Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Positive Stop recorded and Shared Online

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    140

    Positive Stop recorded and Shared Online

    I not sure if this was already posted but I thought it was a positive thing, hopefully this link will work, if not copy from http to end of number 42010 and paste to inbternet browser.


    http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/vid...NRLL&gt1=42010

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Yep, this exact video has been posted no less than 7 times in the last 30 days. I still find it humorous that this is the only positive police encounter video I have seen on here in awhile.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  3. #3
    Regular Member dmatting's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    443
    Yeah, I've seen this video posted a number of times and I really don't understand how this is being portrayed as a positive stop at all. I could care less how polite the cop was - he still detained the man for doing nothing illegal!!!!!! How is that nice?!?!?! How is that positive?!?!?!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by dmatting View Post
    Yeah, I've seen this video posted a number of times and I really don't understand how this is being portrayed as a positive stop at all. I could care less how polite the cop was - he still detained the man for doing nothing illegal!!!!!! How is that nice?!?!?! How is that positive?!?!?!
    Sorry for the repeated post, well at least my view of being positive is more than what would have happend in Connecticut anyway,

  5. #5
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    245
    Code:
    Not_Negative /= Positive

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by dmatting View Post
    Yeah, I've seen this video posted a number of times and I really don't understand how this is being portrayed as a positive stop at all. I could care less how polite the cop was - he still detained the man for doing nothing illegal!!!!!! How is that nice?!?!?! How is that positive?!?!?!
    +1

    There is no law in California requiring police to check to ensure an empty chamber in an OCed gun. This was a suspicionless fishing expedition, even if approved by the CA legislature.

  7. #7
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by dmatting View Post
    Yeah, I've seen this video posted a number of times and I really don't understand how this is being portrayed as a positive stop at all. I could care less how polite the cop was - he still detained the man for doing nothing illegal!!!!!! How is that nice?!?!?! How is that positive?!?!?!
    He was acting properly under Kalifornia's laws and he was extremely polite and nonconfrontational. I count him as a good guy.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    "Positive?" How is this "positive?"

    I agree the officer was both polite and professional.

    The officer also conducted a Terry Stop WITHOUT Reasonable Suspicion as required by the U.S. Supreme Court, and as upheld by Chief District Judge Bruce D. Black. More info on that...

    In a nutshell, he concluded (very rightly in my opinion) "that as a matter of law the police officers violated Mr. St. John’s Constitutional Fourth Amendment Rights because they physically seized and disarmed him."

    Put simply: There is NO cause for stopping an honest, law-abiding citizen on the basis of that citizen engaging in a lawful activity.

    Coincidentally, the link you provided contained this, as well.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    "Positive?" How is this "positive?"

    I agree the officer was both polite and professional.

    The officer also conducted a Terry Stop WITHOUT Reasonable Suspicion as required by the U.S. Supreme Court, and as upheld by Chief District Judge Bruce D. Black. More info on that...

    In a nutshell, he concluded (very rightly in my opinion) "that as a matter of law the police officers violated Mr. St. John’s Constitutional Fourth Amendment Rights because they physically seized and disarmed him."

    Put simply: There is NO cause for stopping an honest, law-abiding citizen on the basis of that citizen engaging in a lawful activity.

    Coincidentally, the link you provided contained this, as well.
    The officer was following California law. He made what is a lawful stop under that law, and did so in a polite way and a way that respected rights as much as possible under that law.

    The problem is not the officer's actions. Kudos to him for that. The problem is the California law which should be struck down as unconstitutional. Until that happens (and there is no certainty that it ever will), then officers should not be criticized for following it politely and professionally.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The officer was following California law. He made what is a lawful stop under that law, and did so in a polite way and a way that respected rights as much as possible under that law.

    The problem is not the officer's actions. Kudos to him for that. The problem is the California law which should be struck down as unconstitutional. Until that happens (and there is no certainty that it ever will), then officers should not be criticized for following it politely and professionally.
    I agree. The cop seems like a good guy, retired Jarhead and sincere about respecting rights. He is acting under departmental policy, I have no doubt, to support the BS, unconstitutional PDR laws. Seems there was another thread on this, or two. He did not have to make the e-stop, but it probably was policy as I said, and he made it as painless for the honest, lawful subject as he could. I think I commented on his not being able to slide lock an M&P though!!! CO Staties carry them, btw, so do a bunch of other agencies. Wonder what the cop was carrying?
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The officer was following California law. He made what is a lawful stop under that law, and did so in a polite way and a way that respected rights as much as possible under that law.

    California law does not over ride the U.S. Constitution. This man's 4th and 2nd Amendment rights were violated, and the state could not have done it with out police officers like this who are willing to shred the constitution. Ironically, this former Marine took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foriegn and domestic.

    I don't care if it is "california law and if you don't like it beat it in the courts." How far do we go into violating citizens before we say, "HELL NO, NOT IN MY COUNTRY!" If california passed a law tomorrow that said round up the jews and force them to wear a star on their sleeve would we all be "cool" with it if the cop did such with a smile on his face? Remember, in this scenario it would be under california law.

    HELL NO you wouldn't think that was okay, because it is an obvious violation of human rights. But this cop violates two of this man's most important rights, so important they are spelled out within the first 10 Amendments of the constitution AKA the Bill of RIGHTS and you guys are like, "OH DUDE HE WAS SO NICE WHEN HE PUT THAT GUY IN A WRIST LOCK HE SMILED WHEN HE ENFORCED UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS BUT ITS COOL BECAUSE CALIFORNIA IGNORED THE CONSTITUTION WHEN THEY MADE THIS LAW AND WELL.....ITS A LAW WHATEV's!"



    did so in a polite way and a way that respected rights as much as possible under that law.
    Quote of the week. respected rights as much as possible...lulz.
    Last edited by Schlitz; 08-18-2011 at 01:46 PM.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    California law does not over ride the U.S. Constitution. This man's 4th and 2nd Amendment rights were violated, and the state could not have done it with out police officers like this who are willing to shred the constitution. Ironically, this former Marine took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foriegn and domestic.
    Agreed. The Cop's oath is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. If a California law violates the Constitution, then it is the Cop's sworn duty to IGNORE the California law.

    Here in Colorado, most of the county sherrif's ignored a VALID Colorado State law prohibiting the sharing of their concealed carry permit databases. Fortunately, some sheriff's, including the shining example of Sheriff Terry Makita here in El Paso County, followed the law and refused to share the CHP database.

    Similarly, a law was passed last year concerning the carry of firearms on public college campuses, and several country sheriff's in Colorado came out and said, "The law is illegal. It violates both the U.S. Constitution and Colorado State Law, and we will NOT be enforcing it."
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    California law does not over ride the U.S. Constitution...
    No, it doesn't, BUT...

    The question of whether this law goes against the Constitution has not been decided by a court. While you and I may be of the same opinion that the law goes against the Constitution, until that is established, the way the officer handled the situation is the best possible.

    While I personally believe that I have the absolute best take possible on what the Constitution says and means, I would not be so arrogant as to insist that my take is the one that will be borne out. Those who think that theirs is are good for a chuckle. I hope the law is struck down, but until it is, I hope all officers follow it as professionally and respectfully as this one did.
    Last edited by eye95; 08-18-2011 at 07:23 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    California law does not over ride the U.S. Constitution. This man's 4th and 2nd Amendment rights were violated, and the state could not have done it with out police officers like this who are willing to shred the constitution. Ironically, this former Marine took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foriegn and domestic.

    I don't care if it is "california law and if you don't like it beat it in the courts." How far do we go into violating citizens before we say, "HELL NO, NOT IN MY COUNTRY!" If california passed a law tomorrow that said round up the jews and force them to wear a star on their sleeve would we all be "cool" with it if the cop did such with a smile on his face? Remember, in this scenario it would be under california law.

    HELL NO you wouldn't think that was okay, because it is an obvious violation of human rights. But this cop violates two of this man's most important rights, so important they are spelled out within the first 10 Amendments of the constitution AKA the Bill of RIGHTS and you guys are like, "OH DUDE HE WAS SO NICE WHEN HE PUT THAT GUY IN A WRIST LOCK HE SMILED WHEN HE ENFORCED UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS BUT ITS COOL BECAUSE CALIFORNIA IGNORED THE CONSTITUTION WHEN THEY MADE THIS LAW AND WELL.....ITS A LAW WHATEV's!"




    Quote of the week. respected rights as much as possible...lulz.

    The Founding Fathers gave the power of deciding whether a law is Constitutional or not to the Supreme Court Of The United States, not the citizenry. If CA passed a law like you present, it would immediately be brought before a court of law and a ruling issued. It would probably be appealed by the losing side and quickly move it way to the SCOTUS. They would make a decision as to it's Constitutionality, not the citizenry.

    Understand if you want to "rise up" against what you perceive as an Unconstitutional law that has not been ruled on by the highest Court of our land, then you are the domestic threat. The Founding Fathers did not intend for revolution every time someone disagreed with some law. Point of fact, I disagree with the CA law and think it is unconstitutional. It has not, however, been challenged by CA citizens yet. Until it has and a decision issued by the High Court it is still the Law.

    I swore an oath when I joined the military to protect the Constitution, that means the processes it sets up as well. If you are not happy with the law, challenge it. If you don't have standing, find and support someone who does. Don't like the Government and it's laws, great, work to change them. Rise to change them and know that I and others, who still hold to their oath , will stand and oppose you.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    I swore an oath when I joined the military to protect the Constitution, that means the processes it sets up as well.
    You were also instructed on what to do with an order that was unlawful, were you not?

    If CA passed a law like you present, it would immediately be brought before a court of law and a ruling issued. It would probably be appealed by the losing side and quickly move it way to the SCOTUS.
    How long did it take heller to make it through the Supreme Court? 4 or 5 YEARS?

    McDonald took 2 years or more?

    Not too sure about the quickly thing...

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by xd shooter View Post
    You were also instructed on what to do with an order that was unlawful, were you not?



    How long did it take heller to make it through the Supreme Court? 4 or 5 YEARS?

    McDonald took 2 years or more?

    Not too sure about the quickly thing...

    The procedures are in place though. The process works, maybe not always to our liking, but it does work.

    As to unlawful orders. Any member of the military who refuses an order, better be 105% sure that it's unlawful. If not they are going to find themselves standing tall before the man. The same is true with laws, you can believe a law unconstitutional all you want. Act on it, and the the SCOTUS rules against you.... you go from patriot to criminal in the blink of an eye. The Founding Fathers had faith in the system they set up, so do I. That doesn't mean we should not always keep a sharp eye out for those people or laws that would corrupt that system. We must, however, be careful that we don't allow that same vigilance and zeal to do it for them.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    While I personally believe that I have the absolute best take possible on what the Constitution says and means, I would not be so arrogant as to insist that my take is the one that will be borne out. Those who think that theirs is are good for a chuckle.
    I have not "take" on the amendments violated in this video. They are clearly written. I have no opinion, it is what it is. You have a right to bear arms and a right to not be searched with our warrant issued upon probably cause.

    Close....
    We use the word former marine, but once a marine always a marine. So no....not close. He did take an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states against ALL ENEMIES! He is a Marine.



    First off, no one said we should "rise up" and revolt. Just throwing that out there, I don't know where that came from.
    Understand if you want to "rise up" against what you perceive as an Unconstitutional law that has not been ruled on by the highest Court of our land, then you are the domestic threat.
    So if one was to rise up to protect the constitution, they would be an enemy of the constitution? O_o

    Don't like the Government and it's laws, great, work to change them. Rise to change them and know that I and others, who still hold to their oath , will stand and oppose you.
    Negative, if you become an enemy to the constitution then you're really not holding your oath to defend it from all enemies. Think about it.

    you can believe a law unconstitutional all you want. Act on it, and the the SCOTUS rules against you.... you go from patriot to criminal in the blink of an eye
    My favorite part. You do all this "believe in the system the system works if you oppose the system I will stand to oppose you, change it if you don't like it! challenge it!" crap, but then you show the truth, that if you dare challenge the proper way and the broken system rules against you, which it will, you are going to be a criminal so you better not do it. You do realize our patriotic founding fathers were these "criminals" you speak of, right? You know they broke laws right?

    So SavageOne I leave you with this:
    How far do we go into violating citizens before we say, "HELL NO, NOT IN MY COUNTRY!" If california passed a law tomorrow that said round up the jews and force them to wear a star on their sleeve would we all be "cool" with it if the cop did such with a smile on his face? Remember, in this scenario it would be under california law.
    I found it interesting that you failed to mention this scenario when you replied. You pretty much said "If it's a passed law I will follow it and oppose anyone who rises against it if it has not been shot down in the courts." Because to you any law is constitutional until the courts shoot it down, you would probably be okay with a "round up the jews" scenario if it was signed into law. It scares me that people like you exist in government. Blind.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    SNIP The Founding Fathers gave the power of deciding whether a law is Constitutional or not to the Supreme Court Of The United States.
    Cite, please. I cannot recall any such power delegated in Article III.

  19. #19
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    COP: "Excuse me, sir. Are you a yard maintenance person or a landscaper?"
    YOU: "Ahh, no sir I'm not."
    COP: "The reason I ask is because I see you are operating a lawnmower out in public."
    YOU: "Yes sir. Am I doing anything illegal?"
    COP: "No, you're fine. I just want to check out your lawnmower... make sure it has all of the required safety gear."
    YOU: "Am I being detained?"
    COP: "Nope. Just want to take a look at your mower."
    .
    .
    .
    .
    COP: "Ok, thanks sir... have a nice day."


    While the officer was certainly a pleasant and non-confrontational appearing individual, his actions still beg the question, "why". Yes it was in California, but we also see this sort of thing in other states and in many cases, the officer(s) are not so "friendly"... some actually abusive (re: the case in Ohio recently).

    LEO's are generally very good at profiling individuals and one would think that would come into play a lot when they see someone OC'ing. The perfect stop for the OC'er is no stop at all. A simple, 'Morning' from the officer or perhaps, "whatcha carrying" to engage a polite and genuine conversation is fine. But I have never been stopped, asked for an ID, or detained so in fact I haven't a clue what might be the outcome of such an incident were it to happen to me (for example, what type of LEO might I have to deal with in terms of attitude and aggressive nature).

    So a big plus for this LEO's demeanor, respect, and friendly nature but along with that, a question of why he bothered to approach the guy in the first place (I know... MWAG calls). Gotta watch out for MWAL call, too (Man With A Lawnmower).
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 08-20-2011 at 07:29 AM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    COP: "Excuse me, sir. Are you a yard maintenance person or a landscaper?"
    YOU: "Ahh, no sir I'm not."
    COP: "The reason I ask is because I see you are operating a lawnmower out in public."
    YOU: "Yes sir. Am I doing anything illegal?"
    COP: "No, you're fine. I just want to check out your lawnmower... make sure it has all of the required safety gear."
    YOU: "Am I being detained?"
    COP: "Nope. Just want to take a look at your mower."
    .
    .
    .
    .
    COP: "Ok, thanks sir... have a nice day."

    ...
    And that officer did something that the officer in the video did not. The lawnmower cop broke the law, going beyond the authority specifically given him by the law. The analogy falls apart on this critical point.

    The law permitting officers to stop carriers is likely unconstitutional, but, until a court says so, I would recommend that all citizens and officers handle themselves in such a civil manner as demonstrated in this video. IMO, the laws in Alabama that bar carry at demonstrations and require permits to OC in a car are unconstitutional. Until they are ruled as such, I will follow them and will praise officers who enforce them in a professional and civil manner. You see, MO doesn't matter. The O of the courts does.

    However, your analogy would be spot on for making the argument that the court should find the law permitting those stops in California to be unconstitutional.

  21. #21
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    And that officer did something that the officer in the video did not. The lawnmower cop broke the law, going beyond the authority specifically given him by the law. The analogy falls apart on this critical point.

    The law permitting officers to stop carriers is likely unconstitutional, but, until a court says so, I would recommend that all citizens and officers handle themselves in such a civil manner as demonstrated in this video. IMO, the laws in Alabama that bar carry at demonstrations and require permits to OC in a car are unconstitutional. Until they are ruled as such, I will follow them and will praise officers who enforce them in a professional and civil manner. You see, MO doesn't matter. The O of the courts does.

    However, your analogy would be spot on for making the argument that the court should find the law permitting those stops in California to be unconstitutional.
    I'm sure you know that my analogy had an air of humor mixed with a slight touch of cynicism in it. The unfortunate thing for those of us who carry is that we do encounter LEO's who overstep their lines of permitted authority and sadly, that can lead to problems for the carrier well beyond the inconvenience of the stop. I would like to see laws in place that punish departments and individuals for usurping the rights of those who carry when it is clear the carrier is abiding by the law. There is no room or place for an LEO's personal beliefs or feelings when it comes to such things.

    Mowing a lawn, be it one's own lawn or that of a business or church, taking a walk, or legally carrying a firearm are not actions which offer grounds for police investigation. When we get to that point, we have a term for it: police state. Of course, there are some states in the country where this environment already exists. I would fear for my life were I to OC in New Jersey for example, based upon comments and remarks I have read on other sites about this very thing (I'm talking OC'ing on your own property).

    Those of us who live in states where this is just not a problem or concern, easily tend to forget that there are places where citizen's rights are more than trampled upon. The citizens themselves are open to "legal" retribution.

    So easy to get lulled into a state of placid tranquility when you're not having to look over your shoulder for the next lit up blue light bar that has your name on it.
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 08-20-2011 at 11:19 AM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Until they are ruled as such, I will follow them and will praise officers who enforce them in a professional and civil manner. You see, MO doesn't matter. The O of the courts does.

    However, your analogy would be spot on for making the argument that the court should find the law permitting those stops in California to be unconstitutional.

    My question still stands! If we as the people go along with laws no matter how unconstitutional they are as long as they haven't been tried in courts will YOU stand by if a law is passed requiring the jews to be rounded up and forced to wear the star? Will you praise the law enforcement officers who enforce the laws?

    This scenario isn't that far out, this crap happened less than a century ago... And people like you sat by and let it happen because well, it was the law and the nazi's were just enforcing the laws.

    If everyone though like you this entire body of land we live on would be called New England, a territory of England itself. But we all don't think like you, and about 200 years ago a few good men spread the word of freedom and people rose up against what the KNEW what wrong. They set up a government with a list of rules to prevent the new government from violating it citizens. Now it is slowly happening throughout the country (ESPECIALLY CA!!!) where everything those guys fought for is wasted and the government IS violating it's citizens. And to a few of you it's totally cool because it is the law now and until someone risk's everything they have to fight it in court you will praise the people who enforce laws violating citizens.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    My question still stands! If we as the people go along with laws no matter how unconstitutional they are as long as they haven't been tried in courts will YOU stand by if a law is passed requiring the jews to be rounded up and forced to wear the star? Will you praise the law enforcement officers who enforce the laws?

    This scenario isn't that far out, this crap happened less than a century ago... And people like you sat by and let it happen because well, it was the law and the nazi's were just enforcing the laws.

    If everyone though like you this entire body of land we live on would be called New England, a territory of England itself. But we all don't think like you, and about 200 years ago a few good men spread the word of freedom and people rose up against what the KNEW what wrong. They set up a government with a list of rules to prevent the new government from violating it citizens. Now it is slowly happening throughout the country (ESPECIALLY CA!!!) where everything those guys fought for is wasted and the government IS violating it's citizens. And to a few of you it's totally cool because it is the law now and until someone risk's everything they have to fight it in court you will praise the people who enforce laws violating citizens.
    Then YOU go to California and become a test case. Until you have put your Liberty on the line, it is hypocritical for you to criticize others for not being willing to challenge a law which may or may not be ultimately ruled unconstitutional.

    I put my ass on the line in Montgomery, challenging the misconception among LE that OC was illegal. Fortunately for me, the Deputy Chief and the City Attorney conceded that their officers were wrong, and, apart from a bit of my time being wasted twice, escaped consequence. Others in my State have not been so lucky. We have two folks convicted of crimes because they OCed. One has been sentenced. The other is awaiting sentencing. Both are being appealed. I ran the same risk they did because I knew that arrest for OC would not only be unconstitutional, it would be unlawful as the laws are currently written.

    I will not challenge what I believe to be an unconstitutional law that has not been ruled as such until and unless I believe that the stakes are high enough. I will not criticize anyone whose judgment as to whether the stakes are high enough or not differs from mine. I will criticize those who claim others are not doing enough (or, in the case of some posters on ALOC, who claim that others are doing too much).

    I also will not criticize an officer for following policy that, in the opinions of some (including me), is unconstitutional--as long as he does so in the manner of the subject officer and only until and unless the policy (and/or the underlying law) are ruled unconstitutional. However, if I feel that the cause is of such magnitude that I should risk my Life or Liberty, then that is my call and no one else's, least of all yours!

    Moving on.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Then YOU go to California and become a test case. Until you have put your Liberty on the line, it is hypocritical for you to criticize others for not being willing to challenge a law which may or may not be ultimately ruled unconstitutional.
    Go to California and become a test case? Dude, I'm not criticizing anyone for not challenging the law, I'm criticizing you guys for "praising" this cop for enforcing laws that are against the constitution he took an oath to support and defend. That is all.


    And I have put my Liberty "on the line." Who said that I didn't?
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  25. #25
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Close....

    "On my honor,
    I will never betray my badge,
    my integrity, my character,
    or the public trust.


    I will always have the courage
    to hold myself and others
    accountable for our actions.


    I will always uphold the Constitution,
    the community,
    and the agency I serve,
    so help me God."

    The oath, of course, assumes 'honor' exists in the taker in the first place.
    Last edited by Gunslinger; 08-21-2011 at 12:20 PM.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

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
  •