Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Martinez Meet-up Report

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Post imported post

    Hello All,

    About 20 people (myguesstimate)were involved in a Meet-up in Martinez on Saturday, April 24th. We started at the Starbucks and then walked across the street for a Chineselunch.

    I was impressed with Gus' strategy for incorporating police awareness to the events that he helps to organize. Gus gave Martinez police a "heads-up" before the event. Gus explained how, in a different jurisdiction during an earlier meet-up, the police department was interested in doing a "pre-UOC compliance check." Gus, who was a veteran of the Pittsburgh CA PD, continued by explaining how the police contact he was working with mentioned two scenarios for the compliance check. Gus stated that the first two choices were very questionable, and the police officer took Gus' advice for the compliance check procedure. The police departmentgained experience with UOC in aconstructive way, andthe UOC event had no negative LEO incidents. What's that cliche...Win, Win!

    Our meet-up was uneventful in terms of LEO actions orgun-phobic histerics, although we were able to speak with a few interested people who wanted information on what we were doing. Gus was prepared with brochures and great responses that were not political, only legal and constitutionally based. We mentioned the dichotomy between PRK and Arizona--AZ is increasing BofR freedoms while PRK is restricting them.

    Everybody in Starbucks either could not care, or were slightly interested with our 1st A event.

    Our Chinese lunch was excellent. The family of one our fellow OCers owns the restaraunt. We were treated like Kings and the food was very good. I had the walnut prawn lunch meal which I thoroughly enjoyed.

    I met some very nice people who are a slice of America. We were a diverse group who shared a common belief in civil liberties as defined by our US Constitution.

    Thanks to all involved,

    markm



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Let me guess... they wanted you all to line up, get checked and submit to random background checks, right?



  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Post imported post

    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    Let me guess... they wanted you all to line up, get checked and submit to random background checks, right?

    Hey pullnshoot25,

    If you are talking about the story that Gus relayed to us from another event, no, I believe it was limited to an (e) check and only an (e) check; however, I was not there.

    One LEO cruiser drove by our event on Saturday. The LEO slowed down and waved while we waved back. It is my guess that Gus promotes a level ofmutual respect while decreasing the fear that some police may experience with MWG calls as they are trained to fear-for-their-lives with MWG calls in Academy.

    Again, I am speculating here.

    markm

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oakley, California, United States
    Posts
    637

    Post imported post

    We have on every meet-up, of more then just a couple people, given the local PD

    1) advance notice. We work with them, not fight them. Maybe some others could learn a little and be a little more willing to work with LEO's. It does make a big differnece on how we are seen.

    2)the day of the meet, we give them a call as the first guy rolls on sense. Again, just a head up. No big deal.

    As the meet up in Martinez went, it was just like Mark said. We had one PD drive by and he waved. never even stopped his car. We have a good repore with the LEO's in our area. Because we respect them, and do not cause them trouble.

    After the lunch, we(Gus) called back and let them know we were all done, and leaving, and asked if their were any calls. NONE were reproted.

    Isn't that what we like to hear?





    Thank you Mark for coming all the way down from Roseville, I hope we will see you again soon.



  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    I still don't get why people bother reporting lawful activity to police departments. I guess I feel that if you are running your lawful activities by law enforcement, then you really have no freedoms whatsoever. If you're obeying the law, it shouldn't matter what you're doing. I certainly don't call up the police before I post something to these forums, or before I kiss my fiancee, or before I eat a burrito. If I felt obligated to ask permission before living my life, I might as well walk around in handcuffs with a GPS chip embedded under my skin. Just my opinion.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oakley, California, United States
    Posts
    637

    Post imported post

    and like all of us, you are intitled to your opinion.



    We are not asking for their permission. We are letting them know we are in their city. Just like if I came to your house, I would call first.

    it's called Common Courtesy

    and for those that do not know what that is...

    Common courtesy,- is concerned with sending positive messages as opposed to negative. It also means our ability to practice common courtesy is a reflection of our character and how we want other people to treat us.



  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Iopencarry wrote:
    and like all of us, you are intitled to your opinion.

    Â*

    We are not asking for their permission. We are letting them know we are in their city.Â* Just like if I came to your house, I would call first.

    it's called Common Courtesy

    and for those that do not know what that is...

    Common courtesy,Â*- is concerned with sending positive messages as opposed to negative. It also means our ability to practice common courtesy is a reflection of our character and how we want other people to treat us.

    It is a double-edged sword. Will respond later.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    I still don't get why people bother reporting lawful activity to police departments. I guess I feel that if you are running your lawful activities by law enforcement, then you really have no freedoms whatsoever. If you're obeying the law, it shouldn't matter what you're doing. I certainly don't call up the police before I post something to these forums, or before I kiss my fiancee, or before I eat a burrito. If I felt obligated to ask permission before living my life, I might as well walk around in handcuffs with a GPS chip embedded under my skin. Just my opinion.
    Hey Bigtoe,

    We as citizens need to keep re-educating our gubmint. It is unfortunate, but true. It is the nature of gubmint to take more power from us until we push back. The form of the push-back can be peaceful and educational or deliberate and forceful. Bureaucrats and LEO are citizens too. With a few courtesy calls, and other forms ofincrementalism, we will re-educate police and bureaucrats that they can't restrictour inalienable Constitutional rights. It took decadesof apathy on our part for our gubmint to think that they could run rough-shod over our creator granted rights, we are not going to re-educate thosebureaucrats overnight. Remember, some bureaucratscan't survive in the private sector as they are slow learners.

    No, I am not being a smart-ass! I believe there is an element of truth to my statemtentthat some bureaucrats don't have what it takes to survive in the private sector.

    Gus, et allia, have their strategy which is effective. They are not having problems with LEO. LEOs are cooperating.

    I have gotton more from gubmint by communicating with them and slowly getting them on "program." I have also learned that by understanding their system, I also get more from them. It is a double edged sword (so to speak).

    markm

  9. #9
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    Iopencarry wrote:
    and like all of us, you are intitled to your opinion.



    We are not asking for their permission. We are letting them know we are in their city. Just like if I came to your house, I would call first.

    it's called Common Courtesy

    and for those that do not know what that is...

    Common courtesy,- is concerned with sending positive messages as opposed to negative. It also means our ability to practice common courtesy is a reflection of our character and how we want other people to treat us.

    Didn't know it was their city.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oakley, California, United States
    Posts
    637

    Post imported post

    it is their city, more then ours...

    They live in and patrol the city. I live in another.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oakley, California, United States
    Posts
    637

    Post imported post

    While you may have your style, we have ours. We do not need to be nic-picking back and forth.

    IF you do not want to do it this way, I don't care. All I am saying isa that this way works best for us.

    We have been somewhere every weekend, different cities, and have NEVER had abad LEO encounter.

    Ido not call them every time I go out(daily). The only time we call is when there will be a group.





  12. #12
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    Unless you are organizing your group events in private....email, IM or such, the LEO's know about them. There may be LEO's attending the group meets, and we don't know it. They watch these forums, so nothing posted here is secret. We had a small group meet at the Oceanside Pier and the only LEO we saw just drove by.

    They are probably have a private chuckle with respect to AB 1934. We may lose this battle, we will win the war via incorporation. I don't think the Ca legislature will changes any gun laws on their own. It will be decided by the courts.

    JP the optomist
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Iopencarry wrote:
    We have on every church service, of more then just a couple people, given the local PD

    1) advance notice. We work with them, not fight them. Maybe some others could learn a little and be a little more willing to work with LEO's. It does make a big differnece on how we are seen.

    2)the day of the church service, we give them a call as the first guy rolls on scene. Again, just a head up. No big deal.

    As the meet up in Martinez went, it was just like Mark said. We had one PD drive by and he waved. never even stopped his car. We have a good rapport with the LEO's in our area. Because we respect them, and do not cause them trouble.

    After the church service, we(Gus) called back and let them know we were all done, and leaving, and asked if their were any calls. NONE were reproted.

    Isn't that what we like to hear?





    Thank you Mark for coming all the way down from Roseville, I hope we will see you again soon.

    There should be no difference in someone exercising their first amendment right to freedom of religion, and someone exercising their second amendment right to keep and bear arms.

    Should we call the cops and give notice before going the the (church, synogog, mosque) house of worship? No. Nor should we have to give notice of practicing any of our INALIENABLE RIGHTS.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    I still don't get why people bother reporting lawful activity to police departments. I guess I feel that if you are running your lawful activities by law enforcement, then you really have no freedoms whatsoever. If you're obeying the law, it shouldn't matter what you're doing. I certainly don't call up the police before I post something to these forums, or before I kiss my fiancee, or before I eat a burrito. If I felt obligated to ask permission before living my life, I might as well walk around in handcuffs with a GPS chip embedded under my skin. Just my opinion.
    I think that it's still a good idea because the police seem to be poorly educated about the fine details of UOC. Withouta courtesynotice, it's possible to have the crappy handcuff and search situations that make the police look bad, violate therights of theUOC guys and create bad blood between groups that are on the same side. Then you have all of the squabbling on the forums about lawsuits which is another no win. I'm hoping that the notification is a temporary thing until the police are better educated.It's not an easy thing. I've spent hours reading up on this and I don't feel well educated enough yet to UOC.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oakley, California, United States
    Posts
    637

    Post imported post

    Max, Thanks for your comments, while you are correct to a point, let me add this.



    If you(a church) plan on a puplic event, with more then just a handful of people, you would need to call the city to get permits for the park, etc.

    We know how many people we cna have without getting the permits, and get permits when we expect more then the city allows.

    Every city has their own limits,(most cities wll be 50, but it can change).

    We just do not want to have any problems. As pf yet, there has not been. Most of the time, the Leo's do not even show up.

    Gundude, thank you also for your imput. While others might mind if LEO's are there undercover, we do not. We have asked them to come, and become informed on the issue. We have nothing to hide.

    I personnaly have had many meeting with my local leo's. I have many in my family, and more as friends.



  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Post imported post

    Iopencarry and Max Entropy,

    You both have expressed my opinions very well. Thanks.

    Decoligny,

    You are grossly wrongwith your point on churches and church services. In order for a church to be built, the General Plan must designate zoning for such an activity.

    Once the zoning is in order, the Planning Department must notify neighbors, they must calculate traffic flows, they must quantify the environmental impact to critters and people.

    Public works, the water agency,sewer district, and power supplier haveto offer a letterthat describeshow they can supply services to the church.

    Next, the church idea must go before the Planning Commission and receive public testimony. Athiests and NIMBYS may say slanderous things about the church -- it is free political speech. The Police usually give a report on the impacts that the church will have on Police activity.

    And then, if all goes well to this point, the City Counsel hears and votes on the proposal.

    So, ARE YOU SURE YOU CAN GO TO CHURCH AND PRAY WITHOUT GUBMINT NOTIFICATION?

    I don't think so.

    markm




  17. #17
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    At least we still have the privilege to preach and pray in our homes!

    (sound familiar?)

    MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:
    Iopencarry and Max Entropy,

    You both have expressed my opinions very well. Thanks.

    Decoligny,

    You are grossly wrongwith your point on churches and church services. In order for a church to be built, the General Plan must designate zoning for such an activity.

    Once the zoning is in order, the Planning Department must notify neighbors, they must calculate traffic flows, they must quantify the environmental impact to critters and people.

    Public works, the water agency,sewer district, and power supplier haveto offer a letterthat describeshow they can supply services to the church.

    Next, the church idea must go before the Planning Commission and receive public testimony. Athiests and NIMBYS may say slanderous things about the church -- it is free political speech. The Police usually give a report on the impacts that the church will have on Police activity.

    And then, if all goes well to this point, the City Counsel hears and votes on the proposal.

    So, ARE YOU SURE YOU CAN GO TO CHURCH AND PRAY WITHOUT GUBMINT NOTIFICATION?

    I don't think so.

    markm
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  18. #18
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:
    You are grossly wrongwith your point on churches and church services. In order for a church to be built, the General Plan must designate zoning for such an activity.
    Decoligny's point, which I absolutely agree with, is that religious individuals don't feel obligated to inform anybody when they choose to practice their religion. Why? Because in this country, everybody has the right to freely practice their religion. Similarly, I don't believe permits to protest something are needed because we all have the right to assemble peacefully. I didn't run this post by any government authority prior to posting it, I just wrote it.

    Similarly, if I want to exercise the constitutionally protected right #2 instead of constitutionally protected right #1, I don't have to ask for permission to do so. I shouldn't feel like it's necessary to inform anybody of my actions. If I call up the police department and inform them I will be bearing arms today, they should give the same exact response as if I called them up and informed them that I would be expressing my opinion on the internet. The fact that they don't should indicate which of your freedoms is accepted by government agents, and which are not.

    I try not to encourage government agents to look down on any of our freedoms, and when you go out of your way to inform the police of your activities, you're acknowledging that you are doing something that isn't accepted, and you're willing to have your right infringed upon if you are allowed to perform your legal action. I'd have the same reaction if I heard about a Muslim calling the police to inform them that they were praying to Mecca after 9/11. We all have the absolute right to pray to Mecca whenever we please, feeling that we should call up anybody to advise of our rightful activities is detrimental to asserting that our rights are inalienable.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:
    You are grossly wrongwith your point on churches and church services. In order for a church to be built, the General Plan must designate zoning for such an activity.
    Decoligny's point, which I absolutely agree with, is that religious individuals don't feel obligated to inform anybody when they choose to practice their religion. Why? Because in this country, everybody has the right to freely practice their religion. Similarly, I don't believe permits to protest something are needed because we all have the right to assemble peacefully. I didn't run this post by any government authority prior to posting it, I just wrote it.

    Similarly, if I want to exercise the constitutionally protected right #2 instead of constitutionally protected right #1, I don't have to ask for permission to do so. I shouldn't feel like it's necessary to inform anybody of my actions. If I call up the police department and inform them I will be bearing arms today, they should give the same exact response as if I called them up and informed them that I would be expressing my opinion on the internet. The fact that they don't should indicate which of your freedoms is accepted by government agents, and which are not.

    I try not to encourage government agents to look down on any of our freedoms, and when you go out of your way to inform the police of your activities, you're acknowledging that you are doing something that isn't accepted, and you're willing to have your right infringed upon if you are allowed to perform your legal action. I'd have the same reaction if I heard about a Muslim calling the police to inform them that they were praying to Mecca after 9/11. We all have the absolute right to pray to Mecca whenever we please, feeling that we should call up anybody to advise of our rightful activities is detrimental to asserting that our rights are inalienable.
    Hello BigToe416,

    The discussion that we are having here is why we need a Supreme Court. We have mixed freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, free poliitical speech, property rights, and the right to keep and bear arms in one thread.

    The courts have threaded the needle regarding all of these rights. One's property rights end when their activity harms their neigbor. One's freedom of political speech ends when you create a dangerous health and safety issue or when you slander a private individual. One's freedom to assemble may be regulated when your assembly affects the right of others to assemble, or when your assembled masses create health and safety issues. Your right to have a church is regulated when your church affects neighbors negatively or when traffic mitigation is required on Sundays.

    And on and on.

    Giving a "heads-up" to LEO is not asking permission. It is allowingLEO to train and prepare for situations that may arise from ignorant fear-based people who call police regarding unfounded fears of a non-existant crime. When you plan a mini-rally, other people who are not part of your movement or rally, may be affected by your actions.

    Anarchy does not work.

    markm

  20. #20
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:
    The courts have threaded the needle regarding all of these rights. One's property rights end when their activity harms their neigbor. One's freedom of political speech ends when you create a dangerous health and safety issue or when you slander a private individual. One's freedom to assemble may be regulated when your assembly affects the right of others to assemble, or when your assembled masses create health and safety issues. Your right to have a church is regulated when your church affects neighbors negatively or when traffic mitigation is required on Sundays.
    I specifically used the praying to Mecca example because it doesn't require a building to exist that I have to travel to. The example of permits needed to construct a church makes your point (which I also agree with). I'm not suggesting that any right allows somebody to impose on others. I'm merely suggesting that my ability to pray to Mecca in my own home is absolute as long as it doesn't directly affect anybody but myself.

    Giving a "heads-up" to LEO is not asking permission. It is allowing LEO to train and prepare for situations that may arise from ignorant fear-based people who call police regarding unfounded fears of a non-existant crime. When you plan a mini-rally, other people who are not part of your movement or rally, may be affected by your actions.
    You're right that it isn't asking permission, but I feel that it is close enough to be dangerous. What if you apply for a permit to have a BBQ at a park and are denied. Do you still have an inalienable right to assemble? I don't know. If you have a right, then you don't need to ask to do it. I could see the benefit of informing the city if I was having a party at a park which might affect others due to the large amount of people who were going to show up. I certainly wouldn't want to inconvenience anybody. In the open carry case, I don't believe anybody asked to hold the event, so we're not talking about asking for permission here. But we're also not talking about an event which should inconvenience anybody. People go to get coffee and eat dinner all the time.

    Lets say instead of praying to Mecca at home, I join four other Muslims in a local park to pray together. We are a small enough group to not have any real impact on anybody else. People go to the park all the time without informing the city that they will be doing so. I assert that not only do I not need to inform any government agents of my activity, but informing anybody about my actions weakens my right to practice my religion, travel freely, and peacefully assemble.

    I don't think 20 people meeting for dinner is a large enough presence to justify informing the police. I also don't think you're suggesting that informing the police in this case was purely because the size of the group could have impacted others. I'm sure the fact that firearms were being lawfully carried was mentioned. I'm also sure that the police department would be informed that open carry is legal through a letter which didn't mention the meetup.

    I guess I don't know how else to say it. If I informed the police that I was going to the park to pray, and I saw a police car drive by to check on me and I was happy about him not even stopping and confronting me, I wouldn't feel like I really had the absolute freedom to do what I was doing. I'd be pissed that I couldn't even pray without a police officer being sent to make sure I wasn't violating the law or causing a riot somehow. I fail to see this scenario being the slightest bit different from carrying a firearm (outside of the obvious incorporation issues).

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    Contacting leo to inform them of lawfully uocing is a great example of people that, like Brady says, "Are doing this for attention". Contacting leo throws out the "political statement" argument, and the "self defense" argument. It almost guaruntees police envolvement and people will obviously look to see what the cops are doing. If that isn't a cry for "look at me!" I don't know what is.

    I wouldn't be able to leave my house if I felt the need to call the cops every time I felt like doing something legal outside of my home.
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Post imported post

    Hey bigtoe416,

    And, there is another reason for the "heads-up". In pollitics there is the theory of "plausible deniability." Sometimes this theory is referred to as "political cover."

    By giving a "heads-up" to police we gave ourselves and police "plausible deniability." By cooperating with police and having a pre-event compliance check (in some cases), LEO and OCers can proclaim that laws were followed. The police can have their talking points prepared for calls from city council persons or the press. We can tell prospective converts to our cause that we operate within the law and respect LEO, whether weagree with 12031 (e) or not.

    Before I got involved with the OC movement, I was a little worried that some of the people who may be participating in the OC movement were radical anarchists masquerading as unlawful militia. My wife was worried too.

    But when Gus iterated to me in person last weekend, something that had been iterated by other attendees beforehand through email (Iopencarry for one), I was convinced that these were law-abiding citizens working to get gun laws clarified and changed to conform to the US Constituion. Gus told me how he gave the "heads-up" to LEO. He told me the name of our meet-up's liasson person at PD, and then he explained our groups goals to a stranger while not being political or radical. This all gave credence to what Gus, et allia, were trying to accomplish last Saturday.

    By giving LEO a "heads-up" and a contact person for our event, LEO can have a contingency plan in case radicals try to disrupt our event or instigate one of our attendees to defend himself. LEO works for us. They are there toprovide a deterentfor crimes committed against us, if we let them.

    markm

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oakley, California, United States
    Posts
    637

    Post imported post

    Thank you Mark, you are a good person to lead up your local area. We will help you in any way we can.

    Like I have said before. I carry daily, I only call the LEO's when more then 10 will be at any one place. For all the reasons Mark has stated.

    It works for us, if someone else doesnt like it, so be it. Let them deal with it like they want to. But I will tell you this much, WE have a good healthy repore with the LEO's in our area. ALL of them. The Respect we give them, is in turn given back.









  24. #24
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:
    By giving a "heads-up" to police we gave ourselves and police "plausible deniability." By cooperating with police and having a pre-event compliance check (in some cases), LEO and OCers can proclaim that laws were followed. The police can have their talking points prepared for calls from city council persons or the press. We can tell prospective converts to our cause that we operate within the law and respect LEO, whether weagree with 12031 (e) or not.
    I'm not sure if I'm following what you're saying about plausible deniability. Isn't plausible deniability when somebody positions themselves so they can say they didn't know anything about a particular event? I'm not sure how informing people of events gives anybody deniability about anything, but then sometimes I'm a bit dense.

    I don't think informing the police of our legal actions gives us any more ability to say we operate within the law and respect law enforcement officers. I'm pretty sure everybody here operates entirely within the law. If anything we're extreme sticklers for the law. If we weren't, we'd just carry concealed and nobody would ever know and we'd be able to protect ourselves. I personally respect LEOs quite a bit. It's an extremely respectable job providing that one doesn't try to game the system. My problem is when gaming the system becomes accepted practice and rights are trampled on.

    By giving LEO a "heads-up" and a contact person for our event, LEO can have a contingency plan in case radicals try to disrupt our event or instigate one of our attendees to defend himself. LEO works for us. They are there to provide a deterent for crimes committed against us, if we let them.
    Just to play devil's advocate here, it's entirely possible that by giving a heads up that the police could plant agent provocateurs which would intentionally disrupt the event. Not saying this has happened in our group, but it definitely happens. Anybody who thinks there isn't a chance one of us is a police officer is deluding themselves.

    Also, I think most people have some degree of apprehension coming to a meetup. I don't know anybody who had apprehension after coming to meetup though. We're all fairly normal (except for me, I'm a spaz).

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Post imported post

    Hey bigtoe416,

    The political usage of "plausible deniability" is different from the legal definition. Politics ismarketing. When we give a "heads-up" we are performing our "due-diligence." We are signalling to participants and the public that we operate "within" the law. We help police to train for OC. We use our cooperation with the police to prove that we are not a fringe movement.

    Perception is KING in politics. As long as people believe the lies that Saldana, et allia, barf up, we will need "truthful plausible deniability" to dispell the lies.

    John Kerry was trying to use "plausible deniability" when he claimed on the campaign trail that he voted against the war. But, he voted for the war before he voted againstit. He was the deceiver. We need to use "plausible deniability" to dispel the lies.

    RABBIT TRAIL ALERT: internet definitions of PD use an example of a finger hold as torture--this is rediculous. Don't believe the information you get from these sites. One popular site has abio on a public person--this public person tries to correct his birthday and school history, but unknown posters change the bio back to the wrong information as soon as he fixes the wiki page. PC is rampant on these sites.

    Due diligence: The context used is the carea reasonable personshould take when evalutating risks. Risk assessment and mitigation are criticalin politics as the lawof unintended consequencesworks full time in politics.

    markm


Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •