Goodbye

_Patriot · Apr 3, 2009

imported post

And I agree that you shouldn't be treated like scum. All that I am trying to say is that the more cooperative, the better. If you fire back at the cops, "I am not going to show you my ID because I don't have to" it is just going to excite the cop more than they need to be. You are presenting conflict when no conflict is needed. Try to put them at ease as much as you can within reason. Should you let them search your car, house, detain you for large amounts of time, NO. Should you be cooperative, show your ID, Be polite, Explain your reasons, YES. Two wrongs don't make a right and two rudes don't make a nice. You have a better chance at a positive contact by being polite and cooperative.

bigtoe416 · Apr 3, 2009

imported post

_Patriot wrote:

Point #1-Someone calls 9-11, the cops have to respond. Can you imagine what would happen if we left the decision to respond in the hands of a short telephone call with a dispatcher who knows very very little about the law?

Point #2-The officer is just doing his job, trying to protect us. If he feels something is unsafe, he will do everything he can to make it safe, hence trying to take you to jail for a silly or no good reason.

Point#3-If the Open Carry looked at the big picture and presented his ID, explained things, had a nice conversation, the officer would be put at ease and all would be well.

I know some of us will disagree with point #1. The cops don't have to respond to every call. I'm rather certain if I call 911 and say a guy is walking down the street with a green shirt I won't have police showing up to investigate.

One of the points of the open carry is to make the carrying of firearms as common as a guy wearing a green shirt. If we can get police forces to train their dispatchers to ask that simple question, "What is the man with the gun doing?" then we have made a significant step toward not having our rights violated by pointless detentions when no reasonable suspicion exists.

I also think some of us will disagree with point #2. Trying to take us to jail for a silly or no good reason? Taking a person to jail isn't like having a chat with friends where you can randomly decide to do silly things for no good reason and everybody will still have a good time.

Taking a person to jail because of some feeling of something not being safe is a step toward oppression that I'd really rather not see. When the point comes where law abiding citizens can get arrested because a person who happen to choose a job in law enforcement felt something was unsafe, then you can be sure a revolution is seconds from occurring.

We have written laws because everybody can see them and cast judgments on them and know how they can not break them. Allowing arrests to happen based on a feeling is unconstitutional and totally unethical.

I know some of us will disagree with point #3. We have to show ID (in a state without a stop and identify statute no less) despite the fact that we haven't broken a law? This is precisely why so many open carriers advocate sterile carry (carrying without ID).

We don't want to identify ourselves, we don't need to identify ourselves. Basically if we've done nothing wrong, then let us be. If a police officer has reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed, then maybe we can identify ourselves if that may alleviate any suspicion that has been cast upon ourselves.

Let's not go down the slippery slope of what is expected of a law abiding citizen. Being forced to show an ID today, being forced to subject to a pat down tomorrow, being forced to give our DNA to the state the day after that. We've done nothing wrong, so what are we afraid of, right?

_Patriot · Apr 3, 2009

imported post

I am telling you that most departments have it in their policy to respond to every 911 call. Sometimes the call is routed to somewhere else such as Fire/EMS and sometimes it is someone asking for directions but if someone calls stating there is a man with a gun, they are going to respond.

Point #2-I never said I agree with the cop taking the person to jail, I said that is a possibility.

Point#3-I have stated that youDO NOHAVE to show your ID. My point was to be cooperative as possible. I have not heard a good reason not to as of yet to not show you ID. If you have nothing to hide, what is the rationale behind not showing it?

I am in support of this site and agree with what is going on here. What I don't agree with is the same attitude that many of you say is the Us v Them police attitude. Isn't labeling cops and being adversary to them an Us v Them attitude? So what he looks at your ID and runs an NCIC check. Big deal. People are starving in Africa and the more you push, the more you will be pushed against. Push hard enough and they will restrict us even more. All it takes is some big incident and the legislature will pass a law regarding the issue. We have to realize that the gun culture is slowly being eroded away from our country. The point of this site is to try to slowly bring it back not to get into confrontations with police.

I am trying to help, not hurt.

marshaul · Apr 3, 2009

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

_Patriot wrote:

...Many don't even know where the Loaded weapon law came from. It was from a Black Panther march in the 1967. Respect and courtesy is a two way street. Treat others as you would want to be treated. Just a thought

Click to expand...

It is my understanding that the Black Panthers were marching to protest the law after it was introduced. Certainly, their plan backfired and helped secure support for the law. Still, I can't fault the Black Panthers for what they did. The blame firmly rests on the politicians who fear armed constituents.

The Panthers were taking advantage of OC in order to have citizen patrols of their neighborhoods, to deal with crime from within and directed from without by the truly criminal Oakland PD (no disrespect intended to fallen officers and all that :quirky). The Police took this as a challenge to their authority (and their ability to murder blacks in Oakland with no repercussions), which it was, and they and the legislature freaked out and moved to ban OC.

This was when the Panthers marched. They were using OC and it was being taken away from them by the legislature in order to hinder their civil rights progress (remember at this time the Black Panthers were still a positive community organization; they had not yet been infiltrated by COINTELPRO and turned into a criminal organization). Unfortunately, it didn't work out and LOC was banned with renewed fervor after their little "march".

NightOwl · Apr 3, 2009

imported post

_Patriot wrote:

I don't think that CaCop wanted you to feel sorry for him, I think he came here to help. Then when some of you called him names and blamed him for "bad apple" cops he left or said he was leaving. By people offending him or "bashing" cops, you have now returned the "Us v Them" attitude. The road goes both ways. Instead of calling people names, have an adult discussion.

To my recollection, CaCop was quite insulting and very open to calling people names, as well as dehumanizing criminals. Some people did get out of line towards him, but they were modded as well as commented against by others, yet regardless he was the one bringing out the hate and names.

1. No, that's not true. Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ12Ry-hD6I or another link to it, if you prefer verification http://www.snopes.com/crime/cops/burger.aspwhere it was verified by Snopes. That's not even getting into the whole issue of how the police occasionally call in that they did a drive by and didn't find the caller or incident. Perhaps they're supposed to respond when the call is dispatched to them, but that doesn't mean that they always do.

Not attacking you, merely expressing my disagreement. Police in general, and I've known quite a few, are a good bunch. I'm not even saying that CaCop isn't one of them, merely that I disagree with his "my paycheck before your rights" viewpoint, and have some concerns about his temper. I certainly hope that I'm never in a position to encounter him, specifically due to that temper he has.

Marshaul, interesting info about the Black Panthers, I didn't realize it had gone down like that. Thanks for sharing...and now that I've learned my something new for the day, I guess it's time to go back to bed early?

MudCamper · Apr 3, 2009

imported post

NightOwl wrote:

To my recollection, CaCop was quite insulting and very open to calling people names

Yup.

Doh! Return to biting tongue!

bigtoe416 · Apr 3, 2009

imported post

I am telling you that most departments have it in their policy to respond to every 911 call. Sometimes the call is routed to somewhere else such as Fire/EMS and sometimes it is someone asking for directions but if someone calls stating there is a man with a gun, they are going to respond.

Can you reference how you know that most departments will respond to every 911 call? I doubt I could get officers to respond to me complaining about the green shirted man, unless they're going to come hassle me for wasting their time.

Point #2-I never said I agree with the cop taking the person to jail, I said that is a possibility.

I never said you did, I was objecting to the notion that a cop might arrest somebody based on a feeling.

Point#3-I have stated that you DO NO HAVE to show your ID. My point was to be cooperative as possible. I have not heard a good reason not to as of yet to not show you ID. If you have nothing to hide, what is the rationale behind not showing it?

My rationale would be I don't want to. Just like if a police officer wanted to search your home for illegal drugs, you'd tell him you'd prefer it if he didn't. "But you have nothing to hide!" he'd say! While it is true, you may not have anything to hide, the point is that you don't have to justify yourself.

From a more practical standpoint though, showing ID might get you more special attention from law enforcement since they can easily write down your address.

Push hard enough and they will restrict us even more. All it takes is some big incident and the legislature will pass a law regarding the issue.

You seem to feel as though your rights were generously given to you by our loving government. I don't share this belief. The constitution doesn't allow our rights to be restricted. We don't need to live in fear of having laws passed which will restrict us. While this may not be the case today, we certainly need less fear of our government and more fear from our government.

Tippet · Apr 3, 2009

imported post

Well, the cops around here have been given flyers by their shops, explaining exactly what to do. They definitely do have the right to inspect the gun and confirm it's not loaded. As long as it is not loaded, absent any probable cause they are to end the engagement immediately upon verifying the pistol is not loaded. They specifically are not to try digging up some other excuse to detain the person. Asking for ID would be a violation of that policy, although AFAIK any cop on any street in America has the right to ask for ID whenever he/she feels like it. Am I mistaken about that?

MudCamper · Apr 3, 2009

imported post

Tippet wrote:

although AFAIK any cop on any street in America has the right to ask for ID whenever he/she feels like it. Am I mistaken about that?

Varies with state law I believe.

Tomahawk · Apr 3, 2009

imported post

Tippet wrote:

although AFAIK any cop on any street in America has the right to ask for ID whenever he/she feels like it. Am I mistaken about that?

Ask, sure.

Not demand. Where I live I do not need a government document to walk down the street, even if I am open-carrying.

Theseus · Apr 3, 2009

imported post

_Patriot wrote:

And I agree that you shouldn't be treated like scum. All that I am trying to say is that the more cooperative, the better. If you fire back at the cops, "I am not going to show you my ID because I don't have to" it is just going to excite the cop more than they need to be. You are presenting conflict when no conflict is needed. Try to put them at ease as much as you can within reason. Should you let them search your car, house, detain you for large amounts of time, NO. Should you be cooperative, show your ID, Be polite, Explain your reasons, YES. Two wrongs don't make a right and two rudes don't make a nice. You have a better chance at a positive contact by being polite and cooperative.

Take that with your cooperation. Cooperation is what got me where I am today! Had I not cooperated I would not be here in my predicament.

camsoup · Apr 3, 2009

imported post

_Patriot wrote:

I am telling you that most departments have it in their policy to respond to every 911 call. Sometimes the call is routed to somewhere else such as Fire/EMS and sometimes it is someone asking for directions but if someone calls stating there is a man with a gun, they are going to respond.

In states such as Arizona and Virginia they don't send officers on every man with a gun call, dispatchers are trained to ask questions, such as. What is the man with the gun doing? Is the man holding the weapon or is it in a holster?

Just because your telling us that MOST departments have a policy to respond to every 911 call doesn't mean that policy cant be changed.

One of the arguments I hear against OC is that it diverts resources and could possibly lead to an officer not being where there is a real emergency....I'm sorry but if they want to continue to treat every MWAG call as if that man is shooting people on the street or running through a school waving the gun around, then it is the departments policy that is creating the possibility of an officer being tied up when a real honest to goodness emergency may be happening. NOT the law abiding citizen OC his firearm. Compounding the problem is that a lot of people that have been contacted by LEO have either been detained way to long or falsely arrested and that takes the officers away from the real emergencies that much longer.

Sons of Liberty · Apr 3, 2009

imported post

camsoup wrote:

One of the arguments I hear against OC is that it diverts resources and could possibly lead to an officer not being where there is a real emergency....I'm sorry but if they want to continue to treat every MWAG call as if that man is shooting people on the street or running through a school waving the gun around, then it is the departments policy that is creating the possibility of an officer being tied up when a real honest to goodness emergency may be happening. NOT the law abiding citizen OC his firearm.

Well said! Totally agree!

camsoup · Apr 3, 2009

imported post

_Patriot wrote:

Push hard enough and they will restrict us even more.

So now we shouldn't ask for the elected officials and officer to follow the same law they are asking us to follow because they may pass more legislation to make what we do illegal? Last time I checked this was the USA, if some cop on the street cant handle himself because a citizen decides to take a stand and assert his rights, then that officer is in the wrong line of work.

We have to realize that the gun culture is slowly being eroded away from our country.

I'm pretty sure ALL of us here realize that, if we didn't we wouldn't be on a website called OCDO and be interested in excercising our RKBA.

The point of this site is to try to slowly bring it back not to get into confrontations with police.

No one here is advocating getting into confrontations with police. Reference my first comment of this post above. If the officer feels threatened or confronted because I don't want to show ID when I am not legally required to do so. That problem is on him, and he needs to find a new job. The badge they wear is supposed to stand for the constitution and to serve and protect....not intimidate citizens into complying with all their demands because they feel threatened or confronted if we do not comply.

FMCDH · Apr 4, 2009

imported post

jbone wrote:

I find your reason to abandon a new found common interest of preserving the 2nd a COP out. You mention folks bash your profession (an honorable one at that), the justice system and this forum having those that support these actions. Now I’ve been in the military for 24 years and have been bashed as a member of the Armed Forces by Americans with different views, many of them hold a national political office. Step back and admit that many in your profession bash those outside of their click of lawmen, they speak ill of the justice system when they have spent countless hours staking out and nailing the worst of the worst burger eaters in the neighborhood just to have a pencil neck liberal lawyer put them back on the streets the very next day. Many in your profession would tell you to your face only they should own or carry firearms. Tell me it doesn’t happen… I know it does, I know them from my 26 years now retired LE father.

If an individual runs and hides when criticism, concern, fear, or anger is thrown in a particular direction with facts, observations, concerns rage or disgust and one can’t process it with out feeling hurt and quitting, than I say there’s more then you admit to your reason for removing yourself from a cause you support.

Every walk of life has these issues, challenges, people called numb nuts, and another right of freedom to express. I would hope you don’t quite your day job because you soon realize the same type of citizens exist in the department as do in McDonalds, the local retail mall, the military, the saw mill, the Beltway. caCOP we are talking mainstream America here, and yes they post and vent on all kinds of forums. LE are citizens first, I fear to many these days find themselves above citizenship and feel they are more part of the local political system standing taller than their neighbor, more worried if they don’t drink the kool aid they could find themselves a regular citizen again. If you value the 2nd as you say then use that passion to educate those in your circle. I don’t give a rats ass what profession a person represents as long as they represent American’s and the rights we cherish. Lastly, a butt load of folks on here from every walk of life have been bashed and butt hurt, they get over it and return to the common cause, hell I’ve been beat good on my grammar skills and I keep pecking away. Hope to see you back and pecking away soon!

+100, My thoughts exactly.

Legba · Apr 4, 2009

imported post

Well, since officially becoming acriminal - albeit a rather petty one - thanks to an overzealous cop who delighted in wielding a badly written and arbitrarily enforced law (which law has since been changed), I can say that I still do not bash any profession/occupation categorically. As in any other field, there are people who are bad fits, and it is those individuals with whom I take issue. People rightly resent it when police encounters are needlessly adversarial by default. I think that's the general consensus here and it's unfortunate that people may come off with the impression that the OC crowd are categorically or pathologically anti-LEO. As with law enforcement, certain individual members may pursue the cause in bad faith, but I do not think that they are representative.

-ljp

CA_Libertarian · Apr 4, 2009

imported post

_Patriot wrote:

Point #1-Someone calls 9-11, the cops have to respond. Can you imagine what would happen if we left the decision to respond in the hands of a short telephone call with a dispatcher who knows very very little about the law?

Point #2-The officer is just doing his job, trying to protect us. If he feels something is unsafe, he will do everything he can to make it safe, hence trying to take you to jail for a silly or no good reason.

Point#3-If the Open Carry looked at the big picture and presented his ID, explained things, had a nice conversation, the officer would be put at ease and all would be well.

1) No they don't. I think they should have to, even if it is simply to cite someone for misuse of the 9-1-1 system.

In Arizona, where they have a lot of seasonal residents and out-of-state visitors, 9-1-1 calls of a "man with a gun" are somewhat common. 9-1-1 call takers are generally trained to get more information, such as if a crime is being committed. I know someone who works for a department in Arizona, and their policy is to tell the 'snow birds' to call back when the person starts doing something illegal.

There is no reason California should be any different. If there is no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the problem is the person calling 9-1-1 and wasting police resources.

2) While I believe the majority of officers do this, I think there are a lot who simply will go out of their way to punish activity they disagree with. In my case, I was persecuted by 5 officers, who all disagreed with my activities, and were willing to falsify a police report to make their actions appear legal. (That's all the detail I can provide, as the matter is still pending.) "Contempt of cop" is the crime, and some cops think they are the judge, jury, and executioner. (Not a dig at the profession, just those people in the profession that exhibit the disagreeable behavior.)

3) If the officer would look at the big picture, and realize that sovereign human beings deserve to be left alone, instead of treated as "subjects" owned by the state... there would be no confrontation in the first place. (Again, not a dig at the profession, just the people in the profession that are not respectful of the rights of others.)

Robin47 · Apr 4, 2009

imported post

+1

Yeah In the Revolutionary war in America only 3% of the population was for it,

then as the English started persicuting the people more to find these rebels the people began to to think differantly and strated thinking about "Their" freedom.

The pace pickup and it was 5% then and then 7% ETC. It was never the majority to begin with same with the OC-ing. The Bold always lead the way.

There are a few cops on the board and x-LEO's to, I myself was a Police guard and worked for DOD. Yet I never "went along to get along" that " Code of Blue"

they call It. Each man must make his own decisions as to whats right and wrong. Take Rodny King beating was all that really nessesary ? 5-6 agains't one On the ground ? Give me a break . Where was the Cop ? that would say "Hey Back off "! We could just call it "Over-productive working", but thats still not right.

There is the "Law" and then the is the "Law", the Constitution of this USA, and the bill of rights, IS the Law of the land, when Police start working agains't that "Yes" many freedom loving people will get upset Me Included.

The "Police" do need to Police thenself, and remember their "Oath" The Constitution of the land Firstly. Otherwise they also lose their own freedom also. Thats a Fact !

Heres a site that I think just might need to be read and would help us all Cops to !

http://oath-keepers.com

Read the blog ! Take care friend ! Robin47

Edward Peruta · Apr 4, 2009

imported post

Robin47,

You're well versed in history, less than 10% of the British SUBJECTS wanted to revolt against the king, but by the time the revolution was over and to this day, everyone wanted to join the Daughters of the American Revolution, (DAR), or whatever organizations followed our independence.

I for one put my political bumper stickers on BEFORE the election!!

Have a nice day.

Robin47 · Apr 4, 2009

imported post

Yeah I should be versed good in it some my great,great,great Grandpa fought in it.

Im a Son of the Revolution, by at least 3 Grand fathers.

My family was here in America since 1739.

Have a good day Bro ! Robin47

Goodbye

Regular Member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member