-
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.
Let's Support Dianosis With His Dothan Problem
- Thread starter AL Ranger
- Start date
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
Bird Dog wrote:
Bird Dog wrote:
UM, there's no reason for the Ala. S. Ct. to get involved - the appeals court has already settled the issue.
imported post
Grapeshot wrote:
I personally know two cops who got shot - one in the head and the other in the shoulder - when they walked in on a robbery in progress while in uniform. They were legally open carrying.
The store's surveillance video also shows a customer walking in on the same robbery shortly before the officers. The suspect did not shoot the customer.
Grapeshot wrote:
I personally know two cops who got shot - one in the head and the other in the shoulder - when they walked in on a robbery in progress while in uniform. They were legally open carrying.
The store's surveillance video also shows a customer walking in on the same robbery shortly before the officers. The suspect did not shoot the customer.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
Bird Dog wrote:
Bird Dog wrote:
RIF
imported post
Grapeshot wrote:
Nope. They illustrate my point just fine.
You deliberately phrased your question to exclude the most obvious group of people who would prove you wrong.
Do you honestly believe the suspect who shot those officers would have held his fire on a civilian who was open carrying? There just aren't enough civilians open carrying to get a valid sample. I honestly can't remember ever seeing one in public. You have to look to law enforcement.
Remember the point we're debating is that open carry makes a person identifiable as a threat to a criminal and thereby gives the criminal an opportunity to ambush the person. You're naive if you believe a criminal who spots a guy with a gun on his hip will make the distinction between cop and civilian.
Grapeshot wrote:
Nope. They illustrate my point just fine.
You deliberately phrased your question to exclude the most obvious group of people who would prove you wrong.
Do you honestly believe the suspect who shot those officers would have held his fire on a civilian who was open carrying? There just aren't enough civilians open carrying to get a valid sample. I honestly can't remember ever seeing one in public. You have to look to law enforcement.
Remember the point we're debating is that open carry makes a person identifiable as a threat to a criminal and thereby gives the criminal an opportunity to ambush the person. You're naive if you believe a criminal who spots a guy with a gun on his hip will make the distinction between cop and civilian.
Mas49.56
Regular Member
imported post
http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atla...8-Open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-in-Kennesaw
These two OC guys got blown away at the Waffle House. Oh wait, no they didn't.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atla...8-Open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-in-Kennesaw
These two OC guys got blown away at the Waffle House. Oh wait, no they didn't.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
Bird Dog wrote:
You were specifically challenged to come up with examples who were ordinary citizens, not cops, and you deliberately gave an example of cops. How disingenuous can you get?!?
Bird Dog wrote:
No, they don't. I notice you didn't quote the posts that give context and put the lie to what you just posted. More misrepresentation.
You were specifically challenged to come up with examples who were ordinary citizens, not cops, and you deliberately gave an example of cops. How disingenuous can you get?!?
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
You want them to be superhuman but without one bit of advantage over any other yahoo walking the streets and decides to show off his two hour old gun by firing it through the walls of the house next door.
That is just it that you want to hold them to the same standards when it suits you but if their life is on the line then tough. Yes they walk around in uniform with a great big target on their back and you admit that they could very well get shot just for having the uniform on but if it comes to guns then they don't deserve one bit more of an advantage than the average idiot out on the street. You have hit on it exactly, that they are a target, should know every law on the books backwards and forwards, be able to handle any situation that comes along, kiss every citizens butt because every citizen pays taxes and is their boss but when they get killed, tough luck sucker. We aren't even going to include your worthless butt in the body count.
You want them to be superhuman but without one bit of advantage over any other yahoo walking the streets and decides to show off his two hour old gun by firing it through the walls of the house next door.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
Bird Dog wrote:
Bird Dog wrote:
I stopped ignoring you when I felt the need to point out all the dishonesty in your posts of late. Have you no shame?
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
Bird Dog wrote:
Bird Dog wrote:
They have been quoted for all to see. Remember, this is a message board. There is a record of what you post. Deception that works in a conversation does not work on a message board. Moving on. At least until you try deception again.
Brimstone Baritone
Regular Member
imported post
Bird Dog wrote:
The robbery was already in progress and, as the saying goes, in for a penny in for a pound. The mindset of a criminal who has already committed to a course of action, i.e. has already drawn weapons and made threats, is likely different to one who is still uncommitted and looking for the best time or place to act.
I would assert that you are right. An open carrier who walks into a robbery in progress is just as likely to get shot as a cop. This would not, however, fit the legend of an OCer being taken out first.
Bird Dog wrote:
Setting aside, for the moment, your proposal that we expand the sample size, the argument still has one major problem. In your example the shooting was not a preemptive action.
The robbery was already in progress and, as the saying goes, in for a penny in for a pound. The mindset of a criminal who has already committed to a course of action, i.e. has already drawn weapons and made threats, is likely different to one who is still uncommitted and looking for the best time or place to act.
I would assert that you are right. An open carrier who walks into a robbery in progress is just as likely to get shot as a cop. This would not, however, fit the legend of an OCer being taken out first.
dixieborn
Regular Member
imported post
PT111 wrote:
Wow, you need to calm down a bit! If I may be so bold as to weigh in on someone else's intentions... the point was not to put down LE in any way. No one is advocating disarming LEO's. I don't know why you got so riled up. The point was, LEO's do not fit the description for the example being provided. A police officer walking in on an armed robbery in progress and getting shot in no way informs us on the likelihood of an OC'ing citizen getting shot first when the thief walks in to execute the robbery.
Make sense? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just don't understand why you jumped all over the guy there. I think his point was valid, they are two completely different situations. Or, in Bird Dog's words, they are like comparing "apples and oranges."
PT111 wrote:
Wow, you need to calm down a bit! If I may be so bold as to weigh in on someone else's intentions... the point was not to put down LE in any way. No one is advocating disarming LEO's. I don't know why you got so riled up. The point was, LEO's do not fit the description for the example being provided. A police officer walking in on an armed robbery in progress and getting shot in no way informs us on the likelihood of an OC'ing citizen getting shot first when the thief walks in to execute the robbery.
Make sense? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just don't understand why you jumped all over the guy there. I think his point was valid, they are two completely different situations. Or, in Bird Dog's words, they are like comparing "apples and oranges."
imported post
PT111 wrote:
First his tirade is out of line and uncalled for. Nothing of the sort was stated nor implied to which such an exception could be taken.
It is out of context because the comparative response was given as an illustration of why some people consider OC to be a tactical problem - not for LEOs, but for the average good citizen. Point of fact, I was not discussing LEOs simply because that was NOT the question.
I submit that OC has numerous tactical advantages which CC does not enjoy. Oh and we are talking about everyday good citizens - not LEO, security, military or the like.
Yata hey
PT111 wrote:
I'm the one that PT111 was quoting without being given credit and to whom he apparently is ranting.
First his tirade is out of line and uncalled for. Nothing of the sort was stated nor implied to which such an exception could be taken.
It is out of context because the comparative response was given as an illustration of why some people consider OC to be a tactical problem - not for LEOs, but for the average good citizen. Point of fact, I was not discussing LEOs simply because that was NOT the question.
I submit that OC has numerous tactical advantages which CC does not enjoy. Oh and we are talking about everyday good citizens - not LEO, security, military or the like.
Yata hey
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
(mmmmmph)
(That means I really, really wanta say something, but it would be dragging things further off topic, so I'm stifling myself. Hope nothing breaks.
)
(mmmmmph)
(That means I really, really wanta say something, but it would be dragging things further off topic, so I'm stifling myself. Hope nothing breaks.
)UncleWolfie
New member
imported post
This could be the perfect case to solidify the law on the subject of open carry in Alabama. His firearm was taken without probable cause or a warrant supported by affidavit and issued from a court of competent jurisdiction.
This is called CONVERSION and is a tort in Alabama. Additionally, several of his Inalienable Rights were violated and this too presents a cause of action since one has a property interest in one's Inalienable Rights.
It appears to me that the cops acted under color of state law but we know there is no state law barring the open carry of a firearm. This too is actionable in a civil case.
Think deprivation and theft of private property under color of state law.
What's the status of this 'case' in terms of a civil suit for redress of grievances?
This could be the perfect case to solidify the law on the subject of open carry in Alabama. His firearm was taken without probable cause or a warrant supported by affidavit and issued from a court of competent jurisdiction.
This is called CONVERSION and is a tort in Alabama. Additionally, several of his Inalienable Rights were violated and this too presents a cause of action since one has a property interest in one's Inalienable Rights.
It appears to me that the cops acted under color of state law but we know there is no state law barring the open carry of a firearm. This too is actionable in a civil case.
Think deprivation and theft of private property under color of state law.
What's the status of this 'case' in terms of a civil suit for redress of grievances?
mark edward marchiafava
Banned
imported post
and the OC attorney is .........................who?
Oh, that's right. Unlike the civil rights movement of the 60's, we have NO attorney.
and the OC attorney is .........................who?
Oh, that's right. Unlike the civil rights movement of the 60's, we have NO attorney.