Make your complaint and be on your way. He would of never have had to worry about the cop stalking him if he had not hung around.
My 02 cents....
I would offer the video taker this piece of advice.
Good defensive training teaches awareness and avoidance. Avoidance relates to any negative encounter.
Why did he the caller have to confront. If you want to make a concerned citizen complaint, call make your voice heard and be on your way. There maybe other factors that you do not know that could be reasons for their presence.
Yes, I understand its legal to OC, and I have no problem with people doing it to educate, but I think its wrong possible dangerous to yourself to walk around and wear your gun (ego) on your shoulder.
Nobody knows why the cop car was their, maybe he was asked to just be a presence in the area, or maybe it was there because people slow down when they see a cop car, therefore, in that neighborhood it could prevent any kid from getting hit by a speeder. Who knows. IMHO the caller was the idiot.
Make your complaint and be on your way. He would of never have had to worry about the cop stalking him if he had not hung around.