Breakdown

LMTD said:

Ok, now I have noticed another part of the problem that developed between you and I, that 22 on your nick name likely indicates an age as it has become kind of clear you may well be young.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Unless you hold an age bias.

LMTD said:

I do not share your opinion here at all. Do not forget, that officer thought (wrongfully so) that he was witnessing a crime. He believed that open carry was restricted in St Charles city, he was wrong 100% but had he been right, he has a sworn duty to uphold the law.

Click to expand...

He does not have a sworn duty to uphold contrived laws. He stopped him for suspicion of breaking a law that he thought was law? That is not "upholding the law."

LMTD said:

Add to that that he has said he was sorry to Doc and admitted he was wrong. That is a stand up man who made a mistake, one he will not make again as he now knows the law.

Click to expand...

Yet it does not obviate the obvious. He stopped a person for violating something that he didn't even know was covered by statute. Admitting his mistake was the only correct part. The rest does outweigh it. He learned, but he was not "standup."

LMTD said:

Cops get to make mistakes too, they just don't get to do the on purpose thing. Yes they can be made to pay for mistakes, but why when you know it was an honest one, he thought Doc was violating the law and while he was a little condescending, he did back off when Doc remained polite. He is now a better cop for it and a positive thing for OC came out of it.

Click to expand...

The stop should not have been made, sans RAS. Since the cop obviously did not know the law, how could he have reasonable articulable suspicion of anything?

cash50 said:

As always, a hostile response, I know nobody can disagree without you getting mad.

I'll ask again for confirmation of stand-up guy status : DO YOU KNOW THIS COP? How can you call him a stand-up guy?

.

Click to expand...

On the rational thought part, reread the first sentence of the second paragraph, hmmm looks like I clearly said I do not know him or condone the behavior, what part of that was it you did not understand?

It is not very often you hear of a COP apologizing for his mistake, most often it is a "tough shirt, it happens" attitude. This officer called Doc and said he was sorry, that is from the original thread. That is stand up guy behavior, but like I said, I know you will never understand.

It is not because of how I feel it is because of the feed back of the victim at the time.

sohighlyunlikely said:

I received my apology

Doc

Click to expand...

and

sohighlyunlikely said:

Iacceptedmy apology by phone. I was told that OC was discussed in the locker room of the PD and now that it has been brought to light, that an legal OC citizen does have a good chance of deterring crime through the presents of an exposed firearm. I was told that the cities attorney was brought in and they feel if the state says it is legal they have no desire to forbid it in their jurisdiction. St Charles current crime rate is at an all time high and my presents OC is being viewed as a possible deterrent to crime.

If you need more details than that you will have to buy me a drink at Starbucks and talk to me there.

Doc

Click to expand...

so if the victim is not crying foul and the cop said he was sorry and things improved for OC, I think it was a win win that screwed up 20 minutes of Doc's life when the cop thought he was right and he found out he was wrong and manned up over it.

Those of you just looking for a payday will always see it wrong and thin Doc should have sued to try and become a millionaire but the reality is, almost nothing would have happened as a decent man whom apologized for his mistake would have a bad not put in his file and would be told next time do not say you are sorry as that is an admission of guilt, you have to pretend like you never did a thing wrong.

You way over rate yourself when you think you made me mad or are even capable of that, you can't manage it. You have never done a thing but say I am not for OC because you like to hear yourself say it is all I can figure. Because you have never added anything other than negativity to any conversation I have observed, you have never built any respect from me at all and that is a required element for me to give you any merit at all. If you have no merit then there is nothing for me to be angry about as people I do not respect can't bother me, I do not care what they think at all.

Perhaps you should concern yourself with your own thoughts instead of mine because I sure do not care what yours are at all. I only serve to correct them when they are obviously wrong.

wrightme said:

#1 Irrelevant. Unless you hold an age bias.

#2 He does not have a sworn duty to uphold contrived laws. He stopped him for suspicion of breaking a law that he thought was law? That is not "upholding the law."

#3 Yet it does not obviate the obvious. He stopped a person for violating something that he didn't even know was covered by statute. Admitting his mistake was the only correct part. The rest does outweigh it. He learned, but he was not "standup."

#4 The stop should not have been made, sans RAS. Since the cop obviously did not know the law, how could he have reasonable articulable suspicion of anything?

Click to expand...

Quotes got messed up, numbered for clarity.

#1 Well since you are trying to interpret a point made to another from a conversation you were not involved in, you are not expected to understand the meaning.

#2 LOL if that was the case then there would NEVER be anyone released "not guilty" now would there because a COP would never arrest anyone he did not KNOW broke a law as you put it, that is the only way to uphold the law. LOTS of laws change in 18 days, lots of cops will not know it and things that are illegal today will not be illegal then as well as things that are not illegal today will be in 18 days. Lawyers and judges can't keep up with it hence the appeals process yet you seek to condemn a cop for not knowing it, your reasoning lacks sound judgment in my opinion.

#3 a lady reported a "man with a gun" the officer has 0 choice in the matter, he is obligated to investigate it by law whether you agree with that is unimportant, it is factual. On doing so he saw an openly carried firearm, he thought that open carry violated an ordinance, he detained Doc based on that while he researched the ordinance so he could answer Docs question of "what law am a breaking?" at which point he discovered he could not come up with the number and released Doc letting him know he would research it further and get back to him. He had the legal right to detain Doc under probable cause reasonable suspicion for up to 20 minutes under terry stop, he did not have anything and released him. Instead of avoiding the issue, he did do the research and found out he was wrong and instead of never doing anything (as Doc and many others expected) he did indeed contact, admit he was wrong and said he was sorry, most cops would never have done as much, makes him stand up in my book.

#4 would mostly repeat #3's answer

LMTD said:

Quotes got messed up, numbered for clarity.

#1 Well since you are trying to interpret a point made to another from a conversation you were not involved in, you are not expected to understand the meaning.

Click to expand...

LOL, you called him out due to his age, not due to any specific of his post.

LMTD said:

#2 LOL if that was the case then there would NEVER be anyone released "not guilty" now would there because a COP would never arrest anyone he did not KNOW broke a law as you put it, that is the only way to uphold the law. LOTS of laws change in 18 days, lots of cops will not know it and things that are illegal today will not be illegal then as well as things that are not illegal today will be in 18 days. Lawyers and judges can't keep up with it hence the appeals process yet you seek to condemn a cop for not knowing it, your reasoning lacks sound judgment in my opinion.

Click to expand...

LE should KNOW the laws that they are investigating citizens for. It IS reasonable to expect this. It is NOT reasonable to expect that LE investigate a possible crime without knowing what statute an alleged crime is based upon. Otherwise, they are simply attempting to be "the law," and making it up as they go along, as opposed to enforcing actual laws.

LMTD said:

#3 a lady reported a "man with a gun" the officer has 0 choice in the matter, he is obligated to investigate it by law whether you agree with that is unimportant, it is factual. On doing so he saw an openly carried firearm, he thought that open carry violated an ordinance, he detained Doc based on that while he researched the ordinance so he could answer Docs question of "what law am a breaking?"

Click to expand...

In other words, a "fishing" expedition. Not upholding the law, but attempting to find a law to charge a citizen with; simply because someone called "MWAG." MWAG is not an infraction, is it? LE sure DOES have discretion upon receiving a MWAG call, and the dispatcher should get clarifying information from the caller:
Scared Lady: "There is a Man with a GUN!!!!"
Dispatch: "What is he doing with it?
Scared Lady: "Well, nothing; YET."
Dispatch: "Unless he is breaking any laws, there is no reason to send an officer."

LMTD said:

at which point he discovered he could not come up with the number and released Doc letting him know he would research it further and get back to him.

Click to expand...

His "fishing" was fruitless.

LMTD said:

He had the legal right to detain Doc under probable cause reasonable suspicion for up to 20 minutes under terry stop, he did not have anything and released him.

Click to expand...

He had NO pc for a stop, terry or otherwise.

LMTD said:

Instead of avoiding the issue, he did do the research and found out he was wrong and instead of never doing anything (as Doc and many others expected) he did indeed contact, admit he was wrong and said he was sorry, most cops would never have done as much, makes him stand up in my book.

Click to expand...

There was NO issue; except for one that LE attempted to create. Granted he got clarity finally, but this stop had no reason to happen. LE should have known, dispatch should have known, and no contact should have happened, no matter how much you desire to be an LE apologist for this case.

wrightme said:

LOL, you called him out due to his age, not due to any specific of his post.

LE should KNOW the laws that they are investigating citizens for.

He had NO pc for a stop, terry or otherwise.

There was NO issue; except for one that LE attempted to create.

.

Click to expand...

Snipped the extra blathering that was meaningless.

Again, you still go not know what the age thing was even about, it is a non-issue no matter how much you want to make something out of it, I am not going to explain it, I am just going to let you look like an idiot talking about something he has no knowledge about, here is your only hint, it was not a bad thing or negative thing at all and you look really silly publicly trying to make it into one.

He did "know the law" he was investigating and here is a HUGE clue, the language that has been interpreted to indicate OC is legal in St Charles city is too vague to begin to say the officer did not have PC for the stop. There is no law that says OC is LEGAL and there is very vague language that makes it illegal for little to no reason.

That gave him Terry free and clear. A citizen reported it, depending upon the words she used, the ordinance may well have been violated in his view but his investigation provided no supporting evidence. All she had to say was "That rude man has a gun" and she has in fact stated the law was broken.

As far as being an LE apologist, I said I do not know him or condone the behavior, what part of that was it you did not understand?

LMTD said:

Snipped the extra blathering that was meaningless.

Click to expand...

Once again you simply are acting rude as opposed to attempting to communicate.

LMTD said:

Again, you still go not know what the age thing was even about, it is a non-issue

Click to expand...

Then you really had no reason to even bring it up, eh?

LMTD said:

He did "know the law" he was investigating and here is a HUGE clue, the language that has been interpreted to indicate OC is legal in St Charles city is too vague to begin to say the officer did not have PC for the stop. There is no law that says OC is LEGAL and there is very vague language that makes it illegal for little to no reason.

Click to expand...

Really? Then please enlighten me as to this very vague language.

LMTD said:

That gave him Terry free and clear. A citizen reported it, depending upon the words she used, the ordinance may well have been violated in his view but his investigation provided no supporting evidence. All she had to say was "That rude man has a gun" and she has in fact stated the law was broken.

Click to expand...

Cite statute. Is "rude man having gun" codified?

LMTD said:

As far as being an LE apologist, I said I do not know him or condone the behavior, what part of that was it you did not understand?

Click to expand...

I understood that part. But your referencing him as actually having RAS for a stop does give lie to "not condone the behavior." For someone who does not "condone the behavior," you have gone to some length to justify it.

Do you have relevant statute to cite for this instance that shows some "vague wording" to support RAS?


You could choose to enter into polite debate. You choose not to.

134.03

You can look up the rest of it so you can try and pick it apart, but yes, right here is where it says you may not carry a gun concealed or exposed in a "rude" manner, however that is ultimately defined.

"having upon or about his person, concealed or exposed, any kind of firearms, bowie knife, springback knife, razor, metal knucks, billy, sword cane, dirk, dagger, slingshot or other similar deadly weapons or to, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit any such weapons in a rude, angry or threatening manner"

LOL I guess I can't ever carry down there eh?


Now considering just about 3 weeks ago two guys were getting gas, one oc the other ccw and the oc guy managed to open carry "belligerently" and it resulted in a mistaken identity where the ccw guy wound up getting pulled over by 5 to 7 cars i THINK IT was, ordered to the ground at gun point, car and person searched, knee in back cuffed and in car bla bla and then had to let go with a pretty much tough shirt attitude, I am gonna maintain that the st charles cop did a stand up thing when he said he was sorry for his mistake.

I guess you are just used to cops saying they are sorry and think it is no big deal, I am not totally sure but I think it might actually be the first time I have heard of it ever.

But that is not why you or cash are here, you just have some twisted desire to fuss with me which is not hard to do or something that is particularly uncommon, no one gets impressed, but as long as it makes you feel good, feel free to step up and blather on.

LMTD said:

134.03

You can look up the rest of it so you can try and pick it apart, but yes, right here is where it says you may not carry a gun concealed or exposed in a "rude" manner, however that is ultimately defined.

"having upon or about his person, concealed or exposed, any kind of firearms, bowie knife, springback knife, razor, metal knucks, billy, sword cane, dirk, dagger, slingshot or other similar deadly weapons or to, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit any such weapons in a rude, angry or threatening manner"

Click to expand...

"...exhibit any such weapons in a rude, angry or threatening manner" is about actions with a weapon, not about demeanor of a person. If LE use that a RAS, I would have little doubt that it is actionable.

LMTD said:

LOL I guess I can't ever carry down there eh?

Click to expand...

I would not come to that conclusion.

LMTD said:

Now considering just about 3 weeks ago two guys were getting gas, one oc the other ccw and the oc guy managed to open carry "belligerently" and it resulted in a mistaken identity where the ccw guy wound up getting pulled over by 5 to 7 cars i THINK IT was, ordered to the ground at gun point, car and person searched, knee in back cuffed and in car bla bla and then had to let go with a pretty much tough shirt attitude, I am gonna maintain that the st charles cop did a stand up thing when he said he was sorry for his mistake.

Click to expand...

That sounds like a good "lawyer up" stop. Unless such law-abiding citizens do so, such unlawful LE activity will likely continue.

LMTD said:

I guess you are just used to cops saying they are sorry and think it is no big deal, I am not totally sure but I think it might actually be the first time I have heard of it ever.

Click to expand...

Nope. I am used to them knowing the law, and acting accordingly.

LMTD said:

But that is not why you or cash are here, you just have some twisted desire to fuss with me which is not hard to do or something that is particularly uncommon, no one gets impressed, but as long as it makes you feel good, feel free to step up and blather on.

Click to expand...

Nope. But it if makes you feel better to believe that, do not let reality hinder you.

wrightme said:

"...exhibit any such weapons in a rude, angry or threatening manner" is about actions with a weapon, not about demeanor of a person. If LE use that a RAS, I would have little doubt that it is actionable.I would not come to that conclusion.That sounds like a good "lawyer up" stop. Unless such law-abiding citizens do so, such unlawful LE activity will likely continue.Nope. I am used to them knowing the law, and acting accordingly.

Nope. But it if makes you feel better to believe that, do not let reality hinder you.

Click to expand...

I agree that is the application of it, lets call it, acting like you were going to draw it, however the lady saying you were " rude" meets the letter of the law for the lawyers to play with at a later date. At the very least the officer is obligated to investigate the "rude" behavior to determine if it met a standard that fits for a violation.

Yes it is weak, no it is not the truth of what happened, but yes it is a plausible excuse that would be given to justify the officers actions, instead of that the officer admitted he was wrong and said he was sorry. Why you can't consider that stand up behavior is yours and yours alone. Him having the opportunity to effectively lie his way out of it like many others have done and choosing the other path is stand up behavior in my opinion, the behavior of a stand up man without regard for occupation.

Reality does not hinder me even a little, I thrive on it and the simple fact is, you do the same thing every time we engage in a conversation and you even drag baggage across threads at times.

You may well choose to see every cop whom ever makes a mistake as a bad cop, that is because it is what you look for, I personally do not find someones proper behavior to be a good measure of their worthiness, I give a lot more merit to how a man handles his mistakes. I have made more than a few in my life and admitting them and trying to correct the wrong I did is all I can ever offer. Last time I checked, a lot of folks think the last perfect guy died 2010 years ago.

I think he is a stand up guy for saying he was sorry, you do not. I am aware I will never change your mind as well as you do not want to change your mind, only you can fix that. You keep asking "why" I keep saying it and trying to twist it into some plausible debate, its not. Men who admit mistakes and say they are sorry are indeed stand up guys in my opinion and the opinion of a lot of others, your expectation of perfection is not only misguided, you share that with very few, most folks think you are wrong and do not live in a world where because of occupation a persons performance suddenly has the minimum standard of perfection.

Rock on and have fun.

LMTD said:

I agree that is the application of it, lets call it, acting like you were going to draw it, however the lady saying you were " rude" meets the letter of the law for the lawyers to play with at a later date. At the very least the officer is obligated to investigate the "rude" behavior to determine if it met a standard that fits for a violation.

Click to expand...

As I mentioned above, this is something that dispatch could clarify with the caller. Further, LE is NOT obligated to roll. Why do you feel they are obligated?

LMTD said:

Yes it is weak, no it is not the truth of what happened, but yes it is a plausible excuse that would be given to justify the officers actions, instead of that the officer admitted he was wrong and said he was sorry. Why you can't consider that stand up behavior is yours and yours alone. Him having the opportunity to effectively lie his way out of it like many others have done and choosing the other path is stand up behavior in my opinion, the behavior of a stand up man without regard for occupation.

Click to expand...

My differing opinion is not a failure of mine. It is simply a differing opinion. Treating me rudely because my opinion is not in lockstep with yours is not productive.

LMTD said:

Reality does not hinder me even a little, I thrive on it and the simple fact is, you do the same thing every time we engage in a conversation and you even drag baggage across threads at times.

Click to expand...

QFT

LMTD said:

You may well choose to see every cop whom ever makes a mistake as a bad cop, that is because it is what you look for,

Click to expand...

Strawman. That is not my position, nor have I made any statements that indicate that I would do such.

LMTD said:

I personally do not find someones proper behavior to be a good measure of their worthiness, I give a lot more merit to how a man handles his mistakes.

Click to expand...

Yes, LE may make mistakes. Yet as they are supposed to enforce the law, the first step should be to actually know the law prior to attempting to enforce it.

LMTD said:

I have made more than a few in my life and admitting them and trying to correct the wrong I did is all I can ever offer. Last time I checked, a lot of folks think the last perfect guy died 2010 years ago.

I think he is a stand up guy for saying he was sorry, you do not. I am aware I will never change your mind as well as you do not want to change your mind, only you can fix that. You keep asking "why" I keep saying it and trying to twist it into some plausible debate, its not. Men who admit mistakes and say they are sorry are indeed stand up guys in my opinion and the opinion of a lot of others, your expectation of perfection is not only misguided, you share that with very few, most folks think you are wrong and do not live in a world where because of occupation a persons performance suddenly has the minimum standard of perfection.

Rock on and have fun.

Click to expand...

It isn't your job to "change my mind." But it should be sufficient for you to see that other persons do NOT agree with you simply because you have an opinion; they may disagree with you because they also have an opinion. Now, where do you get that most people think I am wrong? I do not expect perfection, but those in LE should be held to a higher standard. Those with power always should be held to a higher standard. Otherwise, the position is ripe for abuse.

LMTD said:

134.03

You can look up the rest of it so you can try and pick it apart, but yes, right here is where it says you may not carry a gun concealed or exposed in a "rude" manner, however that is ultimately defined.

"having upon or about his person, concealed or exposed, any kind of firearms, bowie knife, springback knife, razor, metal knucks, billy, sword cane, dirk, dagger, slingshot or other similar deadly weapons or to, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit any such weapons in a rude, angry or threatening manner"

LOL I guess I can't ever carry down there eh?


Now considering just about 3 weeks ago two guys were getting gas, one oc the other ccw and the oc guy managed to open carry "belligerently" and it resulted in a mistaken identity where the ccw guy wound up getting pulled over by 5 to 7 cars i THINK IT was, ordered to the ground at gun point, car and person searched, knee in back cuffed and in car bla bla and then had to let go with a pretty much tough shirt attitude, I am gonna maintain that the st charles cop did a stand up thing when he said he was sorry for his mistake.

I guess you are just used to cops saying they are sorry and think it is no big deal, I am not totally sure but I think it might actually be the first time I have heard of it ever.

But that is not why you or cash are here, you just have some twisted desire to fuss with me which is not hard to do or something that is particularly uncommon, no one gets impressed, but as long as it makes you feel good, feel free to step up and blather on.

Click to expand...

You need to not talk about me, ok? I didn't start any ***** fuss with you. You started acting like a jerk towards me, and I don't want to talk about anything with you anymore. I'd be surprised as hell, and also very happy, if you talked that way towards me in person.

LMTD said:

I think he is a stand up guy for saying he was sorry, you do not.

Click to expand...

I do see that in your opinion, he is a stand up guy for saying he was sorry. There are other interpretations of events, and neither of us has the information to actually know what transpired behind the scenes.

It is valid to hold the opinion that you hold.

It is also valid to hold an opposing opinion.

He might have apologized and admitted his error because he IS a stand up guy. Conversely, he might have apologized and admitted his error in an attempt to defuse the consequences. It is possible that in addition to Rights violations, this could be a "color of law" violation; as in an attempt to enforce ersatz regulations, using the position of LE to gain compliance. Given the change in his demeanor upon noticing the camera, I am inclined to believe my opinion over yours. But, if further evidence would indicate that he is a stand-up guy, I would be willing to believe your opinion over mine. But we do not have any other evidence to support EITHER opinion, do we.

wrightme said:

As I mentioned above, this is something that dispatch could clarify with the caller. Further, LE is NOT obligated to roll. Why do you feel they are obligated?

Click to expand...

There was no dispatch, the lady walked up to the officer working an accident and pointed to Doc and reported whatever she reported directly to the officer in question.

I do not feel they are obligated to roll, I know they are obligated to investigate a report of a crime if they know one is occurring or is about to occur aka Terry standards.

Since only the officer and the lady know for sure what she said, there is no way for you or I to determine if it met that standard, if it did, he had to approach, if it did not then he approached wrongfully.

He did not need to diffuse the situation if it was more than a mistake, he could simply say the lady said "as I walked by he had his hand on his gun" since the lady was anonymous and had left the scene immediately following the report, instead of bothering to research, discuss, and say he was sorry, he could just lie on the report and blow it off.

I like honesty, he made an honest mistake, he made an honest effort, he said he was sorry for his mistake, sounds stand up to me, not to you and that is just how it is.

You keep asking ME to explain my position because it differs from yours, you do not like HOW I explain it, we will both live through it.

cash50 said:

You need to not talk about me, ok? I didn't start any ***** fuss with you. You started acting like a jerk towards me, and I don't want to talk about anything with you anymore. I'd be surprised as hell, and also very happy, if you talked that way towards me in person.

Click to expand...

I think you might find yourself real surprised how I would talk to you in person, I am not sure why you think it would change, but if that is what you think so be it.

If you did not want me to talk to you, why did you ask me a question?

Your first sentence of your first post to me in this very thread said "I know your not really for OC" which is something you have repeatedly stated, you do it to get a rise out of me and then you complain about the response you get. How is that supposed to make sense?

If you do not want me talking to you or about you then do not address me in your postings sir. If you do, I will respond and as you have already made clear, you probably will not like the response. Don't want it, don't invite it and you can start now by simply saying nothing.

Peace

LMTD said:

There was no dispatch, the lady walked up to the officer working an accident and pointed to Doc and reported whatever she reported directly to the officer in question.

I do not feel they are obligated to roll, I know they are obligated to investigate a report of a crime if they know one is occurring or is about to occur aka Terry standards.

Click to expand...

Is that so? Even then, in this instance, he was not obligated to investigate. But he should at least have known that what he was investigating actually was a possible violation. He didn't.

LMTD said:

Since only the officer and the lady know for sure what she said, there is no way for you or I to determine if it met that standard, if it did, he had to approach, if it did not then he approached wrongfully.

Click to expand...

Really? ARE LE obligated to investigate each reported possible crime?

LMTD said:

He did not need to diffuse the situation if it was more than a mistake, he could simply say the lady said "as I walked by he had his hand on his gun" since the lady was anonymous and had left the scene immediately following the report, instead of bothering to research, discuss, and say he was sorry, he could just lie on the report and blow it off.

Click to expand...

No, he couldn't. It was recorded.

LMTD said:

I like honesty, he made an honest mistake, he made an honest effort, he said he was sorry for his mistake, sounds stand up to me, not to you and that is just how it is.

Click to expand...

No, he did not know the law. That isn't an honest mistake, it is acting upon ignorance.

LMTD said:

You keep asking ME to explain my position because it differs from yours, you do not like HOW I explain it, we will both live through it.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is your manner to which I object.
Your point is valid. So is mine. I choose to discuss, you chose to be rude.

wrightme said:

Is that so?

Really? ARE LE obligated to investigate each reported possible crime?

No, he couldn't. It was recorded.

No, he did not know the law. That isn't an honest mistake, it is acting upon ignorance.

Yes, it is your manner to which I object.
Your point is valid. So is mine. I choose to discuss, you chose to be rude.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is factual information from Doc as well as referenced on the video by the officer.

I am not sure what the lady said to the officer was recorded, might be if St Charles uses audio recorders on their officers, but then again those things fail or get lost all the time don't they.

Rude is subjective I suppose. I tend to take it one level more intense that I feel I get it, I annoy a lot of folks, it is what it is.

cash50, I shot you a PM. I did not like your opening remark, I felt it was rude and I responded by being less polite, if I was incorrect and you did not intend on that being a rude remark it is 100% my fault as I have not tried to be polite to you since you made that remark. I won't engage you again in conversation unless you opt to reply to the PM.

Same ole same ole here ....

Wow. You'd think some of the folks on this site are AGAINST one another, not fighting the same cause. It always turns into a ******* match. :banghead: No wonder this cause is stalled and people are unwilling to listen. It's pretty violent over here. Plenty of ammo for an anti-gunner to show we don't need guns with all the testosterone . I'd be afraid everyone would just start shooting anyone at anytime. :uhoh:

No need to PM me with any threats anyone, I won't be responding.

Festus_Hagen said:

Wow. You'd think some of the folks on this site are AGAINST one another, not fighting the same cause. It always turns into a ******* match. :banghead: No wonder this cause is stalled and people are unwilling to listen. It's pretty violent over here. Plenty of ammo for an anti-gunner to show we don't need guns with all the testosterone . I'd be afraid everyone would just start shooting anyone at anytime. :uhoh:

No need to PM me with any threats anyone, I won't be responding.

Click to expand...

I understand, I am about done too.

I just keep hearing Tom Petty music every time I see the thread title... what were you guys saying???

Festus_Hagen said:

Wow. You'd think some of the folks on this site are AGAINST one another, not fighting the same cause. It always turns into a ******* match. :banghead: No wonder this cause is stalled and people are unwilling to listen. It's pretty violent over here. Plenty of ammo for an anti-gunner to show we don't need guns with all the testosterone . I'd be afraid everyone would just start shooting anyone at anytime. :uhoh:

No need to PM me with any threats anyone, I won't be responding.

Click to expand...

Well, its usually just one or two people on this board that start sh!t and then it snowballs, derailing threads one right after another. IF people on this board are polite, courteous, and respectful, EVEN if they received the rudeness first, it would be a better enviroment for us all. It takes a better man to just ignore the rudeness and address the topic only. Not condescend or give personal comments on each others' character. Its a waste of time, its exhausting, and it discourages others to post their ideas and opinions.