Fighting the good fight?

imported post

If Frank was a felon and they didn't arrest him simply because he didn't give his name, and he went out and killed somebody after the police did nothing, how would that be any better?

Click to expand...

In a free society, there is always the possibility that these things can happen. However, usually the scenario (such as you suggest) defies logic in practice.

We all know felons DO NOT walk around openly carrying. Its the last thing they want. They don't know which cop will remember busting him or whatever. We could, of course take away all the freedoms we have in this country. All submit DNA samples at birth so almost all crimes could be INSTANTLY solved. All wear a GPS bracelet so if we did commit a crime, we could be captured instantly. I mean its in the name of safety no???

I guess you have to ask yourself if you believe in freedom or if you do not. Is the price of freedom worth the risk? (and of course if you look at the reality that even when we sacrifice freedoms in the past its NEVER led to a safer society)

Any society that would give up a little liberty[/b] to gain a little security[/b] will[/b] deserve neither[/b] and lose both. - Ben Franklin


What I hear YOU saying GB13 is that "since people don't readily accept the freedoms we have within 6 months of the AG memo" we shouldn't fight for them???


The fight for freedom may not be fast or definitive. But its a worthy fight. Because history has shown us what failure to fight against encroachment of government brings. And its not good. Looking around the worldat the history of oppressive regimes, we know its not good.

And the country is realizing it. The general public DOES care about rights. The question is will further the message of freedom or just sit back and let the police propogandize everytime a "situation" comes up and acquisce to what seems "harmless" in the interest of not causing friction?

I'll bet if you were a black guy and were ever profiled and stopped for no reason because you were in a 'white area' you might understand the fundamental reason why we have the right to not give our name and walk away.

imported post

gollbladder13 wrote:

I wish I could be more supportive for your "my rights never have been and never will be violated" attitudes, but in the real world, it happens. It sucks, but it happens. [Tell that to Rosa Parks, "it sucks but it happens." That is exactly where we are at, we're saying, "no, that isn't right and I will not allow it to happen yet again.] Maybe I'm just not as extreme as the rest of you, but I'm not going to get arrested just because a cop wants to know my name. [Neither am I, but this isn't and wasn't about "the name." LEO fixated on the GUN, the GUN this, the GUN that, and at that point Frank went mute as would I because they didn't want his name as a witness, or because he fit the description,or because he lived in the neighborhood, they wanted his name because he chose to exercisea legal constitutionally protectedRIGHT that THEY DISAPPROVED OF.] In the same way, I have not voted in EVERY single election, from presidential to alderman. Have you? If you have, great! But it's a right, not a mandate that you vote, just as it's a right, but not a mandate that you don't give your name. [Exactly. It is a right NOT TO GIVE YOUR NAME! Glad we agree. So Frank exercises a RIGHT, and LEO jails him. Should you be jailed the next time you vote or go to church? Should you be jailed the next time you post here? After all, it is your RIGHT to do so, but there is no mandate stating you must.]

Just because we disagree doesn't mean we want the same things. We just have different ways of going about it...

Click to expand...

Here to I agree, we want the same things. We want LEO to acknowledge we have rights and to leave those who peaceably exercise those right alone. I used colors and capitals for emphasis, not yelling. Just trying to help explain what many of us live through.

imported post

I said it before, and I'll say it one last time and leave it.

I guess what it comes down to is what works for others doesn't work for me right now. That's just the way it is.

I think this thread is going in circles. It's time to move on and move forward, and despite different views on this particular aspect, move forward on gun issues. That is, after all, what this website is here for, right?

I'm done with this thread if you are...

imported post

gollbladder13 wrote:

In AG Van Hollen's memo, even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual, [and] ask to examine the individual's identification, as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance is mandatory. [You GOT IT! Compliance was NOT MANDATORY! You hit the nail on the head! We AGREE 110%. Compliance was NOT mandatory. Frank knew this and chose not to comply. The officers then did indeed violate his rights according to the AG. That's exactly what everybody here has been saying all along. They arrested him why??? For failure to comply!]

This is regardless of whether a person is or is not thought to be a felon. Sure, you have the right to stay quiet, but we see how well that's working out for our rights... [Only because of the LEO's involved in this incident. That is why we MUST hold the line. That is why we MUST make LEO comply.]

Has anything changed? Not that I've seen. Have people still been unjustly arrested? You bet. Are our rights still being violated? I'm not denying it. In the end, the way things are going, your rights are either going to be violated right away, or later on. I still fail to see how going to jail (even if wrongly) is better than simply giving your name. [Once the civil suits start, and LEO starts to realize they LOOSE qualified immunity and that LEO's wages can/will be garnished by the victims, LEO will stop this behavior.]

I'm sure by now a lot of you are thinking that I don't care about my rights based on my comments. You couldn't be further from the truth, but I care more about being able to stay home with my family, not risk losing a current or future job, or not spending a ton of money on legal fees.

Maybe that's just me...

Click to expand...

We want the same things. Where we differ is in that fact that we believe in suffering NOW to make the country/world a better place for our children. I will gladly sit in jail and give up my job if it means my children will never suffer this type of tyranny.

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?

Click to expand...

You need to look farther than 6" in front of your face. If everyone starts not giving their name, and everyone is informed of this fact there will be a standard and people won't have to risk getting arrested.

It's the same as all of us going out and open carrying at this point. Do you want to walk around and be a victim, or do you want to go out and open carry and prove that you can and should be able to do so without harassment. If you don't defend your rights (like people have done in the past with OC) you will end up in the situation we have now were we have to struggle to get them back!

imported post

Well, I finally watched the videos in full, took a cold shower, and did some thinking.

I earlier stated that each situation is a case-by-case scenario. I have to hold true to my words. I have never been in this situation, so I honestly can't say what I would do. I can't guarantee I would give my info, but I have not set my mind to withholding that info.

The long video, along with a culmination of everybody's point made me realize that I am more in the middle ground as what I thought earlier.

While everybody made great points, I think this is the one that drove it home for me (along with bnh's statement-by-statement commentary) was this:

It's the same as all of us going out and open carrying at this point.

Click to expand...

I realized that, though different ammendments, it's all bundled into the same concept.

Again, I CAN'T promise I'll withhold my personal info, but now I CAN promise that I won't jump to compliance just because a cop asked nicely.

I think getting no sleep from a crying newborn is getting to my head.

Have a good one, all, and be safe...

imported post

I'm of the personal opinion that as long as someone doesn't act violently, irresponsibly, dangerously, vulgarly, etc, it really can't hurt our cause.

Gun rights are only hurt by not being heard. So actually, getting arrested for not giving his name just helped bring more people to the cause. No one is going to get passionately upset because he didn't tell the cop his name. We've all heard the "you have the right to remain silent." That's not only after being arrested, it's simply that they're supposed to TELL you that after they arrest you.

Anyways, be glad it happened because new people are now brought to the cause for the mere reason that they see other people are actually doing stuff.

imported post

gollbladder13 wrote:

SNIP "How does that make your group look?", referencing those that would rather not give their information simply because it is their right. 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.

Click to expand...

Regarding how it looks to others, that is a matter of education. We just educate. Any blame/fingerpointing can be directed back at the finger-pointers for not educating themselves. Here are some educational points:

From the US Supreme Court:



...we have emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's "basic functions ... is to protect innocent men ... 'who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.'" Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S. 391, 421 (1957)...

...In Grunewald, we recognized that truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker's own mouth. 353 U. S., at 421-422. -- Ohio vs Reiner quoting Grunewald.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/532/17/case.html



...Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege. Such a view does scant honorto the patriots who sponsored the Bill of Rights as a condition to acceptance of the Constitution by the ratifying States. Ullman vs United States

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0350_0422_ZO.html



Here is a hint in the direction of just how valuable the right is:

...Ours is the accusatorial, as opposed to the inquisitorial, system. Such has been the characteristic of Anglo-American criminal justice since it freed itself from practices borrowed by the Star Chamber from the Continent whereby an accused was interrogated in secret for hours on end... Watts vs Indiana.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/338/49/case.html



Regarding "nothing to hide", here is a scholarly paper that examines the argument in-depth:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565

imported post

gollbladder13 wrote:

SNIP there is a huge difference between those who cooperate and those...I also do beleive in cooperating, especially when you have nothing to hide.

Click to expand...

Who says that exercising rights is not cooperating? (rhetorical question)

By exercising his rights, a person is in fact cooperating to the full extent required by both law and good citizenship.

For perspective, lets look at somereal methods of not-cooperating. Some people not-cooperate by screaming hysterically (see youtube videos). Some people not-cooperate by running and making the cop chase them. Some people not-cooperate by shooting at thepolice. Some not-cooperate by killing the cop. Some not-cooperate by driving away fast, inviting a high-speed pursuit, dangerous to the officer. Some try to run over the cop.

By exercising his rights, a person is in fact cooperating to the full extent required by both law and good citizenship. By citizenship, I mean that rights unused become lost. In this country, we seem to now have a common idea that anyone invoking their 5th Amendment (5A) right to silence is hiding something.

Just because a police officer comes along and defines exercising rights as "not-cooperating" does not make it true. We are foolish to accept such revisionist tactics. Who let the police define what is"cooperation" and what is not? In fact it is the police who are supposed to be cooperating with our rights at all times.

imported post

Again, I CAN'T promise I'll withhold my personal info, but now I CAN promise that I won't jump to compliance just because a cop asked nicely.

Click to expand...

I don't think most here would give you grief for choosing for yourself to give your info voluntarily. I've stated before, everyone must choose where along the "rights train" they can afford to ride to. (and I don't say that pejoratively) And I don't say that we wouldn't encourage you reasons not to, but my primary beef with your original post was the suggestion that we (who choose not to give our info) are doing "the wrong thing" or hurting the cause. I reject that notion.

But having said that I wouldn't fault someone for choosing to give their name vs. getting arrested. Thats a personal decision that you must weigh many factors.

Jesus was one of the only guys I know (pre AG memo) willing to walk into stores and out in public open carrying. He was right, he knew his rights, and he wasn't afraid to exercise them despite the knowledge that he would likely at some point be detained, and likely arrested.

I'll be honest, I didn't have as much faith in the system and TIME to deal with getting arrested and detained. Of course NOW I find the risk acceptable and have more confidence in the justice system.

SO anyway... I hope eventually more and more people decide to fully exercise their rights. If you chose not to, I understand. If you choose to discourage others from FULLY exercising their rights and suggest they are hurting the fight for freedom. Thats what I take issue with.

But yeah.. example if you are out with your child or something... Open-carrying and you think you'll be arrested if you don't share your name with police (which would mean your child is then taken into protective custody) I TOTALLY understand waiting for better opportunities to flex your rights completely.

I open-carry EVERY opportunity I can, yet there were a couple times I went somewhere and didn't open-carry because I was in a total rush to get somewhere on time where people were waiting/counting on me and I didn't open-carry because THAT day I just didn't have an extra 1/2 hour in case I was detained.

imported post

A lot of good ponts have been brought up in this thread. I just want to touch on a fwe things.

A lot of people, especially those on Officer.com, seem to think we're a "cop-bashing" website. They are misinformed. I personally believe (and think that many other members are of the same mind) that cops are like everyone else in the respect that they all have different attitudes and approaches to their job. I hav met cops who I'd be best friends with, ones who are mediocre, and one who are just horrible. I can say that about anyone.


This next issue(or any I bring up) is not meant to be insulting or degrading to anyone. Please read it with an open mind.

Training. A person is in like a dog in the respect that they are the product of their environment, experiences, and training. Many dogs such as pitbulls or dobermans have a bad rap because of a few that have been trained or treated badly and are aggressive and have attacked someone. A similar conclusion can be drawn about cops. Some of the things they are taught in the academy such as how to "fish" answers out of people and stuff at the department level such as ways to get around the law simply should not be taught. It's a little like teaching a dog to attack. It's dangerous and wrong.

I don't mean this as an excuse but mean it to illustrate a possible root cause of many of the issues. I guess to a point I believe in the inherent goodness of people. I try to treat everyone with respect until I am given a reason not to. People, unlike the aforementioned dogs, have the ability to reason and decide for themselves whether their actions are wrong or not and that is why I do not excuse their behavior.

I could go on and on but I'll wrap it up with this.

I am respectful and courteous to every officer I meet. I politely and verbally decline to respond to their "fishing expeditions." If it gets to the point where they start getting aggressive, unprofessional, rude, threatening, or whatever, I then follow good 'ol Penn's advice which can be found here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PaHcZUHI00


It has worked in the past and I believe that it will work in the future. Think of it as a game of chess.

I can answer their questions now, go on record with those answers and maybe walk away. If I'm arrested then everything I said can and will be used against me so I had better be sure I answered all those questions truthfully. I say that because humans are fallible and can forget stuff. It's never good to be caught in a lie, unintentional or not.

Or I can clam up and on the chance I'm arrested they then have far less to use against me. In the end it will likely help me in court.

imported post

Maybe you should learn to differentiate between civility and obsequiousness. One of the problems with common language is its inability to express fine shades of difference.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Maybe you should learn to differentiate between civility and obsequiousness. One of the problems with common language is its inability to express fine shades of difference.

Click to expand...

Any time I have to google a word in a post, I feel either two ways. Uneducated or underminded, and I won a 5th grade spelling bee... :lol:

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Maybe you should learn to differentiate between civility and obsequiousness. One of the problems with common language is its inability to express fine shades of difference.

Click to expand...

When you are speaking to the masses, you should use a language the "Masses" can easily understand.
Your choice of using the word obsequiousness could have very easily been replaced with "full compliance" or "aiming to please" without alienating some of our members.

imported post

Like I said...

My member is very firmly attached, is very well known to me and is not likely to become alienated.

imported post

That is what the guy in Stock Bridge said when his "member" was super glued to his stomach.

imported post

I'm going to risk sounding like Jesse Jackson here, but I think we need to "have some dialogue" with the police.

Enough police are on our side when it comes to carrying guns, it's just most of them stay silent about it. They don't want to be alienated by the fewer police who are on power trips (eg. don't want people carrying guns).

The point we should focus on is that Frank was not doing anything wrong. He was not acting weird (refusing to talk is totally within his right), was not making threatening gestures, was not acting agitated, etc. So...why was he arrested?

imported post

I'm going to risk sounding like Jesse Jackson here, but I think we need to "have some dialogue" with the police.

Click to expand...

I think thats what Frank was trying to do when they were swearing at him and then demanding his information.

Enough police are on our side when it comes to carrying guns, it's just most of them stay silent about it.

Click to expand...

Do you have some access to statistical data or inside information about the actual attitude of police the rest of us don't?

Pure speculation. I know a few cops that don't mind open carry at all. I don't make the mistake of assuming they represent the rest of them.

I think we need to "have some dialogue" with the police.

Click to expand...

Dialogue usually involves 2 equals. When one party insists on holding and usurping their authority over another party "dialogue" seems a bit of a misnomer.

imported post

I agree, Hugh. By dialogue I wasn't meaning Frank. I meant perhaps as a group we could reach out to the police and try to get more of them on our side, and at the very least the rest of them to understand us and respect our rights so that this sort of thing doesn't happen again.

It's better to work with people than work in the courts. I say this as someone who has filed multiple lawsuits and even settled lawsuits. I'm not afraid to go to court, it's just a very long, long, long, long process and in the end even if you win you feel like "what have I really accomplished?"

imported post

Where is the audio for this? I haven't heard it yet.