imported post
No, I don't think I missed the point and I stand by my statements. Ultimately the police work for and answer to the people of a community, not the reverse. If the chief believes that the use of a video or audio recording device is a sign that people wish to provoke an incident, then it is he who missed the point. If the chief is supportive of gun rights, that's great. But that doesn't prevent him from drawing an incorrect conclusion.
I believe every person on here who OC's or hopes to OC in the future would very much prefer to do it without any sort of incident, much less to incite an incident. It's probably safe to assume that the majority of people would also much prefer to be able to legally carry concealed, even further reducing the chances of an incident.
Think about it: we now have some rather prominent instances in Wisconsin where people were breaking no laws, yet were held at gunpoint and arrested by the police. We have ZERO instances that I know of where the police were provoked or harrassed by open carriers. It has been one-sided. In light of that, it doesn't seem that unreasonable to me that somebody who OC's might want to do some CYA with a recording device.
Like Hugh, I've never carried any sort of recording device. I don't have any plans to do so either. When I carry a gun on the street I have nothing beyond my ordinary dress except two things: a holster and gun. But I do not fault anyone who chooses to carry more, such as a voice recorder.
J. Gleason, in your response to me you changed your original premise. How can you criticize me on the grounds of what the people on the street think when I was only responding to what the police chief thought? In your original post you told us what the chief thought. Now you're talking about what the people on the street might think. Your original post has nothing whatsoever about the opinions of the public, and everything about the chief's opinion. So, are you saying that the people on the street would also percieve the use of a recording device as an attempt to provoke an incident? Why would they? And how would they even know someone carried a voice recorder?
You may believe, if you wish, that your opinion and my opinion does not matter but the public perception does matter. If your and my opinions are irrelevant, then why are we posting anything here? My opinion means quite a bit to me. And I try to at least respect the other opinions one here, even if I don't agree with them. I respect the chief's opinion, but I disagree with it and gave my reasons for doing so.
This has nothing to do with me being an instructor. I instruct only with the goal of making people more knowledgeable and skillful in the use of firearms, tactics and a few basic principles of personal security with the aim of improving their chances of avoiding-- or when not avoidable-- surviving a threat of great violence. Everyone is left to exercise their individual judgement how much to be concerned with the public's perception of them. If a person is so concerned that they might be perceived negatively, and consequently decide not to keep a gun handy-- and then become a victim crime-- then so be it. They made their choice. But it was their choice, not mine, not yours, and hopefully not the state's. I might offer an opinion as to what I believe to be tactically sound, but people can make their own political decisions.
Carrying a recording device is not tactically unsound when it comes to surviving the legal aftermath of a less than friendly encounter with the police. If you or the chief believe it is politically unsound to have a voice recorder, fine. But personally I'd leave that choice to the individual.
I don't disagree with you about bringing supressors or long guns to the Madison rally. But there is a difference. The rally was NOT that individual's rally. If that person wishes to organize his own rally which welcomed supressors and long guns, or to hold his own one-man rally with an AK-47 outside the capitol, it's his right. Nobody said he could not do that. But the organizer and sponser of the proposed rally did not choose to have a rally that resembled an armed insurrection on the steps of the state capitol. That was her prerogative, and if it could not be honored, then that person ought not to attend.