Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 105

Thread: Fighting the good fight?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    I haven't been on OCDO for very long, so I admit I may be out of place posting this, and I know there will be those who will burn me for it, but I couldn't help but observe...

    In recent events (not just Frank's), and in reading a lot of posts, I have began to wonder to what extent the "hardcore" fight is helping and to what point it is hurting.

    This thought came to mind when a friend of mine (not anti, but not a gun-owner) and I were talking about the Racine news lately and he went to the site to check it out. He commented something along the lines of, "How does that make your group look?", referencing those that would rather not give their information simply because it is their right. It made me realize that, for the neutrals and antis, we can at times seem a little too hardcore. Not willing to negotiate could lead to not getting anywhere (in order to get to 2, you have to hit 1 first, etc).

    Furthermore, I have seen a lot of cop-bashing going on in this thread. Regardless of your opinions of the police, or how they handle situations (even not professionally), it is not going to help our cause. If the general public sees gun owners associated as cop haters and law-testers, what kind of reaction do you think we will get?

    I know that these are generalizations and do not apply to everybody (I know Frank was not setting up the cops, but what about Yates, who said he was carrying to make a political statement?), but just something I have noticed. There's nothing wrong with making a political statement, but it doesn't bode as well as saying you're carrying for protection (in the minds of antis and neutrals).

    If we want others to change and compromise their beliefs, who are we to stand firm on everything, even the tiny little details? Yes, our rights are our rights, but to what cost? Is it worth the risk of getting arrested (even if wrongly) just so you don't have to give your name? Frank didn't give his name, and he was wrongly arrested, and they got his name afterwards, anyways.

    I am not critisizing Frank's actions, or anybody else's, as that was their choice and fully within their rights, but I know for a fact that I will give my name when asked. I have a family to think about, and a future career to work towards, and an arrest (even if wrongly) is not something that will help.

    I am working towards a career in law enforcement, so I have been seeing both sides of the story. I know how important people's rights are, and when I start working, I will do everything I can to make sure they are respected, but there is a huge difference between those who cooperate and those who are (even if rightly) beligerant. I don't agree with rights being compromised, but I also do beleive in cooperating, especially when you have nothing to hide.

    Maybe that's just me...

    Just my thoughts, lately. Let the firestorm against my post begin...

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Cameron, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    271

    Post imported post

    Double poasted

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Cameron, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    271

    Post imported post

    If you are not beligerant you have no rights.

    You only have the rights that are fought for.If no one will fight for there rights it is the same as not having any at all.

  4. #4
    Regular Member VetteFreakC5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    FT Bragg, NC
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    The only rights we have are the ones we are willing to defend to keep. Sometimes people can go too far for no reason other than to simply be defiant, but if you are not willing to defend and fight for your freedoms, how long do you think you will have them before htey are taken away?
    "American parachutists -- devils in baggy pants, are less than 100m from my outpost line. I can't sleep at night; they pop up from nowhere and we never know when, or how, they will strike next. Seems like the black hearted devils are everywhere...." Found in the diary of a German Officer who opposed the 504 PIR on the Anzio beachhead in WWII

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post







    on, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground." ~ Frederick Do





















































    "Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground." ~ Frederick Douglass uglass



















































    "Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground." ~ Frederick Douglass

  6. #6
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Berlin, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    844

    Post imported post

    I am working towards a career in law enforcement, so I have been seeing both sides of the story.
    It was pretty obvious from some of your postings that you wanted to give the benefit of the doubt to police officers you had never met, rather than to a guy you had.

    Not 'burning' you, just an observation.

    We all grew up 'wanting' to believe in law-enforcement. The reputation they've gotten is not for no reason. My parents are not and were not 'activist' as far as rights and things. They are total rule followers. So I wasn't taught that police abuse people's rights. I've observed it.
    In recent events (not just Frank's), and in reading a lot of posts, I have began to wonder to what extent the "hardcore" fight is helping and to what point it is hurting.
    Helping or hurting.... I guess it depends on who you ask.

    Having said that, ignorance is bliss. Some people might find that obedience and subservience is a path of least resistance and that = happiness.

    I think that is short sighted. History has shown us that a little acquiesence to 'slight' infringements leads to more infringements. And then years down the road when your rights have been eroded to the point that it IS a big deal, you ask yourself "how the f did we end up here". And this is how.

    Giving your name might seem like "no big deal".

    BUT THE LAW IS THE LAW. I WANT POLICE TO FOLLOW THE LAW!

    Is that too much to ask?

    I don't want police to break the law. I am not asking them to ignore laws that ARE THERE.

    If I disagree with a law the police are enforceing, I will take up my beef with the legislators not the police.

    But you are damn right I wan't police to LIVE BY THE LAW. If they don't, then what good is a legislator? What good is voting? Why should I vote if police will just do whatever they want anyway?

    I refuse to let the police mitigate my power as a voter by making up their own rules. No thank-you. I reject that on EVERY level there is.

    If the general public sees gun owners associated as cop haters and law-testers, what kind of reaction do you think we will get?
    We are the general public my friend.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    hugh jarmis wrote:


    Helping or hurting.... I guess it depends on who you ask.
    True, but I think it's only helping in the minds of those who are already educated and know the laws. For those who aren't educated on the matters, they make uneducated, and inevitabley wrong, decisions. It's the uneducated I'm worried about, as they are the ones that seem to have been elected lately...




    If I disagree with a law the police are enforceing, I will take up my beef with the legislators not the police.
    And here is the difference between you and a lot of the posters here (from what I have seen, until recently with people emailing the Racine Mayor).

    I'll admit, like you said, people grow up 'wanting' to beleive the police. I am in a gray area because I am planning on being a cop. And because of me being in the middle, I am able to see the gray area that others here have not in some cases that they see as black and white.

    That's all I'm saying... take a step back and look at it from the other side, too. Let's say it wasn't Frank, but a felon with the gun and they shot the raccoon. We wouldn't be too happy if the cop didn't investigate simply because the felon didn't give their name, despite being the only person seen in the area with a gun.

    No, owning a gun doesn't make you guilty, but when you're the only one around, questions will be raised, and it would be enough to at least question them. Still, I agree the arrest was wrong, but that was because of uneducated officers. I do not plan on being one of them...

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    Double tap...

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Cameron, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    271

    Post imported post

    gollbladder13 wrote:
    but that was because of uneducated officers. I do not plan on being one of them...
    Good luck with that.
    With 995 chapters of statutes, another 10,000or so chapters of adminstrative code and than add the indivudual countie laws, and townships and municapalietys you are looking at hundreds of tousands of laws.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    46

    Post imported post

    At first sight you'd think he should have just given the cops his name. But the problem is, why did they need it. The police said they just wanted to run his name to see if you was eligible to own a firearm. ...but the police were dispatched there to investigate someone shooting raccoons with a BB gun. This incident has nothing to do with what they were investigating and they were out on a fishing expedition then. Also, are citizens required to give police information so they can determine if the citizen is committing a crime? That sounds like 5th amendment territory to me. I think this case will be very significant. It really doesn't have anything to do with OC really. This may be a case that will define if WI adopts some sort of 'must identify' statute...which too may be unconstitutional. Not sure how some states get around that.

    If someone is open carrying, should police have the right to probe them to see if they are legal to do so?

    If you think 'yes', then should police be able to initiate traffic stops just to verify the driver is legal to do so as well? After all, a car is statistically a more dangerous weapon than a gun.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    JimE wrote:
    At first sight you'd think he should have just given the cops his name. But the problem is, why did they need it. The police said they just wanted to run his name to see if you was eligible to own a firearm. ...but the police were dispatched there to investigate someone shooting raccoons with a BB gun. This incident has nothing to do with what they were investigating and they were out on a fishing expedition then. Also, are citizens required to give police information so they can determine if the citizen is committing a crime? That sounds like 5th amendment territory to me. I think this case will be very significant. It really doesn't have anything to do with OC really. This may be a case that will define if WI adopts some sort of 'must identify' statute...which too may be unconstitutional. Not sure how some states get around that.

    If someone is open carrying, should police have the right to probe them to see if they are legal to do so?

    If you think 'yes', then should police be able to initiate traffic stops just to verify the driver is legal to do so as well? After all, a car is statistically a more dangerous weapon than a gun.
    Everybody keeps talking about this BB gun. I haven't seen a police report, and the news I know doesn't always report accurately, but the ONLY time I've seen mention of a BB gun is from posters here. If it was simply a shots fired call, then the cop would have a good reason to investigate. If anybody can show me documentation or anything that it was, in fact, a BB gun other than "the earlier poster said so," then that would help.

    As far as stopping somebody just for open carrying, no they should not be stopped. There's a difference between carrying on an average day and carrying on the same block there was a shots fired called.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    Hillmann wrote:
    gollbladder13 wrote:
    but that was because of uneducated officers. I do not plan on being one of them...
    Good luck with that.
    With 995 chapters of statutes, another 10,000or so chapters of adminstrative code and than add the indivudual countie laws, and townships and municapalietys you are looking at hundreds of tousands of laws.
    OK, so you just proved my point that officers are not expected to be educated on everything, just as I'm sure there are aspects of everybody else's job that they should know but don't. This is why police only recommend charges and the city attorney or whoever actually presses the charges, and why citizens are innocent until proven guilty.



  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    I understand your points GB13, but where does one draw the line on what rights to willingly surrender and what rights to fight to the death?
    Is just a little trampling on rights ok? How much is too much?

    Lets look at the situation with Frank, hedid not fit the description of the suspect, the person standing next to him did. The person who fit the description was let to walk away, but the policefixated on Frank because he was exercising his rights by carrying a holstered firearm.

    Lets use another example and compare it, lets say you get pulled over for a license plate light being burned out, the cop asks "Where Are you going" or "Where are you coming from" I got to ask why does it matter? Your being stopped for an equipment violation, what possible need does a cop have to know your itinerary? They Do Not need to know, and therefore I never tell them when they ask. And I suggest everyone does the same.

    Sure, I have been arrested for refusing to answer stupid questions like that, People have asked "Why didn't you just tell him?"
    because it is none of their friggin business, I am not going to host their fishing expedition! What if they have a suspect they caught that said he was waiting for an accomplice, and you fit the description. Now they have RAS or PC to detain you.

    Anything you say CAN AND WILL be used against you! So **** if you are not required by law to answer.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    See but that's just it. Sure, it's none of their business, but you are right it's where an individual draws the line. Something as simple as your name, although your right, is not being trampled on if you voluntarily give it out. It's only violated if you chose not to give it and they force it out of you. That's why you ask the officer "are you asking or demanding".

    I find it hard to believe "My name is gollbladder13" can be used against me in court...

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Cameron, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    271

    Post imported post

    gollbladder13 wrote:
    Hillmann wrote:
    gollbladder13 wrote:
    but that was because of uneducated officers. I do not plan on being one of them...
    Good luck with that.
    With 995 chapters of statutes, another 10,000or so chapters of adminstrative code and than add the indivudual countie laws, and townships and municapalietys you are looking at hundreds of tousands of laws.
    OK, so you just proved my point that officers are not expected to be educated on everything, just as I'm sure there are aspects of everybody else's job that they should know but don't. This is why police only recommend charges and the city attorney or whoever actually presses the charges, and why citizens are innocent until proven guilty.

    That is true but any cop that dosen't know and understand the bill of rights should be fired imeadeatly. All other laws are secondary to the constution.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    So am I supposed to believe that I am the only person here who would rather voluntarily give my name and not get arrested than not give my name and risk being arrested?

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    Hillmann wrote:
    gollbladder13 wrote:
    Hillmann wrote:
    gollbladder13 wrote:
    but that was because of uneducated officers. I do not plan on being one of them...
    Good luck with that.
    With 995 chapters of statutes, another 10,000or so chapters of adminstrative code and than add the indivudual countie laws, and townships and municapalietys you are looking at hundreds of tousands of laws.
    OK, so you just proved my point that officers are not expected to be educated on everything, just as I'm sure there are aspects of everybody else's job that they should know but don't. This is why police only recommend charges and the city attorney or whoever actually presses the charges, and why citizens are innocent until proven guilty.

    That is true but any cop that dosen't know and understand the bill of rights should be fired imeadeatly. All other laws are secondary to the constution.
    OK I'll go with you on that one...

  18. #18
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    In the case of Travis Yates, making a "political statement" is certainly not the same thing as "testing or setting up" the police. There is a potential "test" of the police every time one of us OC's. But that doesn't necessarily make it the intention. Even if the police do get intentionally tested or "set up," if they know the law and follow it, they have nothing to worry about.

    That the Racine police spokesman would whine about a "set up" is hilarious, since that is certainly a favorite technique that police use constantly. Kettle? Meet pot!

    As far as police bashing in general. I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with criticism of those individual police officers who are ignorant or do the wrong things. Likewise we ought to appreciate those who are knowledgeable and professional.

    Bashing entire departments, or the entire profession, I think is unwarranted. We ought to keep in mind that the police officers are all different in their opinions, level of knowledge, professionalism, training and so on. They range from outstanding to mediocre to poor, professionally. From well-informed to completely ignorant. There are those who have absolutely no problem with open carry and concealed carry. There are those who are absolutely against it. Many fall somewhere in between. The people who write in this forum certainly do not all agree with one another on all points, and the police are no different. Mere disagreement is not a bad thing, it allows us to look at different ideas and perspectives. I would have a fair amount of respect for a police officer who personally did not like the idea of 'civilians' carrying firearms, but who recognized the difference between acting on the law and acting on his personal opinion. The main problem lies only with those who are either ignorant of the law-- which ought not to be that many now with all the news being made-- or, perhaps worse, those who enforce their opinions, not the law. The merely ignorant, can be taught. The second group, ought not to be employed as police officers.


    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Cameron, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    271

    Post imported post

    gollbladder13 wrote:
    I find it hard to believe "My name is gollbladder13" can be used against me in court...
    What if they have a false or incorrect report and they aer looking for someone named gollbladder13? Of if they run your name and come up with a warrent because of unpaied parking tickets? There are 9 David Olson's in my local phone book, what are the odds that one of them has done something to be of intrest to the cop. That could cause problems for all of them. Or lets say that you have done something illegal and the only info the cops have is your name, are you better off remaning silent or telling them your name? Giving your name to poliece could also be bad foru your reputation because it could be printed int the poliece log in the local papers even if nor crime was commited.

    I am sure there are hundreds of other reasons for not wanting your name given to the cops.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Cameron, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    271

    Post imported post

    gollbladder13 wrote:
    So am I supposed to believe that I am the only person here who would rather voluntarily give my name and not get arrested than not give my name and risk being arrested?
    No but there are manny good reason not to and if arrested for it you have a good reason to concider legal action.

  21. #21
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    gollbladder13 wrote:
    So am I supposed to believe that I am the only person here who would rather voluntarily give my name and not get arrested than not give my name and risk being arrested?
    If you believe that you risk arrest by not giving your name, it leads one to wonder just how "voluntarily" you are giving your name?

    I suppose in a sense one might argue that when you are handing your money to a robber it is given "voluntarily"-- because you could have chosen to be shot instead. Is that your position?

    I would be curious to know your definition of "voluntary."
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    Hillman -
    This was intended for if you have nothing to hide. If you have something to hide, then by all means...

    In Frank's case, not only did the police end up getting his name, but so did the media and the public, along with his home address and a picture of his face.

    Now, I'm not saying that it's right, but it is the outcome...

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    gollbladder13 wrote:
    So am I supposed to believe that I am the only person here who would rather voluntarily give my name and not get arrested than not give my name and risk being arrested?
    If you believe that you risk arrest by not giving your name, it leads one to wonder just how "voluntarily" you are giving your name?

    I suppose in a sense one might argue that when you are handing your money to a robber it is given "voluntarily"-- because you could have chosen to be shot instead. Is that your position?

    I would be curious to know your definition of "voluntary."
    1. Done or undertaken of one's own free will: a voluntary decision to leave the job.2. Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward: a voluntary hostage; voluntary community work.3. Normally controlled by or subject to individual volition: voluntary muscle contractions.4. Capable of making choices; having the faculty of will.5. Supported by contributions or charitable donations rather than by government appropriations: voluntary hospitals.

    thefreedictionary.com

    If you're being robbed, it is by constraint. If you are talking with an officer, you have not been constrained until they arrest you.


  24. #24
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    gollbladder13 wrote:
    Shotgun wrote:
    gollbladder13 wrote:
    So am I supposed to believe that I am the only person here who would rather voluntarily give my name and not get arrested than not give my name and risk being arrested?
    If you believe that you risk arrest by not giving your name, it leads one to wonder just how "voluntarily" you are giving your name?

    I suppose in a sense one might argue that when you are handing your money to a robber it is given "voluntarily"-- because you could have chosen to be shot instead. Is that your position?

    I would be curious to know your definition of "voluntary."
    1. Done or undertaken of one's own free will: a voluntary decision to leave the job.2. Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward: a voluntary hostage; voluntary community work.3. Normally controlled by or subject to individual volition: voluntary muscle contractions.4. Capable of making choices; having the faculty of will.5. Supported by contributions or charitable donations rather than by government appropriations: voluntary hospitals.

    thefreedictionary.com

    If you're being robbed, it is by constraint. If you are talking with an officer, you have not been constrained until they arrest you.
    So in your view, the fear of arrest is not a form of coercion? I find that hard to believe.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    No gun zone, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    I'm saying there's a difference between a robber trying to get your money and a cop trying to get your name.

    If I felt that they were using force, I'd keep my mouth shut. They cooperate with me, and I with them. I don't feel forced by a cop asking me my name, much as I don't feel forced when my local barista asks me how my weekend was. Sure, it's the difference between casual conversation and an investigation, but it's still voluntary when they ask. You have a choice.
    If they're reaching for their cuffs, that's a whole other story when it comes to use of force. Each situation is different, but this thread is for when you are in the case where you still have the option.

    I agree, if you don't give your name, the cops should leave it at that, but they have demonstrated that that will not always be the case. I am yet to see anybody getting arrested for giving their name...


    ETA: Frank's case has clearly shown us that what is cut and dry in our minds may be a gray area in the minds of police, especially when it comes to investigating, and that should be kept in mind. You are forced to give your name when detained, and as I undestand it, if the officer is identified as such as has just cause to make a stop, then the name must be given. Although in our minds it was not just, the legal system may view it differently.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •