Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Penal Code promotes and allows armed “CONFRONTATION”

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    I'm sure that the County of San Diego and the San Diego Sheriff's Department will offer the fact that I have the right to Unloaded Open Carry as a means of self defense. I thought of this prior to making application for a CCW, and here are my thoughts on carrying openly and UNLOADED.

    Unloaded open carry is not an option to me at this time.

    The California Penal Code currently promotes and allows armed CONFRONTATION” between members of law enforcement and law abiding members of the public.

    One only has to read some of the posted public documents on this website to see the problems.

    To carry a firearm openly and unloaded prevents the person bearing the weapon from being read to instantly defend themselves when confronted.

    I’m sure that Justice Scalia and the four other Supreme Court justices that made up the Heller majority would agree that the founding fathers when reducing their Second Amendment beliefs into written form, knew that THE WEAPONS OF THE TIME, (Black Powder Muskets and Pistols), were carried LOADED by having powder, patch and ball compacted in the barrel and a piece of flint screwed to the hammer.

    What everyone needs to realize is the fact that the California Penal Code actually promotes and allows “CONFRONTATION” between armed individuals who regardless of whether they are civilians or members of law enforcement,are legally carrying their handguns for self defense.

    The current California Penal Code provisions found in 12031 (e) encourages, promotes and allows unnecessary weapon checks and confrontations with law abiding citizens by members of law enforcement without probable cause regardless of the circumstances.

    To allow any member of society to TACTICALLYapproach anyone for the simple purpose ofexamining a legally carried openly exposedhandgun to determine if the weapon isLOADED is a tragedy waiting to happen.

    The law, by not mandating probable cause to justify the confrontation, or limiting the manner in which law enforcement approaches, detains and searches law abiding citizens, places citizens and members of law enforcement in great danger of serious injury or death during the confrontation.

    By allowing one or more police officers, (especially those in plain clothes), to approach law abiding citizens tactically with weapons drawn, creates a visual picture and emotional situation where the citizen(s) may immediately feel threatened at the site of weapons in the hands of those advancing on his or her position.

    One only has to research the cases, (there are many), where off duty members of law enforcement dressed in civilian clothes have been mistaken for common criminals by their brothers and sisters in bluewhile being approached only to bewounded and/or killed, simply because they possessed and exposed their legally possessed firearms.

    Please GOOGLE: “Plain Clothes Police officer shot”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/nyregion/29cop.html

    A New York City police officer who had just gotten off duty was fatally shot late Thursday in East Harlem by a fellow officer who mistook him for an armed criminal, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said.

    Chief Urges Identity Code For Police; Plainclothes Officer's Shooting Prompts Call

    D.C. Police Chief Larry D. Soulsby said yesterday that the department must come up with new ways for plainclothes officers to identify themselves to their uniformed colleagues at crime scenes to avoid repeating an incident Tuesday in which one officer shot another in the back.

    Soulsby said he made two trips to Washington Hospital Center yesterday to see Detective Lani Jackson-Pinckney, who remained partly paralyzed, with her four-month fetus in good condition. She was in civilian clothes with her gun drawn when she interceded in an attempted carjacking in Northeast Washington and was shot by ...

    I know that I have the ability to carry my handgun openly while UNLOADED in the State of California, but currently suffer the chilling effects caused by the thoughts of being tactically confronted by members of law enforcement especially those that may be in plain clothes while doing so.

    I have no problem with LOADED OPEN CARRY but desire to carry my firearm either OPENLY or CONCEALED!!


  2. #2
    Regular Member A ECNALG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    138

    Post imported post

    My thought in blue . . .

    Edward Peruta wrote:
    To carry a firearm openly and unloaded prevents the person bearing the weapon from being read to instantly defend themselves when confronted. "Instantly" is a term that I wish people would stop applying. While one may, I repeat, may, be able to"more rapidly" draw a loaded firearm from its concealed location than having to load it in the process of drawing it from an open location, one is not likely to draw it "instantly." If a gun is pointed at one's head, I don't care how fast one is, a rapid, provocative move such as "instantly" drawing a firearm from the small of the back, the ankle, a fanny pack, under a shirt, etc, is far more likely to end in tragedy for the victim (although I know that many readers will disagree).

    To allow any member of society to TACTIALLY approach anyone for the simple purpose ofexamining a legally carried openly exposedhandgun to determine if the weapon isLOADED is a tragedy waiting to happen. A sworn, uniformed officer is not just "any member of society."

    By allowing one or more police officers, (especially those in plain clothes), to approach law abiding citizens tactically with weapons drawn, creates a visual picture and emotional situation where the citizen(s) may immediately feel threatened at the site of weapons in the hands of those advancing on his or her position. Then it falls to the UOCer to remain alert at all times for such a contact. It is HIGHLY unlikely that a plainclothed officer will approach a UOCer in the absense of strong reasonable articulible suspicion, if not probable cause. The more likely scenario is one were the plainclothed will monitor the situation will calling for uniformed backup to effect the actual contact. Anyperson who observes a uniformed officer approaching, gun in hand, and fails to remain calm, perhaps should not be a UOCer.

    She was in civilian clothes with her gun drawn when she interceded in an attempted carjacking in Northeast Washington and was shot by ... Well, duh! What the heck does this have to do with lawful UOC??? I assume that she was not engaged in UOC, but LCC, prior to her intercession, or am I mistaken on this one tiny detail? This example serves only tosuggest that no one outside of uniformed officers should be permitted to carry a firearm at any time, in any manner. Or at the very least, non-law enforcement civilians should not be permitted to intercede in the defense of others.

    I know that I have the ability to carry my handgun openly while UNLOADED in the State of California, but currently suffer the chilling effects caused by the thoughts of being tactically confronted by members of law enforcement especially those that may be in plain clothes while doing so. Then please LCC, and make damn sure that concealed firearm never, ever, even partially becomes exposed. As for the rest of us for whom the Sheriff will not issue a CCW because "self defense" is not sufficient justification, UOC is the only legal option.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Riverside County, California, USA
    Posts
    353

    Post imported post

    Edward Peruta wrote:
    Perhaps a slight change in perspective. The plain clothes police that got shot were not mistaken for criminals. They were mistaken for civilians.

  4. #4
    Regular Member A ECNALG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    138

    Post imported post

    inbox485 wrote:
    Perhaps a slight change in perspective. The plain clothes police that got shot were not mistaken for criminals. They were mistaken for civilians.
    Cynicism noted.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    inbox485 wrote:
    Edward Peruta wrote:
    Perhaps a slight change in perspective. The plain clothes police that got shot were not mistaken for criminals. They were mistaken for civilians.
    For the win.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    inbox485 wrote:
    Edward Peruta wrote:
    Perhaps a slight change in perspective. The plain clothes police that got shot were not mistaken for criminals. They were mistaken for civilians.
    Thats pretty dark man, she had a kid inside her.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    heliopolissolutions wrote:
    inbox485 wrote:
    Edward Peruta wrote:
    Perhaps a slight change in perspective. The plain clothes police that got shot were not mistaken for criminals. They were mistaken for civilians.
    Thats pretty dark man, she had a kid inside her.
    Which, if she was visibly showing at 4 months, would make it even more damning for the shooter, had he seen.

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    N6ATF wrote:
    Which, if she was visibly showing at 4 months, would make it even more damning for the shooter, had he seen.
    A bit off topic, I suppose, but I'm fascinated by this subject.

    Is the life of a pregnant woman more valuable than mine? Why is it more abhorrent to murder a woman or a child than a man? Aren't we all equal? Should there be a heftier penalty for murdering a woman or child? What if the pregnant woman beats her existing children and smokes, drinks, and abuses meth while pregnant? Is her life still more valuable than mine?

    I understand the genetic tendency to defend our young... that's just natural selection in action. The individuals of the species that don't have the tendency to defend their young would not be as likely to have surviving offspring, thus removing them from the gene pool...

    However, in the realm of rational thought... why is it that this obvious appeal to emotion fallacy is thrown about without thought?

    In our above scenario, isn't it possible a pregnant woman is committing a crime, maybe even a violent crime? Are pregnant women statistically less likely to commit violent crimes than women who are not pregnant?

    Food for thought... didn't mean to side-track the thread... so please don't respond here... but I'd be interested in PMs if anybody feels like getting philosophical...
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Is the life of a pregnant woman more valuable than mine? Why is it more abhorrent to murder a woman or a child than a man? Aren't we all equal? Should there be a heftier penalty for murdering a woman or child?
    The difference is the relative defenselessness, and perhaps perceived innocence with children. Yes, obviously, under the law, we should all be equal. But perhaps the reason we believe targeting a weaker victim is worse is because chivalry is in fact not dead.

    But you are correct. It is an emotional response. Maybe it's just based on primitive animal instinct, that of protectiveness of our young and our mates.


  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    Not to sidetrack the thread, particularly one with such a valid topic.

    You appear to fully understand and perhaps partake in the ideology of protecting our children. Thats part of why many of us choose to keep and carry firearms.
    I think we pretty much agree that it is potently undesirable to kill or injure the innocent and the defenseless, be they women, men, children, or disabled.
    As we agree our laws must be applied equally, the emotion of compassion should not be discounted, even from the courtroom.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    San Jose, California, USA
    Posts
    108

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    N6ATF wrote:
    Which, if she was visibly showing at 4 months, would make it even more damning for the shooter, had he seen.
    A bit off topic, I suppose, but I'm fascinated by this subject.

    Is the life of a pregnant woman more valuable than mine? Why is it more abhorrent to murder a woman or a child than a man? Aren't we all equal? Should there be a heftier penalty for murdering a woman or child? What if the pregnant woman beats her existing children and smokes, drinks, and abuses meth while pregnant? Is her life still more valuable than mine?

    I understand the genetic tendency to defend our young... that's just natural selection in action. The individuals of the species that don't have the tendency to defend their young would not be as likely to have surviving offspring, thus removing them from the gene pool...

    However, in the realm of rational thought... why is it that this obvious appeal to emotion fallacy is thrown about without thought?

    In our above scenario, isn't it possible a pregnant woman is committing a crime, maybe even a violent crime? Are pregnant women statistically less likely to commit violent crimes than women who are not pregnant?

    Food for thought... didn't mean to side-track the thread... so please don't respond here... but I'd be interested in PMs if anybody feels like getting philosophical...
    Some may argue that it's 2 people rather than one and a fetus. 2 are more valuable than 1

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    N6ATF wrote:
    Which, if she was visibly showing at 4 months, would make it even more damning for the shooter, had he seen.
    A bit off topic, I suppose, but I'm fascinated by this subject.

    Is the life of a pregnant woman more valuable than mine? Why is it more abhorrent to murder a woman or a child than a man? Aren't we all equal? Should there be a heftier penalty for murdering a woman or child? What if the pregnant woman beats her existing children and smokes, drinks, and abuses meth while pregnant? Is her life still more valuable than mine?

    I understand the genetic tendency to defend our young... that's just natural selection in action. The individuals of the species that don't have the tendency to defend their young would not be as likely to have surviving offspring, thus removing them from the gene pool...

    However, in the realm of rational thought... why is it that this obvious appeal to emotion fallacy is thrown about without thought?

    In our above scenario, isn't it possible a pregnant woman is committing a crime, maybe even a violent crime? Are pregnant women statistically less likely to commit violent crimes than women who are not pregnant?

    Food for thought... didn't mean to side-track the thread... so please don't respond here... but I'd be interested in PMs if anybody feels like getting philosophical...
    Anything's possible, just not likely. The easiest thing I could find was http://de.lwv.org/LWVDEBulletin4.doc
    Women are less likely than men to commit violent crimes
    Between 4 and 15 percent are pregnant when they enter prison
    1 of every 200 Delaware adult women are inmates
    37% are pre-trial, very few of those for acts of violence

    May have seemed like an appeal to emotion, but it was a statistical theory.

    If a pregnant woman has someone at gunpoint on the ground and is not shooting them, it's a reasonable conclusion from the data that she's probably a law-abiding gun owner and not a criminal. So why would you shoot her in the back when she's not threatening you and in a cover-only mode?

    Even if she wasn't pregnant, I'd come to this conclusion until any further actions were taken. To do otherwise would earn the title "summary executioner".

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Riverside County, California, USA
    Posts
    353

    Post imported post

    heliopolissolutions wrote:
    inbox485 wrote:
    Edward Peruta wrote:
    Perhaps a slight change in perspective. The plain clothes police that got shot were not mistaken for criminals. They were mistaken for civilians.
    Thats pretty dark man, she had a kid inside her.
    I wasn't referring to just this example. This happens quite a bit. It is assumed by far too many that "plain clothes"+gun="violent criminal that needs to be culled" until proven otherwise and uniform+gun="knight in shining armor" until proven otherwise. So when the media says off duty cop was mistaken for criminal it translates to off duty cop was mistaken for civilian and assumed to be a criminal because they saw a gun before they saw a badge. If that puts a knot in your stomach - good. It means you have a conscience. The real question is if that woman was not pregnant and on duty, would she have shot one of her off duty colleagues under the same conditions.

Posting Permissions

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