sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
JJ wrote:
JJ wrote:
Why is Rosetti still an officer?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Echeck Cherry popped in fremont today.
- Thread starter RaycerX96
- Start date
SouthBayr
Regular Member
imported post
sudden valley gunner wrote:
Cause the city council hasn't been successful in firing him.
We avoid Fremont like the plague in my car group, and we let all the businesses know why.
sudden valley gunner wrote:
Cause the city council hasn't been successful in firing him.
We avoid Fremont like the plague in my car group, and we let all the businesses know why.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
Is he being protected by his union or his department?
Is he being protected by his union or his department?
RaycerX96
Regular Member
imported post
Its spelled Rosette. Do a search for officer rosette fremont ca and see what comes up. IF there is ever going to be a UOC officer involved shooting, its gonna be from him.
Its spelled Rosette. Do a search for officer rosette fremont ca and see what comes up. IF there is ever going to be a UOC officer involved shooting, its gonna be from him.
N6ATF
Banned
imported post
RaycerX96 wrote:
RaycerX96 wrote:
Sounds like there needs to be a body armor+banana open carry event in Fremont. Tape signs to the vests saying "Please don't shoot me Officer Rosette". Need to publicly embarrass him out of the job.
Poblacht32
Regular Member
imported post
yelohamr wrote:
yelohamr wrote:
LMAO now that would have been funny to see!!!
yelohamr
Regular Member
imported post
N6ATF wrote:
N6ATF wrote:
It won't. I've worked with his type. He'll have an orgasm.
N6ATF
Banned
imported post
yelohamr wrote:
yelohamr wrote:
Bring some ahem... test kits, then.
Gundude
Regular Member
imported post
N6ATF wrote:
N6ATF wrote:
I refuse to be a part of this.
onedavetoomany
Regular Member
imported post
This Fremont Blog covered the incident:
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2010/02/01/police-respond-to-open-carry-incident-at-frys/
This Fremont Blog covered the incident:
http://www.ibabuzz.com/tricitybeat/2010/02/01/police-respond-to-open-carry-incident-at-frys/
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
onedavetoomany wrote:
onedavetoomany wrote:
Interesting how they list three bad incidents associated with guns also.
Cameron
Regular Member
imported post
onedavetoomany wrote:
Yeash... just because someone UOC'd at Fry's doesn't and shouldn't necessarily guarantee that Fry's will suddenly ban it. I UOC'd at Fry's in Campbell last Wednesday and had no problems at all. I think only one person even noticed. He was one of the store associates and he didn't say a word about it. I can only hope that Randy and John Fry are more open minded than that.
onedavetoomany wrote:
Yeash... just because someone UOC'd at Fry's doesn't and shouldn't necessarily guarantee that Fry's will suddenly ban it. I UOC'd at Fry's in Campbell last Wednesday and had no problems at all. I think only one person even noticed. He was one of the store associates and he didn't say a word about it. I can only hope that Randy and John Fry are more open minded than that.
Cameron
Regular Member
imported post
sudden valley gunner wrote:
Yeah, I noticed that too. Except I think it was only 2 criminal incidents with guns... one was rock. But still, obviously a form of fear-mongering. It's pretty clear where this blogger stands on 2A.
sudden valley gunner wrote:
Yeah, I noticed that too. Except I think it was only 2 criminal incidents with guns... one was rock. But still, obviously a form of fear-mongering. It's pretty clear where this blogger stands on 2A.
yelohamr
Regular Member
imported post
[size=]
[/size]
[size=]
How big was the rock? Was it OLL or pre-ban?
[/size]
RaycerX96
Regular Member
imported post
Wow, I made the news. what I find funny, is I was help by three employees, all three never asked me if I was a cop or anything and never asked me about my gun. all were quite helpful in helping me find what I was looking and then I stood in line to buy my parts. After paying I left. I was never questioned once by anyone at the store. So I wonder who called?
Wow, I made the news. what I find funny, is I was help by three employees, all three never asked me if I was a cop or anything and never asked me about my gun. all were quite helpful in helping me find what I was looking and then I stood in line to buy my parts. After paying I left. I was never questioned once by anyone at the store. So I wonder who called?
ConditionThree
State Pioneer
imported post
RaycerX96 wrote:
RaycerX96 wrote:
An ovine bystander with 911 on speed dial.
Gundude
Regular Member
imported post
The one wearing Depends. He/she tends to have bladder control problems
The one wearing Depends. He/she tends to have bladder control problems
N6ATF
Banned
imported post
ConditionThree wrote:
ConditionThree wrote:
Heh, I was thinking porcine.
wolfeinstein
Regular Member
imported post
Since we (UOCers) being law abiding nice guys , we have a tendency to engage in a conversation with LEO's to either inform them or just to see how they feel about our movement.
This tendency also enables us to overlook certain unconstitutional acts by the LEO's.
I sometimes get caught up in the moment when a LEO approaches me and being nice, to let him do more than what the law allows him to do, but i really need to be cautious about it and assert my rights.
So when they asked for ID i would have asked them to explain why you are being stopped, and certainly would not have consent to a photo -up.
But it is your right to do what ever you have allowed them to do.
Since we (UOCers) being law abiding nice guys , we have a tendency to engage in a conversation with LEO's to either inform them or just to see how they feel about our movement.
This tendency also enables us to overlook certain unconstitutional acts by the LEO's.
I sometimes get caught up in the moment when a LEO approaches me and being nice, to let him do more than what the law allows him to do, but i really need to be cautious about it and assert my rights.
So when they asked for ID i would have asked them to explain why you are being stopped, and certainly would not have consent to a photo -up.
But it is your right to do what ever you have allowed them to do.
SASC40cal
New member
imported post
Im sorry that you let them take your picture although they could legally take a picture of you driving around in public anyway, red light cameras takea picture of you, and they are legal, it is legal. I would not have let them though, I would too have not stood around and shot the breeze with them either. When it comes to dealing with LEO's less is more. I have heard and have personal experience with doing that, they will try to get you to say things "off record" and they could potentially use it against you later on. Me I dont trust cops, I dont engage in conversations with them, like I said less is more, I would have been pissed for them wasting my time more than anything, I cooperate with them if need within the scope of the law, but socializing with them doesnt work for me, I am friendly and just stick to yes sir no maam and am polite but then again I generally dont have to much contact with LEO's. They arent the enemy but they sure do think that they are the judge and jury and can do whatever they want and violate your rights. I dont draw unwanted attention to myself either. I do OC on occasion but have never been stopped or bugged about it except for one time in CVS picking up an Rx, other than that i go the speed limit, am polite and friendly, dont have my pants around my ankles sporting boxers and bling. I do though also live out in a less populated area of Northern Cal.
Im sorry that you let them take your picture although they could legally take a picture of you driving around in public anyway, red light cameras takea picture of you, and they are legal, it is legal. I would not have let them though, I would too have not stood around and shot the breeze with them either. When it comes to dealing with LEO's less is more. I have heard and have personal experience with doing that, they will try to get you to say things "off record" and they could potentially use it against you later on. Me I dont trust cops, I dont engage in conversations with them, like I said less is more, I would have been pissed for them wasting my time more than anything, I cooperate with them if need within the scope of the law, but socializing with them doesnt work for me, I am friendly and just stick to yes sir no maam and am polite but then again I generally dont have to much contact with LEO's. They arent the enemy but they sure do think that they are the judge and jury and can do whatever they want and violate your rights. I dont draw unwanted attention to myself either. I do OC on occasion but have never been stopped or bugged about it except for one time in CVS picking up an Rx, other than that i go the speed limit, am polite and friendly, dont have my pants around my ankles sporting boxers and bling. I do though also live out in a less populated area of Northern Cal.