HankT
State Researcher
imported post
OK, OK.
Everyone share....
OK, OK.
Everyone share....
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
HERE IT IS - 1st Norfolk Incident
- Thread starter danbus
- Start date
Ghettokracker71
Regular Member
imported post
JeffersonDavis wrote:
JeffersonDavis wrote:
I'd bet hes the first douchebag doughnut eating peice of shit LEO to stop and unlawfully harrass a legal citizen
JeffersonDavis
Regular Member
imported post
HankT wrote:
HankT wrote:
I call the SweeTarts!OK, OK.
Everyone share....
Ghettokracker71
Regular Member
imported post
haha snowcaps for me:shock:
haha snowcaps for me:shock:
JeffersonDavis
Regular Member
imported post
Ghettokracker71 wrote:
Ghettokracker71 wrote:
Sad.....but, true.....
imported post
Ghettokracker71 wrote:
Get off your 4th amendment high horse.
He made a poor decision and he knew the sirens were for him. He even said he "who cares" and "oh there they are" like it was no big deal the cops were running code to get to his location.
If you strap on a rifle and walk into a playground.... your going to get the same response. People kill people and they use guns that they are allowed to have based on the 4th amendment.
It may be legal to carry a rifle into a playground full of kids.. but you should also expectthe police pay you a visit.
Ghettokracker71 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:Your not asking a man to not enjoy the very rights that your forefathers gave their lifes for him to enjoy. What an ignorant, asshole.taurusfan wrote:I don't see how open carrying and having a hat that says Black Man with a Gun is not suspicious enough to warrant a police intervention?
The policeman coming upon Dan had no idea if he was INSANE and going to shoot someone.
The subtlety of Dan's intellectual argument is reasonably hard to grasp given the circumstances!
The guards called the police.... Dan was in front of a bank building with a gun.He alsohas a hat titled"Black man with a gun"
The police take men, at banks, with guns.... SERIOUSLY!
Sorry you got cuffed for 6 minutes but you knew they were coming and did not even care. You KNEW they were coming there for you. Did you expect a handshake with them using sirens?
Dan... I like you but it was stupid to do and you learned a lesson. If you needed to get out of the heat you could have left the gun in the car and sat on the bank steps.
Get off your 4th amendment high horse.
He made a poor decision and he knew the sirens were for him. He even said he "who cares" and "oh there they are" like it was no big deal the cops were running code to get to his location.
If you strap on a rifle and walk into a playground.... your going to get the same response. People kill people and they use guns that they are allowed to have based on the 4th amendment.
It may be legal to carry a rifle into a playground full of kids.. but you should also expectthe police pay you a visit.
JeffersonDavis
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
And if no crime is committed..............invent one, right?Ghettokracker71 wrote:LEO 229 wrote:Your not asking a man to not enjoy the very rights that your forefathers gave their lifes for him to enjoy. What an ignorant, asshole.taurusfan wrote:I don't see how open carrying and having a hat that says Black Man with a Gun is not suspicious enough to warrant a police intervention?
The policeman coming upon Dan had no idea if he was INSANE and going to shoot someone.
The subtlety of Dan's intellectual argument is reasonably hard to grasp given the circumstances!
The guards called the police.... Dan was in front of a bank building with a gun.He alsohas a hat titled"Black man with a gun"
The police take men, at banks, with guns.... SERIOUSLY!
Sorry you got cuffed for 6 minutes but you knew they were coming and did not even care. You KNEW they were coming there for you. Did you expect a handshake with them using sirens?
Dan... I like you but it was stupid to do and you learned a lesson. If you needed to get out of the heat you could have left the gun in the car and sat on the bank steps.
Get off your 4th amendment high horse.
He made a poor decision and he knew the sirens were for him. He even said he "who cares" and "oh there they are" like it was no big deal the cops were running code to get to his location.
If you strap on a rifle and walk into a playground.... your going to get the same response. People kill people and they use guns that they are allowed to have based on the 4th amendment.
It may be legal to carry a rifle into a playground full of kids.. but you should also expectthe police pay you a visit.
Ghettokracker71
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
p.s. I fail to see a rifle,or kids or a playground.
p.s.s. DAN SHOULD NOT HAVE CARED THAT COPS WERE COMING, the ONLY,repeat ONLY reason dan should have cared the LEOs were coming is if he was in violation of the law. See? The difference is, Dan knows how to follow laws,while the men with the badges, donot.
You,as a LEO cannot handle the fact that...
Dan=following the law 100%.
LEOs=Unlawful , ignorant, and absolutely no integrity whatsoever.
LEO 229 wrote:
Okay,lets take a minute to discuss things in YOUR own langauge. As you state "pay a visit", I see nowhere in your lingo about harrassing and unlawfully searching him? I don't see you talking about the LEOs breaking the law? How is following the 'rules' or 'laws' a poor decision? GOD FORBID SOMEBODY FOLLOWS THE LAWS. Get off your LEO self-rightous high horse and admit the officers were wrong in how they treated this very respectable young man.Ghettokracker71 wrote:LEO 229 wrote:Your not asking a man to not enjoy the very rights that your forefathers gave their lifes for him to enjoy. What an ignorant, asshole.taurusfan wrote:I don't see how open carrying and having a hat that says Black Man with a Gun is not suspicious enough to warrant a police intervention?
The policeman coming upon Dan had no idea if he was INSANE and going to shoot someone.
The subtlety of Dan's intellectual argument is reasonably hard to grasp given the circumstances!
The guards called the police.... Dan was in front of a bank building with a gun.He alsohas a hat titled"Black man with a gun"
The police take men, at banks, with guns.... SERIOUSLY!
Sorry you got cuffed for 6 minutes but you knew they were coming and did not even care. You KNEW they were coming there for you. Did you expect a handshake with them using sirens?
Dan... I like you but it was stupid to do and you learned a lesson. If you needed to get out of the heat you could have left the gun in the car and sat on the bank steps.
Get off your 4th amendment high horse.
He made a poor decision and he knew the sirens were for him. He even said he "who cares" and "oh there they are" like it was no big deal the cops were running code to get to his location.
If you strap on a rifle and walk into a playground.... your going to get the same response. People kill people and they use guns that they are allowed to have based on the 4th amendment.
It may be legal to carry a rifle into a playground full of kids.. but you should also expectthe police pay you a visit.
p.s. I fail to see a rifle,or kids or a playground.
p.s.s. DAN SHOULD NOT HAVE CARED THAT COPS WERE COMING, the ONLY,repeat ONLY reason dan should have cared the LEOs were coming is if he was in violation of the law. See? The difference is, Dan knows how to follow laws,while the men with the badges, donot.
You,as a LEO cannot handle the fact that...
Dan=following the law 100%.
LEOs=Unlawful , ignorant, and absolutely no integrity whatsoever.
imported post
JeffersonDavis wrote:
He was in front of the bank... It makes no difference what floor. You can rob it even if is in the second floor.
You have the luxury of sitting back and not being in the line of fire. This is how you can boast that the police were wrong.
I would enjoy seeing how you would handle the situation and then watch you being attacked for your lack of knowledge and understanding. You are so trusting and I guess you see everyone aslaw abiding people.
I know that there are crazy people and criminals out there. You are too blind to see it.
JeffersonDavis wrote:
He was in front of the bank... It makes no difference what floor. You can rob it even if is in the second floor.
You have the luxury of sitting back and not being in the line of fire. This is how you can boast that the police were wrong.
I would enjoy seeing how you would handle the situation and then watch you being attacked for your lack of knowledge and understanding. You are so trusting and I guess you see everyone aslaw abiding people.
I know that there are crazy people and criminals out there. You are too blind to see it.
Ghettokracker71
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
You sir,are too blind to see there a law-abiding citizens out there. How many people that do rob banks walk up,and stand in broad view of the gaurd for however long clearly getting attention from the gaurd on duty before commiting the act vs. using masks, running in there, illegally concealing their weapon, etc. The odds are against him robbing the place.
Bubba Ron
Regular Member
imported post
Ghettokracker71 wrote:
Ghettokracker71 wrote:
That might be "eat a donut"....
JeffersonDavis
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
He could have been in the building and NOT been in violation of ANY law..... He wasn't in a bank.............I would have handled the situation fine. You see I DO have a knowledge and understanding, that's why I would never be hired for a low wage job. For the record I would trust just about everyone until laws were broken. The only one I wouldn't trust is co-workers like you, I bet you really like ruffin'up the old lady's and kids.....
imported post
Ghettokracker71 wrote:
They did not violate ANY laws. We will have to wait and see what the jury says. I highly doubt it will make it that far. What about the IA investigation?
Rifle and playground was used as an example that would get you a similar response. Law abiding? Yes. But how do you know this is not another Kennedy.
Dan did not think he was going to get that type of response. He expected the standard "How you doin'? Got a permit for that?" That might have happened had it not been at a bank.
Lesson learned..... Do not hang out in front of a bank with a gun!! :lol:
Ghettokracker71 wrote:
They did not violate ANY laws. We will have to wait and see what the jury says. I highly doubt it will make it that far. What about the IA investigation?
Rifle and playground was used as an example that would get you a similar response. Law abiding? Yes. But how do you know this is not another Kennedy.
Dan did not think he was going to get that type of response. He expected the standard "How you doin'? Got a permit for that?" That might have happened had it not been at a bank.
Lesson learned..... Do not hang out in front of a bank with a gun!! :lol:
Ghettokracker71
Regular Member
imported post
I can understand if they showed up and POLITELY asked him why he was there,and asked him to leave or to put his weapon in the car while waiting for a friend, THEN if he didnt cooperate to take further action.
I can understand if they showed up and POLITELY asked him why he was there,and asked him to leave or to put his weapon in the car while waiting for a friend, THEN if he didnt cooperate to take further action.
Ghettokracker71
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
Did dan consent to the seach they did? NO? OH that means they did break a law. Unless one just passed about 5 minutes ago,thats unlawful mr. leo. Do some research,apparently your training is outdated.... Dan shouldn't have to think he was getting that responce,because like me, I expecet honest officers,not thug ones that make up their own rules. Got apermit for what? Why would a LEO ask for a permit? He was OCing not CCing, did you happen to forget OC requires no permit.
Lesson learned....donot follow the law around cops that donot follow the law for themselves...
LEO 229 wrote:
Did dan consent to the seach they did? NO? OH that means they did break a law. Unless one just passed about 5 minutes ago,thats unlawful mr. leo. Do some research,apparently your training is outdated.... Dan shouldn't have to think he was getting that responce,because like me, I expecet honest officers,not thug ones that make up their own rules. Got apermit for what? Why would a LEO ask for a permit? He was OCing not CCing, did you happen to forget OC requires no permit.
Lesson learned....donot follow the law around cops that donot follow the law for themselves...
imported post
Ghettokracker71 wrote:
Sorry.. Your deceased now. thanks for playing touchy feely cop. :lol:
You would not make it in my job... You would be killed your first day. Not everyone out there is law abiding.
Ghettokracker71 wrote:
You lose the tactical advantage. He draws and shoots you and his partners run out of the bank.
Sorry.. Your deceased now. thanks for playing touchy feely cop. :lol:
You would not make it in my job... You would be killed your first day. Not everyone out there is law abiding.
Ghettokracker71
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Yep, not every officer knows how to follow the law, you are corect. Not everybody is law abiding.
SIGguy229
Regular Member
imported post
Question: If Dan decided to get in his car and drive off (for whatever reason--tired of waiting etc)--then it would have been a felony stop, because only guilty people run, right? Then the police officers would have probable cause?
I'm just wondering where the line is between minding your business and obeying the law, and being "interviewed"/jacked up by the policewhen you are not breaking the law. Why should we "expect" to harassed?
But, take the scenario another way--if police officers were running with sirens and lights, and pull up on the scene and find Dan standing there vs having *his* gun drawn, don't you think common sense would lean towards "this is another guy legally open carrying"? Does it really dictate a search?
Seriously...I'm curious...
Question: If Dan decided to get in his car and drive off (for whatever reason--tired of waiting etc)--then it would have been a felony stop, because only guilty people run, right? Then the police officers would have probable cause?
I'm just wondering where the line is between minding your business and obeying the law, and being "interviewed"/jacked up by the policewhen you are not breaking the law. Why should we "expect" to harassed?
But, take the scenario another way--if police officers were running with sirens and lights, and pull up on the scene and find Dan standing there vs having *his* gun drawn, don't you think common sense would lean towards "this is another guy legally open carrying"? Does it really dictate a search?
Seriously...I'm curious...
imported post
Ghettokracker71 wrote:
He knew exactly what was happening. He did not expect his being there to be taken that serious. Now he knows not to mess around in front of a bank.
This is what many post here "How you doin'? Got a permit for that?"
I am well aware...
Ghettokracker71 wrote:
The LEO can check him for additional weapons.
He knew exactly what was happening. He did not expect his being there to be taken that serious. Now he knows not to mess around in front of a bank.
This is what many post here "How you doin'? Got a permit for that?"
I am well aware...