imported post
turbodog wrote:
Well, despite this being an OC state, that doesn't automatically mean that LEO just walk on by you. Yes, I have had a non-consensual encounter and no, no complaint was filed. I can thank OCDO for how to handle such a thing better now.
That doesn't mean I'm going to file a lawsuit just because a cop asks me some questions.
I'm not saying he violated the law. He wasn't during his last stunt either.
My point was, he finds little nitpick ways of tripping up law enforcement with the seeming goal of filing a lawsuit when they question him.
Your right, state money spends just fine, but try and recall just where the state got the money from. If this was a case of repeated abuse of authority, I agree, sue away! He get's stopped and questioned once and he has a lawyer lined up. And based on his previous activities, I'd bet he had the lawyer lined up ahead of time for this fishing trip.
The guy seems to have a talent for legal research. If he spent as much time on research that could help gun owners as he spends looking for ways to get rich quick, he could be a real asset to gun owners everywhere.
Granted. Even here in an OC legal state, many LEO take a dim view of OC so I agree with you on that statement.
Let's please do recall this was the guy walking around a park with the orange tipped AK-47 strapped on his back. He got all hot and bothered when the police stopped him and questioned him. And wants to sue them for it.
Now he walks around carrying a pistol in his hand and again wants to know why the police stop him and ask questions. And wants to sue them for it.
Personally, if the cops around here see a guy walking around with a pistol in his hand, I'd be pissed if they DIDN"T stop and question.
I'm NOT questioning the legality of what he's doing. He's researched the laws and knows what he can do. I question the whole purpose behind what he's doing.
He got his rights violated. He made a deliberate, well thought out plan to create a specific outcome. Which was...to get his rights violated. Succeeded, didn't he? Cha-Ching!
And then he get's legitimized by others here. Not by me bro. I got this ones number.
He can carry a sidearm in a holster, he has done so before by his own words. That doesn't seem to satisfy him. His stunts are not about the OC movement or the rights of people to carry a firearm at all.
The first time (the AK stunt) I could have said he was a misguided idealist, but this time was too well thought out. Just seems to me he's a scam artist out for easy money on the taxpayers dime.
First, you should always remember--formal complaints are your friend....use them and use them often--meaning every single time you are stopped for a non-crime.
Second, cops have a "right" to consensually stop and talk to you--but to non-consensually stop you for not committing a crime--for me that makes them the criminal....violate a single right and they are no longer "the good guys"--I'm just sorry the DOJ does not take that view.
Third, you accuse Kwikrnu of "deliberately trying to trip-up LE"----you can't "set someone up" who is already predisposed to commit the crime--do you think they would hesitate to do the same thing to you or anyone else--if you think they would not try to trip you up, then you have more faith in them than I do.
Fourth--you reminded me of where the state gets the money to pay people with when our rights are violated--for me that is perfectly ok--because if the people dole out enough money then they might eventually get the hint and start holding their government accountable a bit more--the people are responsible for the misconduct of their government, and if they are unwilling to demand that their government tow the line and respect our rights-- then they should not complain when taxpayer money goes out the door in order to pay multiple judgments. Further, if the police spent as much time actually
respecting the Constitutional rights of the people instead of trying to find new and creative ways of violating them--we wouldn't even have this problem would we?
Fifth, you say you think kwik might just be out to collect easy money on the taxpayer dime--again if the people are unwilling to hold their government accountable--then they have no reason to complain when they start paying out judgments to satisfy civil rights suits--get the police to actually
respect our rights instead of violating them and we won't have this problem.
Sixth--you said you would be pissed if the cops didn't stop to question someone with a pistol in their hand--not me. I would be more pissed for the rights violation. No crime= no reason to stop. He was within the law and was minding his own business as per state law and still the police just couldn't pass up the chance to violate a citizens rights.
Seventh--you agree about the conduct of the police in non-permit required OC legal states--they call us "tools", they try every way they can to cite or arrest, and in my class we were specifically told that if we OC'ed and they responded more than once to us--they "would find a reason to arrest us"...meaning they would trump up charges--more than likely a catchall charge of disorderly conduct in order to make a point about who was in control.
Finally--whether he was intentionally trying to draw a police response or not is of no concern to me--the fact remains--his rights were violated, he was within state law and if the police don't know the laws they are supposed to enforce then they should find another line of work. One rights violation is one too many. It sets a bad example by letting them think that we will tolerate it and just go BOHICA every time they get the urge to violate our rights.
You are supposed to live in a "free state"--it isn't free when you have cops breathing down your neck simply because you choose to exercise your rights in a way that does not please 'them".
If a lawsuit furthers the cause of gun rights then so be it, if complaints are needed to get it through to the government that we won't tolerate abuses then so be it--lawsuits and complaints seem to be the only thing they understand.