Deanimator
Regular Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Citizen wrote:
My rights trump making his job "easier" 100% of the time. As I said, he can like it or he can lump it. He's probably going to lump it in civil court at great cost to himself and his family.LEO 229 wrote:Forum,SNIPShow them how honest and law abiding citizens with guns are and give the cops a reason to label gun owners as weirdos.
Lets look at the underlying false premises in the above quote.
1) That not being labeled a weirdo is more important than exercising rights.
2) And that if the officer is being nice or friendly, it is somehow invalid to exercise your rights.
I think false premise number one isobvious.
But permit me, please, to expand just a bit on number two. If the officer is free to engage a person consensually, how is it any less valid for the for the person to refuse hisconsent?To say otherwise would be to turn consent on its head. He is free to talk to me, but it isnot free of taintfor me not to not talk to him?
Because a cop is friendly, it is invalid to exercise rights?
Perhaps because lots of other people, from nerves or ignorance, do not exercise their rights, making police unused to it, it makes one a weirdo among sheeple to actually exercise rights?