Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52

Thread: My 23-Feb-2010 Detainment. Great Conversation.

  1. #1
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bad_ace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Cupertino, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    http://www.opencarryradio.com/?p=491 Find the audio here.

    Transcript of crappy audio:

    Deputy: You know why we’re here.

    Me: Yeah I know why you’re here.

    Deputy: Just wanna check to see you’re in compliance.

    Me: Sure. Sure. Do you really wanna do that standing on the road?

    Deputy: Yeah sure that’s fine.

    Me: You want to be handling the weapon? You don’t mind. Alright. Just to put it on record I don’t consent to any searches of my person or my property.

    Deputy: Oh that’s fine, that’s fine. (Steps behind me and draws my gun from its holster.)

    Me: Including the serial number of that weapon.

    Deputy: Alright, I don’t plan on doing that I’m just want to make sure you’re in compliance.

    Me: (Looking at the San Jose PD, maybe Sunnyvale, I don’t remember. I’ll discuss my mistakes at the end) How you doin?

    Officer1: Doing good.

    Deputy: <inaudible> (Maybe “golden”? At this point he’s returned my sidearm to its holster and steps back)

    Me: Great.

    Deputy: You are free to go.

    Me: Did you guys get called out here?

    Deputy: Yeah we had a couple calls.

    Me: A couple?! (I UOC everyday in my neighborhood, and walk this path at least once a week so I wash shocked) Interesting.

    Deputy: <inaudible> (something to the effect “you think you’d expect that” if memory serves)

    Deputy: Like I said you’re free to go but I got a couple questions for you?

    Me: Sure I don’t mind talking to you guys.

    Deputy: Just out of curiosity, I mean yeah it’s your legal right to carry it and all that. Isn’t that kind of, I guess not around here but isn’t that kind of asking for trouble since you don’t have ammunition in it? Because me personally I wouldn’t want to carry an unloaded gun, it’s more like a paper weight, you know what I’m saying?

    Me: Sure, that be silly. I carry ammo on my person, so I can load it. I can do that in about 2 seconds. I rather be able to load it in 2 seconds than be standing there with my dick in my hand if something goes down.

    Deputy: I hear you on that. I hear you on that. OK.

    Me: Until we can get the law changed or Sheriff Smith wants to issue the CCW I requested, this is what I’m gonna be doing.

    Deputy: That would be an act of god.

    Me: Well

    Deputy: You know what I’m saying.

    Me: No. I know, I got a lot of trouble just trying to apply for it. People giving me a hard time down at the station, people snickering “why are you even applying”. You know that kind of stuff, But I wanted to be able to say on record “I got denied for a CCW and now this is my only option”

    Deputy: Yeah but one thing you have to understand. To obtain a CCW is very hard. Because typically you have to transport large suns of money, large sums of cash or <asks other deputy> what’s the other one they issue them for? It’s usually like a Pharmacist.

    Me: Oh yeah, yeah, also being famous and also contributing at least $25,000 to Laurie Smith’s re-election campaign.

    Deputy: That I don’t know about. <but thought it was true enough to be funny>

    Me: Yes. There are a number of things that will get you a CCW, I understand that. I’m just not in a position to contribute 25 thousand to her re-election campaign.

    Deputy: You and me both buddy, I can understand that.

    Me: Until then this is how it’s gonna have to be. I think I had good cause above and beyond being able to protect myself. But she’s got her policies and it it what it is.

    Deputy: Now may I ask you this? Do you have a job?

    Me: I’m employed.

    Deputy: Unemployed?

    Me: I’m employed, I’m gainfully employed, yes.

    Deputy: Do you carry that at work or just while you’re on the streets. (I’m confident he’s been informed of where I work and this is an attempt to get me to incriminate myself, ONE of the paths to work goes through a GFSZ.)

    Me: My work, without going into detail, because the last time I talk to one of your sheriffs deputies they decided to use the information I was willfully giving up to them in a consensual conversation like we’re having, they tried to use that against me to obtain a warrant. So I’m always cautious of what I tell people.

    Deputy: No me man, I’m just curious.

    Me: So me particular employer has a no guns at work policy. So because I honor property rights, I respect that, you know what I mean?

    Deputy: Yeah

    Me: If they said no pink shoes, I’d also respect that.

    Deputy: I can understand that.

    Me: So in my particular case If I want to go to the range for shooting practice or I want to go out in public while armed, I have to go home, get it and then go back out. Kind of a pain.

    Deputy: Alrighty

    Me: Just carrying for my own personal protection.

    Deputy: I understand that, that’s your god given right.

    Me: California would think different.

    Deputy: Well you’re in compliance with the laws.

    Me: That’s true as far as state law goes. We’re waiting for a federal ruling <inaudible/mumbling>

    Deputy: Well now let me ask you this. Now again like I said you can split anytime. It’s just curiosity.

    Me: Sure. Usually I do. If you talk to other deputies, as soon as I’m done with me (e) check I’m out. But I think I’m more into the educational phase. I’ve read some of the things you’ve said in your interdepartmental emails and things and…

    Deputy: Ok first off, when you say you guys, I’ve never contacted you before or any thing like that before. (He’s right, I apologize)

    Me: I’m generalizing. I’m saying the Sheriffs Dept. and Sunnyvale PD. I understand that there’s this contention and things that you’ve been told in your briefings, that we’re all a bunch of sue happy people that are looking to entrap you guys and litigate. One that hasn’t happened to date, there hasn’t been a single piece of legal action against you guys.

    Deputy: Well as long as we’re doing what we’re supposed to.

    Me: Right I don’t think it’s a problem as long as you guys aren’t trampling on other people’s rights.

    Deputy: Our question is, aren’t you concerned about the laws becoming…

    Me: Worse?

    Deputy: No, just more lenient and the guns falling into the hands of the wrong individuals? Obviously it’d become more beneficial for you because you should be able to carry what you want.

    Me: Right. I think guns are already in the hands of criminal and people that are planning on doing harm, they have no problem getting weapons. <Deputy nods in agreement.>

    Deputy: OK.

    Me: So I don’t think making laws more lenient would mean that people would have them fall into the wrong hands. Another thing to bring up would be, let’s say somebody was a hardened criminal, felon, that kind of stuff was also open carrying and walking around. If he exerted his rights and was not committing a crime, wasn’t about to commit a crime, you guys didn’t have reasonable suspicion to think so, he’d be walking away just like I’m about to. So I’m almost OK with that. What I want Law Enforcement to do is go after people that are committing crimes or are about to commit a crime. When you guys start trying to get into… <Deputy tries to interrupt> No. When you guys try and start trying to depict people’s “intent”. I hear that a lot, “We don’t know your intent”.

    Deputy: I was just about to say…

    Me: Well yeah you guys have been brainwashed. I understand that. So the reason you can’t deal with people’s “intent”, that’s called a thought crime. Alright? You can go after people for what they think or are about to think and do. Right? So when you start encroaching on thought crimes you guys should really take a step back and say “Why don’t we go after people that have committed a crime or we have reasonable suspicion are about to commit a crime. Let’s not try and get in their heads and learn what they’re gonna do.

    Deputy: Well I hear you on that. Our hands are tied to a certain degree though. You can understand.

    Me: right and they’re supposed to be, because you guys are citizens. You don’t have extra rights. You guys are normal people just like you and I. The only difference is the entire “State”, I put quotation marks around “State” because it’s an imaginary thing like the “the Tooth Fairy” or “Santa Clause” it doesn’t exist. The “State” has endowed you with certain authority, like carrying a gun in public, loaded in that case. They haven’t made any laws that would restrict you guys from carrying guns. You also have this, not really written in law but sort of this general idea that if your a cop you can carry concealed without a permit, which is complete B.S., but nobody’s going to bust another cop on it right? So that’s the kind of double standards that citizens start to kind of dislike. They’re often not reminded that you guys are just citizens like we are. You guys just have a job where you’re wearing a costume, you have a shiny badge and a cool car, <deputy laughs> so you guys get away with a little bit more.

    Deputy: Alrighty dude.

    Me: Alright, I’ve enjoyed talking to you guys. You take it easy.

    Deputy: Have a good day.

    Me: Alright you too.

    Deputy: Keep dry, or try to anyways. <it was raining>

    Me: I will.

    Now the mistake I made was not getting their names or departments. This would have been useful had the situation gone different. Or if I just wanted to review which cops take what position on the issue of self protection.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    detainment from the future?



    edit the first! im curious if sunnyvale was a part of that, if so it looks like they are learning.


    edit again! pretty good detainment i think. you did a good job controling the conversation with them . its important for the newer guys (or guys without police or military training) to pay attention to the way this conversation went. LEO are trained to make you the underdog by having you sit, stay, be quite, speak when asked a question, do tricks "hey man, can you step right over there for me?", "put your hands on the top of your head, interlace your fingers". if you are aware of their tactics, you can grab controll of the situation like bad_ace did.
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  3. #3
    Regular Member JJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    East Contra Costa County, California, ,
    Posts
    213

    Post imported post

    You may want to edit the title. (date)

  4. #4
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bad_ace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Cupertino, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    Sorry. I have a lot going on in February, so I had that on the brain. How would one edit the title?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    bad_ace wrote:
    Sorry. I have a lot going on in February, so I had that on the brain. How would one edit the title?
    i dont think you can edit the title. just edit your post and put "by feb. i meant jan!"


    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Good job. Keep up the fine fight. Another documented encounter were men with arms who were not cops did not harm any children or other innocents.

    If you want to change title PM a moderator they might help you.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    Deputy: OK.

    Me: So I don’t think making laws more lenient would mean that people would have them fall into the wrong hands. Another thing to bring up would be, let’s say somebody was a hardened criminal, felon, that kind of stuff was also open carrying and walking around. If he exerted his rights and was not committing a crime, wasn’t about to commit a crime, you guys didn’t have reasonable suspicion to think so, he’d be walking away just like I’m about to. So I’m almost OK with that. What I want Law Enforcement to do is go after people that are committing crimes or are about to commit a crime. When you guys start trying to get into… <Deputy tries to interrupt> No. When you guys try and start trying to depict people’s “intent”. I hear that a lot, “We don’t know your intent”.

    Deputy: I was just about to say…

    Me: Well yeah you guys have been brainwashed. I understand that. So the reason you can’t deal with people’s “intent”, that’s called a thought crime. Alright? You can go after people for what they think or are about to think and do. Right? So when you start encroaching on thought crimes you guys should really take a step back and say “Why don’t we go after people that have committed a crime or we have reasonable suspicion are about to commit a crime. Let’s not try and get in their heads and learn what they’re gonna do.

    Deputy: Well I hear you on that. Our hands are tied to a certain degree though. You can understand.

    Me: right and they’re supposed to be, because you guys are citizens. You don’t have extra rights. You guys are normal people just like you and I. The only difference is the entire “State”, I put quotation marks around “State” because it’s an imaginary thing like the “the Tooth Fairy” or “Santa Clause” it doesn’t exist. The “State” has endowed you with certain authority, like carrying a gun in public, loaded in that case. They haven’t made any laws that would restrict you guys from carrying guns. You also have this, not really written in law but sort of this general idea that if your a cop you can carry concealed without a permit, which is complete B.S., but nobody’s going to bust another cop on it right? So that’s the kind of double standards that citizens start to kind of dislike. They’re often not reminded that you guys are just citizens like we are. You guys just have a job where you’re wearing a costume, you have a shiny badge and a cool car, <deputy laughs> so you guys get away with a little bit more.

    Deputy: Alrighty dude.

    Me: Alright, I’ve enjoyed talking to you guys. You take it easy.



    Not sure what to say about this. You get stopped by a LEO that is curious, tells you that you are free to go and seems to be on your side and is willing to talk to you about what you do and why you do it.

    You started off fine and were making headway with a LEO that seemed to respect you and your rights. Why did you feel the need to go into some extended rant that made you look like some teacher scolding a student?

    You took an opportunity to build bridges and you ran in the wrong direction.

    Save the rant for the LEO's that belittle you or treat you poorly.

    Where did you get the CCW thing anyways? A CCW comes with the job. I think that that point made you look silly. You were way off base and even if the LEO was following you up to that point; when you said that it was like, "This guy has no idea what he is talking about".

    You think that he asks you about your work because he wants to trap you into admitting you walk through a school zone? He was careful not to ask where you worked and you think that is because every officer in the area has had a full briefing on you? That's getting into Black helicopter territory.

    I'm ready for to have 99% of the people here disagree with me and that's fine, flame on; but I think you turned a potentially positive encounter into a slightly adversarial one where you were more interested in turning the tables that reaching across the table.

    If I rememeber correctly, the beat cops never arrested Thesus. The enemy was higher up on the political ladder. Most cops are pretty pro gun and pro rights,I think that this guy was reaching out a bit and you slapped his hand.






  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    I just see he was pointing out a double standard that does exist. I don't think it was a personal attack at all.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    I just see he was pointing out a double standard that does exist. I don't think it was a personal attack at all.



    Ok, I get that. Some people have been repeatedly hassled by the police and are angry about it. I would be too.

    But wars are won one little battle at a time. The officer opened the door to dialogue and got a sermon.

    I think that some people on this site are more interested in doing battle that winning the war.I think that that is a losing strategy.





  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    I agree 100% on talking to the deputies, it raises awareness to the issue.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Harrah, Oklahoma
    Posts
    769

    Post imported post

    Black Helicopter stuff???? Had you read the interdepartmental emails? They are watching us and waiting to make a strong example. Read the forums and then comment.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...
    Stolen from ConditionThree because it can't be stressed enough.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    chewy352 wrote:
    Black Helicopter stuff???? Had you read the interdepartmental emails? They are watching us and waiting to make a strong example. Read the forums and then comment.
    +1

    greg, he wasnt stopped by a curious LEO. he was stopped by a LEO that had full knowledge of the situation, whobad_ace was, and what P.C.s he could potentialy charge him with.

    you say that bad ace looked like a teacher scoulding a student, how many times has that situation been reversed? as i mentioned inan above post, the cops have a game they play with every encounter, if you know how to play too, you can grab ahold of the situation like bad ace did. LEO try to talk TO you while making it seem that they are talking WITH you, thats why the LEO said "you are free to go but i have a couple of questions for you". what bad ace did was turn the situation around, bad_ace was able to talk to the leo instead of being talked at.

    there was a perfect example of this last night while i was at starbucks. an older gentleman aproached 4 cops that were standing around thier cruisers drinking coffee and asked he could speak to one of them. one officer approached, the man was pretty loud (i was 40-50 ft away) he said something along the lines of "can you please help me, my wife has tried to commit suicide twice, shes in the hospital right now, my children are very upset, i dont know what to do!" the one cop called the 3 others over, first thing the cop says "can i have some ID", next they run his ID in the radio, then search his car. this old man was asking for help from someone he clearlythought he could trust, instead he found himself surrounded by cops who were there to gofishing to find out what the man was doing wrong.
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    greg36ff is a cop that is looking out for cop's interests. He is over on CGN as well.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    dirtykoala wrote:
    chewy352 wrote:
    Black Helicopter stuff???? Had you read the interdepartmental emails? They are watching us and waiting to make a strong example. Read the forums and then comment.
    +1

    greg, he wasnt stopped by a curious LEO. he was stopped by a LEO that had full knowledge of the situation, whobad_ace was, and what P.C.s he could potentialy charge him with.

    you say that bad ace looked like a teacher scoulding a student, how many times has that situation been reversed? as i mentioned inan above post, the cops have a game they play with every encounter, if you know how to play too, you can grab ahold of the situation like bad ace did. LEO try to talk TO you while making it seem that they are talking WITH you, thats why the LEO said "you are free to go but i have a couple of questions for you". what bad ace did was turn the situation around, bad_ace was able to talk to the leo instead of being talked at.

    there was a perfect example of this last night while i was at starbucks. an older gentleman aproached 4 cops that were standing around thier cruisers drinking coffee and asked he could speak to one of them. one officer approached, the man was pretty loud (i was 40-50 ft away) he said something along the lines of "can you please help me, my wife has tried to commit suicide twice, shes in the hospital right now, my children are very upset, i dont know what to do!" the one cop called the 3 others over, first thing the cop says "can i have some ID", next they run his ID in the radio, then search his car. this old man was asking for help from someone he clearlythought he could trust, instead he found himself surrounded by cops who were there to gofishing to find out what the man was doing wrong.


    I wasn't at Starbucks so I cannot comment on that. If he was asking for help and they did not provide it, then that was wrong.

    As far as Bad Ace goes, I would have liked it if he talked WITH the officer and not TO the officer. You see the officer as the aggressor and I understand that. But officers are people too and it's possible that he just wanted to talk. If THEY already know everything about Bad Ace, what was to be gained by interrogating him?

    Can you at least be open to the possibility that there are some, if not many officers out there that support your rights and are pro 2nd amendment.

    This whole open carry thing is new to many people, can it possibly be that the police have questions that they would like answered.

    Don’t make enemies where there are none and when someone reaches out, it’s possible that they want to shake your hand and not punch you.

    At least be open to the possibility.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    greg36ff is a cop that is looking out for cop's interests. He is over on CGN as well.
    So what if I'm a cop or not? Either way, I have a right to express an opinion. You do not have to read it.

    Nate, you have let hostility and bitterness close you mind in many ways. It's gonna hurt you and the cause in the long run.

    Not everyone who is a cop is your enemy.

    ""I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it""
    Voltaire

  16. #16
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bad_ace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Cupertino, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    greg36ff wrote:
    You think that he asks you about your work because he wants to trap you into admitting you walk through a school zone? He was careful not to ask where you worked and you think that is because every officer in the area has had a full briefing on you? That's getting into Black helicopter territory.
    Thanks for sticking up for you brothers in arms, but they're big boys, they can take a light lecture.

    "It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you". I have internal documentation (some not published yet) that illustrates I am, by name, in their briefings and they are trying to gather information about me for the purposes of "catching me slip up". I know that being on that side of things you don't want to believe that a LEA would waste time on such things but the sad fact is they do and are.

    When I say "they" I'm referring to the 4 closest local agencies to me, maybe yours is different.

    And "Black Helicopters"?! Ha. The Irony. Brother, I know full well what the black helicopter's missions are. (160th SOAR, veteran or OEF & OIF) I'm not worried.

    Lastly, I stand corrected (though still a double standard), you have the 2004 Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA). Federal mandate that supersedes state and local laws, allowing LEOs and retired LEOs to carry concealed in all 50 states.

  17. #17
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bad_ace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Cupertino, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    If LEOs support the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, federal mandate, will they support the fed saying we have an inalienable right to self defend and legally LOC and CCW?

    Because I think I've lost the argument about LEOs having an "unwritten law" about CCW, can we move on to discuss the "Thought Crime" element of what the LEOs are doing. They are stopping me because they "don't know my intent" and then after I let them check it's loaded condition and say nothing, they still don't "know my intent" rendering the entire encounter moot.

    Any thoughts? (without repeating the "we don't know your intent" or "officer safety" excuses. Officer safety can be preserved by observing that I'm obeying they law and not approaching me.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Harrah, Oklahoma
    Posts
    769

    Post imported post

    Greg if you don't mind me asking? What area do you work out of? We are willing to listin to and discuss OC with LE and actually encourage it in order to bridge the gap. What is your stance on the OC issue?
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...
    Stolen from ConditionThree because it can't be stressed enough.

  19. #19
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    I'm going to agree with greg36ff. It seemed like the encounter went from being a casual conversation to being more of a lecture around the point of the "brain washing" remark. I'd be willing to bet that his perception of you went from being a normal guy to being a guy with a bit of an attitude.

    You've done a great job bridging the gap in Cupertino with the Santa Clara Sheriffs. While they may be still wanting to get you breaking the law, if you have them separated out where you can talk to them one on one, you can start breaking down misconceptions. Using phrases like "brain washing" or "costume and a shiny badge" are slants at the guy's job. You're making him feel bad about what he does, and that isn't going to win the hearts and minds of the Sheriffs.

    I'm also going to point out that it must be hard for bad_ace and others who know they are being watched in some capacity to deal with peace officers who probably have ulterior motives for contacting them. It's also incredibly frustrating when the entire encounter is based on what seems to be a lie (having a couple of phone calls come in).

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    bad_ace wrote:
    greg36ff wrote:
    You think that he asks you about your work because he wants to trap you into admitting you walk through a school zone? He was careful not to ask where you worked and you think that is because every officer in the area has had a full briefing on you? That's getting into Black helicopter territory.
    Thanks for sticking up for you brothers in arms, but they're big boys, they can take a light lecture.

    "It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you". I have internal documentation (some not published yet) that illustrates I am, by name, in their briefings and they are trying to gather information about me for the purposes of "catching me slip up". I know that being on that side of things you don't want to believe that a LEA would waste time on such things but the sad fact is they do and are.

    When I say "they" I'm referring to the 4 closest local agencies to me, maybe yours is different.

    And "Black Helicopters"?! Ha. The Irony. Brother, I know full well what the black helicopter's missions are. (160th SOAR, veteran or OEF & OIF) I'm not worried.

    Lastly, I stand corrected (though still a double standard), you have the 2004 Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA). Federal mandate that supersedes state and local laws, allowing LEOs and retired LEOs to carry concealed in all 50 states.
    I know that they can "take a lecture", but my point is that it could have been a dialogue. A dialogue with you revealing no information that you did not want to reveal. You could have walked away at any time you felt like the conversation was not going the way you wanted.

    The "black helicopter" remark was a bit "baity", sorry about that. I too have served my time. Went down to Honduras when the whole Contra / Sandinista thing was heated up in the 80's.

    You have put yourself out there in a highly visible way. That was either foolish or brave depending onperspective. You have the responsibility to be an effective ambassador. I guess that means that you are going to have to risk knowing the difference between an opportunity to build a bridge or walking into a trap.

    Some people on this site see the state, the police and anyone that does not agree with them as the enemy. It's easy to fall into that mentality if you only listen or talk to people that agree with you.

    I am just asking people to have an open mind. Not every LEO is hostile towards you or your rights. If you are fighting a war, you are gonna win some battles, lose some battles and allow that some battles may end in a draw. I think that your encounter could have been a win or at least a draw. You "turned the tables" and got a small immediate victory, but could have lost in the long run when that officer walks away thinking that you were acting like a snot.

    Next time he encounters an open carrier, he may not be so open minded.

    I know that some people will say, theheck with him, I know my rights and he won't violate them "next time". But that is not my point. You will only go so far in ramming changes down people's throats through the courts.

    It is gonna take some swaying of public opinion, and the police "at least the beat cops" are part of the public.



  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    chewy352 wrote:
    Greg if you don't mind me asking? What area do you work out of? We are willing to listin to and discuss OC with LE and actually encourage it in order to bridge the gap. What is your stance on the OC issue?
    This is gonna sound like a huge cop out (no pun intended) but I do not want to discuss what I do or where I work out of. I mean no disrespect to your question, but I have been reading this board for quite a while and just recently started posting. I see what happens when people are labeled as a LEO.

    Their opinions are immediately labeled as "LEO comments" and are either discounted or the posters are stereotyped as only having one (LEO) agenda.

    My opinion are my opinions, not the opinions of law enforcement in general or whatever Dept. I do or do not work for.

    Also, as is often pointed out here, this is a PUBLIC forum and whatever is posted here is DISCOVERABLE and can be used at a later disciplinary hearing or in court.

    Here in this forum, I am just me.

    Having said that, I don't really like open carry. I see numerous tactical issues with weapon retention, lack of stealth and a serious lag time in responding to a threat. Train all you want, two seconds is a LONG time under stress. Just as an example, If you are under direct attack, you do not have the option to defend (grab, punch or push) with one hand and draw with the other.

    I am much more in favor of a shall issue CCW. I think that there should be some minimum standards met to obtain the CCW, but if you are a law abiding citizen, it should be yours.

    I would guess that the whole “standards” issue could be another huge topic of discussion.

    Iknow that this does not fully answer your question,but I hope it helps you see whereIam coming from.



  22. #22
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    greg36ff wrote:
    Having said that, I don't really like open carry. I see numerous tactical issues with weapon retention, lack of stealth and a serious lag time in responding to a threat. Train all you want, two seconds is a LONG time under stress. Just as an example, If you are under direct attack, you do not have the option to defend (grab, punch or push) with one hand and draw with the other.

    I am much more in favor of a shall issue CCW. I think that there should be some minimum standards met to obtain the CCW, but if you are a law abiding citizen, it should be yours.
    Surely you mean you don't really like unloaded open carry. Nobody does. But we'll have loaded carry soon enough...in some form.

    From a theoretical standpoint, I'd agree that there should be minimum standards. From a practical standpoint, requiring standards to exercise the ability to carry a way to defend oneself is unwise. Time and time again we see slippery slopes being extended to limit our rights. Terry becomes 12031(e). May issue becomes no issue. Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed; a right is non-negotiable.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    greg36ff wrote:
    Having said that, I don't really like open carry. I see numerous tactical issues with weapon retention, lack of stealth and a serious lag time in responding to a threat. Train all you want, two seconds is a LONG time under stress. Just as an example, If you are under direct attack, you do not have the option to defend (grab, punch or push) with one hand and draw with the other.

    I am much more in favor of a shall issue CCW. I think that there should be some minimum standards met to obtain the CCW, but if you are a law abiding citizen, it should be yours.
    Surely you mean you don't really like unloaded open carry. Nobody does. But we'll have loaded carry soon enough...in some form.

    From a theoretical standpoint, I'd agree that there should be minimum standards. From a practical standpoint, requiring standards to exercise the ability to carry a way to defend oneself is unwise. Time and time again we see slippery slopes being extended to limit our rights. Terry becomes 12031(e). May issue becomes no issue. Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed; a right is non-negotiable.
    You are correct, I did mean UOC, although I would still favor concealed carry over LOC.

    As far as standards,I still think we need something, if nothing more than a background check or something.

    I think that people need to think the "no standards" through a little bit. No standards means just that, no standards.

    Any criminal without a felony conviction, illegal aliens with no stake in this country or no verifiable identification, un-registered gang members, the list is endless.

    The balance should be tipped way in the balalance of the applicant, but there needs to be something.

    Loose or no standards are probably fine in a rual or semi rual county, buy how about south central LA?







  24. #24
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    greg36ff wrote:
    You are correct, I did mean UOC, although I would still favor concealed carry over LOC.

    As far as standards,I still think we need something, if nothing more than a background check or something.

    I think that people need to think the "no standards" through a little bit. No standards means just that, no standards.

    Any criminal without a felony conviction, illegal aliens with no stake in this country or no verifiable identification, un-registered gang members, the list is endless.

    The balance should be tipped way in the balalance of the applicant, but there needs to be something.

    Loose or no standards are probably fine in a rual or semi rual county, buy how about south central LA?
    Isn't the required background check to purchase the weapon enough?

    As far as proficiency testing goes, I'm on the fence. Again, the criminals don't need proficiency training. This isn't an attempt to lower the bar, just an attempt to level the field for the sake ofthe law-abiding citizen. Nobody wants a bystander to get shot during an attack situation, so I suspect the law-abiding citizen will seek out training on their own because by nature they are responsible.


    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    greg36ff wrote:
    You are correct, I did mean UOC, although I would still favor concealed carry over LOC.
    If you haven't read this yet, it's a pretty compelling argument in favor of OC:

    The Open Carry Argument

    I'm not saying OC is the only way to go. I think there are times and places for both OC and CC.



Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •