Why in large numbers? Why with so many video cameras rolling?

[notalawyer]

Would that be "notalawyer" or "notagraduate"? Your first post was intended to insult me. Each post since then has been attempting to deny that initial intent while continuing to goad. I am left to believe that you are probably a pimply-faced boy who is enjoying hiding behind a keyboard. This conversation has gone too far already and I won't be responding to you anymore.

bye

Your first post was intended to insult me.

The first post was a good natured jibe to point out the obvious. You on the other hand responded with the first insult.

I won't be responding to you anymore.

:monkey

 

[rushcreek2]

Civility is a contagion that can spread rapidly ....once it is passed on...............

Pediatric discourse on the other hand is most appreciated in the nursery.

 

[notalawyer]

Civility is a contagion that can spread rapidly ....once it is passed on...............

Pediatric discourse on the other hand is most appreciated in the nursery.

A modicum of attention to detail would result if far less bandwidth waste and more effective use of the medium.

This is the internet after all, grow up or grow a thicker skin. Feigning hurt feelings is a strategy even my very young grand children are growing out of. :shocker:

Also, a professional can help some folks overcome their delusions of persecution.

 

[bushwacker]

Texas has no practical legal option for OC'ing a modern sidearm.

If the cops can tell this is so blatantly bait, WHY ARE THEY BITING?

didn't see the vid but are they blatantly baiting or blatantly exercising their rights while making a statement that it is ridiculous that we can carry long guns in this states while not allowed to o-carry sidearms of which helps the purpose of this site so, in this way ...yes, it is relevant to ocdo ....guess I best go see the vid before I get my share of the smackdown here.

 

[MAC702]

didn't see the vid but are they blatantly baiting or blatantly exercising their rights while making a statement that it is ridiculous that we can carry long guns in this states while not allowed to o-carry sidearms of which helps the purpose of this site so, in this way ...yes, it is relevant to ocdo ....guess I best go see the vid before I get my share of the smackdown here.

I'd guess the latter. I usually don't watch the videos. I don't like to get angry.

Either way, if the cops thought it was blatant anything and not suspicion of a crime in progress, they were wrong.

 

[rngnckhntr]

Again, there is no such thing as "baiting police". If people want to talk entrapment, then make that argument; but I assure you, activities of LACs could never be considered entrapment.

I have never seen a defense of entrapment that made the case a winner for the defense in any 42 USC 1983 cases ... if you have one to cite, please do.

"Having worked hard to appear suspicious in an armed-and-loaded visit to the park, Embody cannot cry foul after park rangers, to say nothing of passers-by, took the BAIT. The officers stopped him only as long as it took to investigate the legitimacy of the weapon and, at his insistence, bring the supervisor to the park. No Fourth Amendment violation occurred." Embody v Ward 6th Cir. CA Aug. 30, 2012

The Sixth Circuit Federal Court says that baiting is a defense.

 

[OC for ME]

Embody produced a valid permit, but Walsh could not tell whether the firearm qualified as a legal one under state law. “Technically it’s a handgun,” he told Embody, “but I don’t know why you need it out here,” and “I’m pretty sure an AK-47 is not a handgun.” R.22-3 at 3. Uncertain how to proceed, Walsh allowed Embody to continue through the park—for the time being.

:shocker:

Maybe Embody needs to continue the suit and add Walsh to the list. And, the judge wrote this into the opinion and did not even understand the implication of this fact that he wrote into his opinion.

This judge needs to retire and tend to a vegetable garden.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Cute.

But off topic and doesn't contribute to anything in any good way. If anything makes the forum look bad when you use slander like "thugs" when referring to police. I think your irrelevant, off-topic, bashing posts, are posted about 2-1 compared to your on topic usefull[sic] posts.

WE look like thugs when referring to police? Really?
Want to have a look at the true thuggish behavior then you need go no farther than policeone.com or officer.com.

slamdunc
Your friend didn't get enough hugs when he was a child. His parents probably liked his younger sister more and she got all the attention. When he got his driver's license, he had to drive the family station-wagon to work at Burger King. When his sister turned sixteen, she got a new Mustang and didn't even have a job.

slamdunc
Another poor kid that didn't get enough hugs when he was a child. He feels the need to walk around with a gun strapped to his side in plain view. Maybe now someone will notice him and make him feel important. He regurgitates case-law, and although he may well be within his right to open carry, he is not very bright. Intelligent, yes, but bright--definitely not.

michigan
Do I blame this cop? No, as you stated, people who open carry are often off their rocker so to speak and cause that much more alarm to the innocent public surrounding them. I've been there, it goes against common sense to let some "fruit loop" go without so much as getting their name when ALL they are doing is open carrying and you're getting multiple calls from concerned citizens about a "guy with a gun on his hip".

And how can we ever forget these little gems, directed at one of our own opencarry.org members,

slamdunc
Clearly, the open-carry nut-rider is a tool bag; he needs to get a concealed-carry permit and stop wasting people's time recording contacts and filing lawsuits.

Shush
Reading the court document on this - I would have to say that the judge missed this one. The officer was specifically assigned to this area because it was considered a high crime area. He sees a man walking along in attire that is typical of a thug culture, displaying a pistol on his side. This is reasonable suspicion. He approaches the guy. The guy says "am i being detained?" The officer says no, but i want to speak with you.

The guy refuses to cooperate.
After refusal to cooperate, he eventually asks again if he is detained - to which the officer says yes.

At that point, I can see the officer's POV. He was simply being asked questions to clear up a matter, which he refused to answer - indicating the guy had no desire to clear up the matter at all. Now that is sketchy behavior, in a high crime area.

So effectively - the judge has made it impossible for the police to be proactive in preventing crime in this area. They are simply to be reactive. Wait for the crime to occur instead of trying to prevent crime.

I wonder how long before the jackleg uses his gun because there are no cops around in his high crime area? I just hope when it happens, the lawyers go after him like they do officers trying to do their jobs.

Note, please, his reasoning: "The guy" refusing to cooperate provides reasonable suspicion of criminality (as we all know, the Supreme Court has ruled that a detention can only be made when there is a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminality.)
"... attire that is typical of a thug culture..." Pure, out and out balderdash. The member is our own BigToe416. Feel free to contact him and inquire what his "thuggish" clothing was; I did.

Sush
By him being uncooperative with the police, who are just trying to confirm he is not a lunatic, he has successfully created a precedent. Now, reasonable suspicion is no longer valid.

I am glad in your area, all of the bad guys carry signs detailing what they have done or are about to do. In the real world though, you have to look for suspicious behavior and totality of circumstances.

Apparently, not answering questions you are not required to answer invalidates the protections of the Fourth Amendment. By not answering you have Created reasonable suspicion.


Yeah, tell us again how we're the ones doing the "bashing", please.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

"Having worked hard to appear suspicious in an armed-and-loaded visit to the park, Embody cannot cry foul after park rangers, to say nothing of passers-by, took the BAIT. The officers stopped him only as long as it took to investigate the legitimacy of the weapon and, at his insistence, bring the supervisor to the park. No Fourth Amendment violation occurred." Embody v Ward 6th Cir. CA Aug. 30, 2012

The Sixth Circuit Federal Court says that baiting is a defense.

As our friends with the shiny badges and fancy car graphics say, "you have to look at the totality of the circumstances". Embody went out of his way, far out of his way to appear suspicious; that differs from someone going about their day to day business with the only distinguishing characteristic being a visible firearm.

As the Supreme Court ruled in Terry v. Ohio, perfectly legal behavior can be suspicioius. In Terry, the suspicious behavior was looking in to a shop window, something that millions of people do on a a daily basis and it's not in the least suspicious.
In Terry, Terry and his associate Chilton looked into a shop window
... and then did it a second time
... and then did it a third time
... and then did it a fourth time
... and then did it a fifth time
... and then did it a sixth time
... and then did it a seventh time
... and then did it a eighth time
... and then did it a ninth time
... and then did it a tenth time
... and then did it a eleventh time. All in all Terry and Chilton made a dozen trips to stare through that window and then had a conversation with a third party.

Any single one of those peeks in the window was not suspicious, nor was a meeting with a third party. However in the totality of the circumstances it did properly provide a reasonable suspicion of criminal intent which Detective McFadden was able to articulate.

 

[Primus]

WE look like thugs when referring to police? Really?
Want to have a look at the true thuggish behavior then you need go no farther than policeone.com or officer.com.






And how can we ever forget these little gems, directed at one of our own opencarry.org members,



Note, please, his reasoning: "The guy" refusing to cooperate provides reasonable suspicion of criminality (as we all know, the Supreme Court has ruled that a detention can only be made when there is a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminality.)
"... attire that is typical of a thug culture..." Pure, out and out balderdash. The member is our own BigToe416. Feel free to contact him and inquire what his "thuggish" clothing was; I did.




Apparently, not answering questions you are not required to answer invalidates the protections of the Fourth Amendment. By not answering you have Created reasonable suspicion.


Yeah, tell us again how we're the ones doing the "bashing", please.

Lol listen you can troll Leo sites all you want to pluck bad quotes. There are literally thousand in my state alone and your pulling 6 quotes from one guy? And he was just being honest to what he thought. So be it keep trolling. Other guys have done much more to actually contribute and discuss it rationally. Good luck and be safe my friend.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[OC for ME]

Lol listen you can troll Leo sites all you want to pluck bad quotes. There are literally thousand in my state alone and your pulling 6 quotes from one guy? And he was just being honest to what he thought. So be it keep trolling. Other guys have done much more to actually contribute and discuss it rationally. Good luck and be safe my friend.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

The job of a cop is to investigate crimes that are alleged to have been committed, investigate crimes that may be in progress. Those cops know that LGOC is not unlawful. The DA knows that LGOC is not unlawful. Those citizens were not baiting anyone. Those cops intentionally violated the law in the first case and violated those citizen's rights in the second place. You advocate that the behavior, acts and attitudes displayed by those cops are reasonable. You see no issue with some cops detaining citizen's engaged in lawful activity in the name of public safety. This is not unexpected from you. There is no reasonable test to be taken in the op. Those cops were wrong and violated the law, department policy (I hope), and individual rights. Their actions are a affront to liberty and they rightly deserve the moniker of thug(s).

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Lol listen you can troll Leo sites all you want to pluck bad quotes. There are literally thousand in my state alone and your pulling 6 quotes from one guy? And he was just being honest to what he thought. So be it keep trolling. Other guys have done much more to actually contribute and discuss it rationally. Good luck and be safe my friend.

"...he was just being honest to what he thought." Yet when a member is just being honest about what he thinks, suddenly he's 'bashing'. There's a certain group of people who need to start putting on their big boy pants in the morning instead of acting like spoiled, special children.

Here's a thought you can take back to your pals, "Your attitude towards us is reflected in our attitude towards you. When you behave better, you'll earn our respect. Until then, you deserve all the respect, or lack of, that you've earned."

 

[WalkingWolf]

"...he was just being honest to what he thought." Yet when a member is just being honest about what he thinks, suddenly he's 'bashing'. There's a certain group of people who need to start putting on their big boy pants in the morning instead of acting like spoiled, special children.

Here's a thought you can take back to your pals, "Your attitude towards us is reflected in our attitude towards you. When you behave better, you'll earn our respect. Until then, you deserve all the respect, or lack of, that you've earned."

+1

And funny he doesn't see that he is the one trolling on a site that is opposite to what he ascribes.

BTW reading dumbarse posts is not trolling, it is educating oneself to the blights on society.

 

[Primus]

"...he was just being honest to what he thought." Yet when a member is just being honest about what he thinks, suddenly he's 'bashing'. There's a certain group of people who need to start putting on their big boy pants in the morning instead of acting like spoiled, special children.

Here's a thought you can take back to your pals, "Your attitude towards us is reflected in our attitude towards you. When you behave better, you'll earn our respect. Until then, you deserve all the respect, or lack of, that you've earned."

Will do thanks for the advice.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Primus]

+1

And funny he doesn't see that he is the one trolling on a site that is opposite to what he ascribes.

BTW reading dumbarse posts is not trolling, it is educating oneself to the blights on society.

You have no idea what I ascribe. And I guess repeadetly reading the inflammatory nonsense you spew isn't me trolling... " its educating oneself to the blights on society".

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[ixtow]

OCing rifles and baiting Police.

There's no such thing as baiting. You can't get a person to do something they are not already pre-disposed to doing wihtout durress... Such a tired, pathetic argument.

If you hate your rights, that's fine. But mocking people who have more courage than you, even if it is misplaced, only exposes your own cowardice.

EDIT: Pardon my response, I didn't realize there was a new clown on the forum... Ignored.