Positive Stop recorded and Shared Online

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Schlitz said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

NavyLCDR said:

Close....

[h=3]"On my honor,
I will never betray my badge,
my integrity, my character,
or the public trust.[/h][h=3]I will always have the courage
to hold myself and others
accountable for our actions.[/h][h=3]I will always uphold the Constitution,
the community,
and the agency I serve,
so help me God."[/h]

Click to expand...

The oath, of course, assumes 'honor' exists in the taker in the first place.

Schlitz said:

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.

Click to expand...

"People like you" is an unproven and uncalled for remark. While I am certainly no stranger to pointing out analogous scenarios to nazi Germany, I don't believe eye--anymore than "I," would blithely sit back and watch decent people, Jews or otherwise, rounded up and sent to death camps. Even in Germany, many fought against it--some of whom have their names inscribed in the Jewish book of "Righteous Gentiles" in Israel. Including one of my relatives. And eye, like "I," swore an oath that has no expiration date. I do agree with your last paragraph. And always believed "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Gunslinger said:

"People like you" is an unproven and uncalled for remark. While I am certainly no stranger to pointing out analogous scenarios to nazi Germany, I don't believe eye--anymore than "I," would blithely sit back and watch decent people, Jews or otherwise, rounded up and sent to death camps. Even in Germany, many fought against it--some of whom have their names inscribed in the Jewish book of "Righteous Gentiles" in Israel. Including one of my relatives. And eye, like "I," swore an oath that has no expiration date. I do agree with your last paragraph. And always believed "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Click to expand...

Thank you. That remark of his prompted the rebuke I gave him which only prompted a pathetic denial. It's OK. I moved on.

eye95 said:

Thank you. That remark of his prompted the rebuke I gave him which only prompted a pathetic denial. It's OK. I moved on.

Click to expand...

Denial of what? You don't make any sense.

"People like you" isn't the same thing as name calling guys. People like you means, people who are like you.... what is so offensive about that? People who think like you were the ones who stood by as the red coats did whatever they wanted because it was with in the law. People with the same mindset of if it is legal then we must obey it, like you, stood by while the jews got shoved into ghettos. It isn't name calling, it is an observation. I think if anything is pathetic it is is praising police officers for violating the constitution as long as they have a smile on their face and it is within "the law." That's pathetic. These violations of the constitution and the citizens of the United States cannot take place without people like this law enforcement officer. Because of PEOPLE LIKE HIM, it is possible to violate We The People, because of PEOPLE LIKE YOU he probably thinks he did a good thing that day and went home with a big grin on his face and that man's 4th Amendment Rights stuck to the bottom of his boot.


EDIT:
Would Mel Gibson say this cop was in the right?


I think not...

Schlitz said:

Denial of what? You don't make any sense.

"People like you" isn't the same thing as name calling guys. People like you means, people who are like you.... what is so offensive about that? People who think like you were the ones who stood by as the red coats did whatever they wanted because it was with in the law. People with the same mindset of if it is legal then we must obey it, like you, stood by while the jews got shoved into ghettos. It isn't name calling, it is an observation. I think if anything is pathetic it is is praising police officers for violating the constitution as long as they have a smile on their face and it is within "the law." That's pathetic. These violations of the constitution and the citizens of the United States cannot take place without people like this law enforcement officer. Because of PEOPLE LIKE HIM, it is possible to violate We The People, because of PEOPLE LIKE YOU he probably thinks he did a good thing that day and went home with a big grin on his face and that man's 4th Amendment Rights stuck to the bottom of his boot.


EDIT:
Would Mel Gibson say this cop was in the right?

I think not...

Click to expand...

Nice picture. I agree with you 100% that PDR laws--if challenged, which they more and more are being, would be tossed as unconstitutional. But, as of this date, they are not. They are despicable because of what Kalifornia has become, but as yet unchallenged, are still the law. And I have posted time and again my opinion of the e-stop to check for unloaded as pure and utter crap. But, if the cop did it due to departmental policy--which is likely, and the unchallenged law is still on the books, he did it in the best way possible. No one who has read my posts will ever call me a cop apologist--and eye and I will never agree in that area, but in this case all that could reasonably be expected was done to the level of that expectation. For those of us who do not reside in the Gulag, we have to take things as they are until the (peaceful) revolution you want happens. That will be a day we all can celebrate, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. Look at whom the fools just elected to the Senate and governorship.

The most correct quotation is as follows below. There is no record of what was actually said the first time it was said, however the author of the remark has acknowledged that the ordering of those for whom "they came" is as in the following quote.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Click to expand...