Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Contra Costa Times: East Palo Alto Cop takes heat for Facebook Remarks

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Posts
    109

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    San Ramon, California, , USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    This was a decent article right up until the last line or two....

    Invite them into our lives? Most of the LEOs are only doing their job, as much as I don't and wouldn't enjoy it, an e check, and just an e-check without (other) rights violations, doesn't really fall into "inviting them into my life" in my opinion, at least until the [case] law shows/reflects that an e-check is a violation of our rights (RAS should be a requirement). Beyond that, is definitely unwelcome and should not be tolerated, the fact that it is (by some LEOs/departments), in itself, is incomprehensible. If the LEOs stay within the laws and rights, the invitation into our lives is quite minimal.

  3. #3
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    That quote is entirely deceptive. Being an citizen exercising any right does not invite LE into your life. It is the sole discretion of every officer whom encounters an open carrier how to proceed. They can choose to uphold a bad law or disregard it.

    I believe every public servant takes an oath to uphold the constitution. Not the law, not the policies. But the constitution. Through lawful OC encounters with LEOs they are starting to be reminded of that.

    So back to the original context. If catholicism were ordrinarily scrutinized and we were practicing in public, would that invite LE into our lives? What about if this were the early 1900s and we were black. Would that also invite LE into our lives? You can't paint with that brush ever so finely. All the acknowledgements in the BoR have to be valued equally. That is what the MSM, LE and the antis need to understand.

    Cameron wrote:
    This was a decent article right up until the last line or two....

    Invite them into our lives? Most of the LEOs are only doing their job, as much as I don't and wouldn't enjoy it, an e check, and just an e-check without (other) rights violations, doesn't really fall into "inviting them into my life" in my opinion, at least until the [case] law shows/reflects that an e-check is a violation of our rights (RAS should be a requirement). Beyond that, is definitely unwelcome and should not be tolerated, the fact that it is (by some LEOs/departments), in itself, is incomprehensible. If the LEOs stay within the laws and rights, the invitation into our lives is quite minimal.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    San Ramon, California, , USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    demnogis wrote:
    That quote is entirely deceptive. Being an citizen exercising any right does not invite LE into your life. It is the sole discretion of every officer whom encounters an open carrier how to proceed. They can choose to uphold a bad law or disregard it.

    I believe every public servant takes an oath to uphold the constitution. Not the law, not the policies. But the constitution. Through lawful OC encounters with LEOs they are starting to be reminded of that.

    So back to the original context. If catholicism were ordrinarily scrutinized and we were practicing in public, would that invite LE into our lives? What about if this were the early 1900s and we were black. Would that also invite LE into our lives? You can't paint with that brush ever so finely. All the acknowledgements in the BoR have to be valued equally. That is what the MSM, LE and the antis need to understand.

    Cameron wrote:
    This was a decent article right up until the last line or two....

    Invite them into our lives? Most of the LEOs are only doing their job, as much as I don't and wouldn't enjoy it, an e check, and just an e-check without (other) rights violations, doesn't really fall into "inviting them into my life" in my opinion, at least until the [case] law shows/reflects that an e-check is a violation of our rights (RAS should be a requirement). Beyond that, is definitely unwelcome and should not be tolerated, the fact that it is (by some LEOs/departments), in itself, is incomprehensible. If the LEOs stay within the laws and rights, the invitation into our lives is quite minimal.
    +10000
    Very well worded.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    Being an outsider from a free state (actually a commonwealth), I find your state's firearms laws extremely un-American. But, that's immaterial to the discussion.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't your e-check authorized as opposed to required?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    San Ramon, California, , USA
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    Statkowski wrote:
    Being an outsider from a free state (actually a commonwealth), I find your state's firearms laws extremely un-American.* But, that's immaterial to the discussion.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't your e-check authorized as opposed to required?
    No it's required. Here is the regulation:
    In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.
    So... it's not required for a LEO to do the check, but it IS required to comply, if they order one.

Posting Permissions

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