A facebook post from a local LEO.

[KBCraig]

By what wild definition is an SKS an "assault rifle"?

 

[jaegan]

Sorry, I see nothing like the original post anywhere on his facebook page. Does one need to be on his "friends" list to view his postings?

Most likely yes, and in his line of work, that's probably a good idea on his part.

 

[self preservation]

Sorry, I see nothing like the original post anywhere on his facebook page. Does one need to be on his "friends" list to view his postings?

I bet you do. Hadn't thought about privacy settings. Trust me, it's there.

I guess he made it private in case some a-hole decided to share his post on the internet..:lol:

 

[self preservation]

By what wild definition is an SKS an "assault rifle"?

If I read the post right that is how the call was dispatched to them. Now why someone would call an SKS an "assault rifle" is beyond me.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I would think if someone has a criminal history that's probable cause to stop him if he's armed near government offices....

as far as slander, if everything the officer says about that guy is true, it's not slander. criminal history in which the police got involved is public record, anyone can search for police reports with his name or conviction records at the court house and recieve it, so it's not private information, unless the offenses were as a juvenile and tried in juvenile court. even then, doubtful any laws were broken.

guess what, if you don't want to the po-po to tell your friends you're a petty criminal who sponges off everyone else's labor via the welfare system, then you can always choose not to be a petty criminal sponging off the state, or at least be a low level petty criminal sponging off the state who keeps a low profile in public.

and a welfare cheat with a semi auto rifle? yeah sounds like the taxpayers money is absolutely essential to him and without it he'll go hungry and starve to death........ I think he can be mandated to sell some substantial assets (ie the rifle) before recieving another payment...

 

[WalkingWolf]

As far as documents of the incident....all calls to PD and all PD radio traffic is recorded. If you really want the details call the PD at 859-745-7403 and do an open records request for this incident.

Give us the case number and I would be happy to. Also seeing the officer is a public servant it would help the hearsay if we know exactly who we are talking about. BTW you have been here long enough to know that when you make a claim, it is up to YOU to back it up. It is insulting to the rest of members to expect them to do your due diligence for you.

 

[WalkingWolf]

That appears to be a link to the cop's facebook page. I was thinking a link to the letter.......

Thanks in advance.

It appears so, I will just call the dept and ask them to investigate his postings.

 

[self preservation]

Give us the case number and I would be happy to. Also seeing the officer is a public servant it would help the hearsay if we know exactly who we are talking about. BTW you have been here long enough to know that when you make a claim, it is up to YOU to back it up. It is insulting to the rest of members to expect them to do your due diligence for you.

So before I share a general post I have to provide a case number, the names of all parties involved, audio recording of all phone calls and radio traffic, recorded statements from all involved parties, etc?

I shared a post made by a local LEO for discussion. A post in his own words. His point of view. What more do I need to provide with this?

 

[WalkingWolf]

So before I share a general post I have to provide a case number, the names of all parties involved, audio recording of all phone calls and radio traffic, recorded statements from all involved parties, etc?

I shared a post made by a local LEO for discussion. A post in his own words. His point of view. What more do I need to provide with this?

You know how it works around here. You posted hearsay, from a person making a claim on their facebook account. With absolutely nothing to back it up. There are policies within almost every department for divulging personal information, and that includes making accusations online. What he said could be true, or it may not be true. He had no business ignoring department policy, and stirring a hornets nest.

You should stop and think, who knows what he is saying about you, since you do open carry.

 

[Big Daddy XD]

Your idea of "common sense" may be my idea of tyranny. That's the reason we have written laws and a written constitution. Government officials don't get to make it up on the fly to suit their whims and moods. I want my wife and my children to live in a free society, without undo harassment from the government. No matter what this guys past reputation, he still has rights and he was engaged in lawful activity. He must not be too bad a character if he can still legally own a gun. Just because this LEO doesn't like this citizen or his life style doesn't give him authority to bully him, insult him or to disrespect him. If the LEO wants to "assess the situation" from a short distance, that's fine. If he wants a consensual encounter, that alright. Anything further is none of his business. He certainly doesn't have any business giving unsolicited advice on conduct or spouting off about anyone's private personal history or reputation. That could rise to the level of slander and if he posts it on social media, could be libel. Nice "common sense" activities for a public servant. You say you're "pro citizen". I guess, that just doesn't extend to this "citizen", you pick and choose them. Apparently, this LEO does, too. Rights are for everybody, even if they break the law. Even rude, offensive, unlikeable, distastful people have them, not just your buddies and those you agree with. In fact, those people need protecting the most.

Maybe your idea of tyranny needs readjusting. I am also willing to bet that if your wife and child had, god forbidden, got injured or killed by this guy because he was there to do harm and no leo responded or just did a drive by that you'd be raising holy hell because they didn't stop him. It seems to me that all anyone cares about is the government leaving them alone until they do and something bad happens then their suing them for not protecting them instead of suing them for getting in their way.

Are there leo's who overstep their bounds and push their so called authority around? YES! Are there times when its obvious that oc'ers are doing nothing wrong and don't deserve to be stopped? YES! Are there times when oc'ers are pushing their authority around just looking for a fight and making the rest of us look bad in the process? YES! However I will stand by my initial statement that if hes a known criminal in front of a courthouse or school, or walking down a deserted road in the middle of no where with a AK slung across his back (cause I'm sure his neighborhood is so bad that he needs and AK for self protection when he goes for a walk) he needs to be stopped so the situation can be assessed.

This is my opinion. You are entitled to yours. However skewed it may be.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

So before I share a general post I have to provide a case number, the names of all parties involved, audio recording of all phone calls and radio traffic, recorded statements from all involved parties, etc?

I shared a post made by a local LEO for discussion. A post in his own words. His point of view. What more do I need to provide with this?

No need for a pedigree to make a general post that you formulated. When referencing a controversial Facebook post from what could be deemed a loose predatory adversary, it's not asking too much to have some more evidence than hearsay. You know; Who, What, Where, When, Why and the source.

 

[self preservation]

No need for a pedigree to make a general post that you formulated. When referencing a controversial Facebook post from what could be deemed a loose predatory adversary, it's not asking too much to have some more evidence than hearsay. You know; Who, What, Where, When, Why and the source.

How do I give more evidence?? I shared a link to his page where the comment was made. Other than that how could I possibly obtain and provide the Who, What, Where, When and Why? I wasn't there at the OC event. It didn't make the front page of the paper. I copy and pasted his comment to OCDO to show his views in hopes that we would share our thoughts on his beliefs and the way he supposedly handled the encounter. It seems that you are more concerned about the details of the alleged encounter. Hell, maybe this incident never even took place. Maybe he made the whole damn thing up to show how he could have outsmarted a bunch of OC'ers. The intent of my post wasn't for us to play "mythbuster" on the details of what really happened and who really said and did what, but rather to offer the insight of a LEO in regards to OC. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

 

[self preservation]

You know how it works around here. You posted hearsay, from a person making a claim on their facebook account. With absolutely nothing to back it up. There are policies within almost every department for divulging personal information, and that includes making accusations online. What he said could be true, or it may not be true. He had no business ignoring department policy, and stirring a hornets nest.

You should stop and think, who knows what he is saying about you, since you do open carry.

He made the claim. I just shared it. I have nothing to back it up. Can you really "back up" everything that you post? I doubt it. As far as him violating a policy...that's his problem and no where close to why I shared his comment in the first place. There is a reason that I don't post pictures of myself drunk off my a$$ while in a uniform shirt...because it would get me fired. If he posted something that he shouldn't have, he can deal with it. As far as him saying something about me because I OC... who cares as long as he doesn't slander me? But he never mentioned names so I don't see how this could be the case.

 

[WalkingWolf]

How do I give more evidence?? I shared a link to his page where the comment was made. Other than that how could I possibly obtain and provide the Who, What, Where, When and Why? I wasn't there at the OC event. It didn't make the front page of the paper. I copy and pasted his comment to OCDO to show his views in hopes that we would share our thoughts on his beliefs and the way he supposedly handled the encounter. It seems that you are more concerned about the details of the alleged encounter. Hell, maybe this incident never even took place. Maybe he made the whole damn thing up to show how he could have outsmarted a bunch of OC'ers. The intent of my post wasn't for us to play "mythbuster" on the details of what really happened and who really said and did what, but rather to offer the insight of a LEO in regards to OC. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

And we are sharing out thoughts, but it still is hearsay until something more is provided to back it up. So far I smell Bovine Scatology from someone.

 

[self preservation]

And we are sharing out thoughts, but it still is hearsay until something more is provided to back it up. So far I smell Bovine Scatology from someone.

I have provided all that I can provide. If I were able to provide more, I would. Let me ask you this, if I copy and pasted a negative OC comment from my local mechanic, would we be so critical to get hardcore, concrete evidence that the mechanic actually said/did what he claims?

I doubt it. More likely we would be seeing "don't do business with that anti, take your car elsewhere" or "lets see if he is so anti-OC when his shop gets robbed"...etc etc...

I understand that a LEO acting under the color of authority is way different than an anti mechanic, but damn, ease up on me. I have gave all that I can give. I promise that I am not withholding information.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I have provided all that I can provide. If I were able to provide more, I would. Let me ask you this, if I copy and pasted a negative OC comment from my local mechanic, would we be so critical to get hardcore, concrete evidence that the mechanic actually said/did what he claims?

I doubt it. More likely we would be seeing "don't do business with that anti, take your car elsewhere" or "lets see if he is so anti-OC when his shop gets robbed"...etc etc...

I understand that a LEO acting under the color of authority is way different than an anti mechanic, but damn, ease up on me. I have gave all that I can give. I promise that I am not withholding information.

You posted a post from a LEO(hearsay) about a event that took place, not casual conversation. That letter you posted went on to slander an individual, and the OC community without a shred of proof, other than a facebook page THAT no one can see.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

I have provided all that I can provide. If I were able to provide more, I would. Let me ask you this, if I copy and pasted a negative OC comment from my local mechanic, would we be so critical to get hardcore, concrete evidence that the mechanic actually said/did what he claims?

I doubt it. More likely we would be seeing "don't do business with that anti, take your car elsewhere" or "lets see if he is so anti-OC when his shop gets robbed"...etc etc...

I understand that a LEO acting under the color of authority is way different than an anti mechanic, but damn, ease up on me. I have gave all that I can give. I promise that I am not withholding information.

What separates your original post from gossip mongering?

I read here a lot more than I post. I've yet to see WW post information on an incident that was anecdotal, and if he did, I'll bet he acknowledged that it was only anecdotal.

People like to share stories about things that happened to them, or that they heard about, to make a point. That kind of talk is anecdotal: based on small, personal accounts and retelling of stories. Anecdotal stories are helpful when you're trying to give an example of something, but there's a downside to anecdotal information: since it’s not based on facts, you never know if you can totally trust it. So it's best to go beyond the anecdotal and give more solid information.

On this forum, especially on this topic [rogue police], anecdotal tales can have a similar result as throwing a pint of gas on a campfire. There will be a predictable reaction. By doing due diligence, [you found the story. Do enough investigation to give it some merit, and means for readers to follow up] you can throw out a bone with some meat on it for people here to chew on. Or, submit the equivalent of a pint of gas dropped on the campfire. Expect a few to unhappy with the latter.

 

[kurt555gs]

If this came from Facebook, it must be true.

Carthago Delenda Est

 

[WalkingWolf]

If this came from Facebook, it must be true.

Carthago Delenda Est

LOL!

Well my first thought it was a cop wannabe, because I would hope most cops would be smarter than to air their BS on facebook. It has in the past cost several police officers their job. Now that I know it was a actual cop I still have a problem with the claims that a OCer is a common crook out for attention. IMO that would be the last thing a crook would want, so it leaves the question, is there actually a arrest and conviction record to backup this officer. If not IMO he should be fired, he violated policy and brought discredit to the department and himself. Does not seem like the type of person I would trust. I wish I could see the facebook for myself, but I can't. The odd part of this is the OP, a open carry, is friends with this guy, and as a friend he put up a post that might cause him some grief. If it was my friend, and I doubt he would be, I would have contacted him privately to hopefully reason with him.

 

[boomer92266]

I'm going to say that if the guy is a known criminal with multiple trips through the system then the cop had every right to approach him and assess the situation. Why wouldn't he? If your spouse or child worked at that court house and someone was outside with a AK who is a repeat offender wouldn't you want someone to see if he was there to do harm or good? I sure would.

Now I know I'm going to take some bashing for this post and that's OK. I'm a big boy I can handle it but come on people......use some common sense. He didn't ask questions at gun point. He didn't ask for ID. He didn't detain anyone. He didn't take the weapon, or even touch it.

I'm pro 2A, pro citizens rights but I'm also pro common sense..................

I agree 100%, I don't believe anything is wrong with a law officer checking someone carrying and that includes me.