• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

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

Cameron

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
64
Location
San Ramon, California, , USA
imported post

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

Invite them into our lives? :cuss: 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.
 

demnogis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
911
Location
Orange County, California, USA
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? :cuss: 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.
 

Cameron

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
64
Location
San Ramon, California, , USA
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? :cuss: 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.
 

Statkowski

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,141
Location
Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
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?
 

Cameron

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
64
Location
San Ramon, California, , USA
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.
 
Top