open carry and cops

[Fallschirjmäger]

No. I do get the feeling they're more confrontational about it, however.

I see people who refuse to roll over on their backs and pee themselves like little puppies.
I haven't seen anyone on here confronting officers.... correcting them and stating what the law says, is another thing.

 

[Kivuli]

I see people who refuse to roll over on their backs and pee themselves like little puppies.
I haven't seen anyone on here confronting officers.... correcting them and stating what the law says, is another thing.

I see people (not all, and not even the majority) who are needlessly antagonistic in their method for doing so. Everything has to be a fight for those individuals. Everything has to be raise our hackles and hiss and spit to show them we're not submissive little puppies (as you put it).

 

[Otto Schreck]

I see people (not all, and not even the majority) who are needlessly antagonistic in their method for doing so. Everything has to be a fight for those individuals. Everything has to be raise our hackles and hiss and spit to show them we're not submissive little puppies (as you put it).

Very well put.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Antagonistic?

But open-carry is different, he adds. For example, a law enforcement officer openly carries a weapon for its “intimidation factor. In law enforcement, that’s the message you send.”

That is confrontational
That is antagonistic
That is not serving the people

That we resist such (expletive deleted) is a point in our favor, not theirs.

 

[Kivuli]

antagonistic?

That is confrontational
that is antagonistic
that is not serving the people

that we resist such (expletive deleted) is a point in our favor, not theirs.

QED. The vitriol in this post is astounding.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

QED. The vitriol in this post is astounding.

Vitriol? My dear sir, I must humbly suggest you have no idea of the meaning of the word. If I may beg your indulgence, I will supply a few examples of vitriol......




EDIT: My mistake, not 'former' Officer, FIRED officer.



... and these are the "good guys"?

 

[Kivuli]

I assure you that I am well versed in the meanings of "vitriol". The preceding post is rife with it. Both of the type you enumerated and the type you displayed. You needn't show me examples of unprofessional police behavior. Everyone on this forum is aware that they exist. I take exception to insinuations or implications, intended or un-, that all officers are so behaved.

My statement of QED stands.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

I assure you that I am well versed in the meanings of "vitriol". The preceding post is rife with it. Both of the type you enumerated and the type you displayed. You needn't show me examples of unprofessional police behavior. Everyone on this forum is aware that they exist. I take exception to insinuations or implications, intended or un-, that all officers are so behaved.

My statement of QED stands.

"Unprofessional" behavior? How about outright death threats like fired Officer Daniel Harless?
I think that was the first time he threatened murder, and this would be the second

You see anyone on this website using that sort of language, that sort of true vitriol? Are there words of "extreme bitterness and hatred toward somebody or something, or an expression of this feeling in speech or writing" in simply saying we will resist that sort of behavior?

 

[Grapeshot]

In any state an officer can stop you for open carry and ask you for your identification but all you should do is politley surrender the weapon and give him or her your permit and ID an you will be on your way. They have to protect and they have no way of knowing who you are until they do so. The worst thing to do is argue your rights with an Officer in public. If you do it the rite way there will be no accidents. I do not feel it is harrassment unless they will not let you go. Then its another issue all together

Not so in VA and many other states - no probable cause, no reasonable articulated suspicion - would make these extra legal.

Best to know the law before posting such inaccurate statements and be able to cite it.

The SCOTUS has already said that LEOs are not required to protect anyone. Unless I am commiting a crime, they have absolutely no need to know who I am.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

In any state an officer can stop you for open carry and ask you for your identification but all you should do is politley surrender the weapon and give him or her your permit and ID an you will be on your way. They have to protect and they have no way of knowing who you are until they do so. The worst thing to do is argue your rights with an Officer in public. If you do it the rite way there will be no accidents. I do not feel it is harrassment unless they will not let you go. Then its another issue all together

If you had only left it at "In any state an officer can ask you to voluntarily identify yourself or ask you to voluntarily surrender your property" you would have been fine. And correct.
But as I'm sure you are now aware, in most states there is No authority to seize the person, papers, or effects of an individual short of a reasonable articulable suspicion that there is criminal behavior afoot.

 

[JoeSparky]

In any state an officer can stop you for open carry and ask you for your identification but all you should do is politley surrender the weapon and give him or her your permit and ID an you will be on your way. They have to protect and they have no way of knowing who you are until they do so. The worst thing to do is argue your rights with an Officer in public. If you do it the rite way there will be no accidents. I do not feel it is harrassment unless they will not let you go. Then its another issue all together

Yep, LEO can ASK almost anything.... when the LEO starts to demand without justification (RAS, or PC) then he becomes an OEO or OPINION ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. Just because YOU don't feel harassed is just great for YOU. Don't you DARE give away MY rights!

 

[OC for ME]

Well, in fairness I kinda got bushwacked in that department.
I thought I heard a knock on the door when I was already on my way out to the garage to go down to the pistol range. When I opened the garage door I was immediately surrounded and relieved of my personal effects without so much as a "How d'you do." Which was when I asked if I was being detained/arrested, and what charges were being supposed.

Another instance of some cops doing what they do best, 'shoot first' and ask questions later.

A more detailed account of the cops actions and reactions before/after they 'determined' that you were not only the property 'owner' but that you were not some gun crazed killer as reported by the 'contractors. What exactly were their actions? Did they enter into your garage? Did they wait for you exit out of your garage? When you say 'bushwhacked', do you mean they ambushed you from concealment? Did they have their weapons drawn? Did they use physical force to 'control' you?

Were there any consequence for the officer(s) actions? Do the cops down in your neck of the woods routinely do this for a MWAG call? If the cops are in the habit of bushwhacking homeowners, in their garage, because some busybody calls in a MWAG. Should your neck of the woods be avoided at all costs because of this habit to bushwhack property owners who happen to be armed? Heck, do they do this if they happen to drive by and see a visibly armed citizen' on any private property?

Should your local LEA be called out publicly for their heavy handed approach to citizens armed on their own property (how could they know you were the owner, some may ask)? BS, if the cops are going to enter onto private property for a MWAG call, there is a BIG problem in your neck of the woods. Do the cops handle MWAG calls differently on public property?

What happened to the contractors that filed a false report?

Did anything happen to the contractors that filed a false report?

Can anything happen to the contractors that filed the false report?

These juicy tidbits are what folks need to know?

 

[Kivuli]

"Unprofessional" behavior? How about outright death threats like fired Officer Daniel Harless?
I think that was the first time he threatened murder, and this would be the second

You see anyone on this website using that sort of language, that sort of true vitriol? Are there words of "extreme bitterness and hatred toward somebody or something, or an expression of this feeling in speech or writing" in simply saying we will resist that sort of behavior?

Harless was way out of line. Excruciatingly so, and absolutely should have been fired.

Do I see people using that sort of language (i.e. death threats)? No, however death threats aren't the only kind of vitriol one can espouse. Are there words of "extreme bitterness and hatred towards somebody or something" in simply saying we will resist? Trouble is, there are numerous people, yourself included, that aren't "simply saying we will resist". You are injecting hatred, bitterness, and outright aggression into your words. This thread: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?92483-The-Vast-Majority-of-LEOs-are , is a prime example of that.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Should it be a "prime example", then no doubt you can supply us with a few vitriolic quotes.

 

[Kivuli]

The idea was that you could peruse the thread and discover them quite readily on your own. However, ironically, I did roughly what you are challenging me to do in one post on that thread (though in that case it was the referring to cops as jack-booted thugs). I also see that you yourself posted in that thread so I can presume you are familiar with it. I therefore question your motives for having me single out particulars.

 

[Xulld]

The idea was that you could peruse the thread and discover them quite readily on your own. However, ironically, I did roughly what you are challenging me to do in one post on that thread (though in that case it was the referring to cops as jack-booted thugs). I also see that you yourself posted in that thread so I can presume you are familiar with it. I therefore question your motives for having me single out particulars.

I dont know, I read the thread and did not come to the same conclusion. It seems you have made a claim, and it seems fairly standard to ask the person making a claim supports the claim being made. I see lots of qualifiers being used in that thread, and the context of the thread was corrupt police officers, usually when I am reading such a thread unless stated otherwise I will assume the post is from that context which jack booted thug seems to apply.

So unless you have a quote I missed that somehow makes a blanket statement or justifies taking the quote out of the context of police corruption then Id have to disagree with you about specific vitriol.

.02

On these forums I see frustration, I see anger, I see some degrees of bitterness but it almost always seems specific, not generalized. It always seems targeted toward a specific event, person, or place with reference to an injustice, or perceived injustice. Which tends to make it justified.

So its one thing to be vitriolic, its another for it is be specific to a certain context and fully justified.

To me sayings like, "Jack booted thug" are more hyperbolic, than vitriolic.

Again just my .02

 

[jrob33]

I recently posted in a thread where the OP was berated by multiple posters for not being confrontational enough with an officer, even though the officer made it clear that the poster was free to go from the very beginning...the argument that only police officers are confrontational is laughable.

 

[Grapeshot]

I recently posted in a thread where the OP was berated by multiple posters for not being confrontational enough with an officer, even though the officer made it clear that the poster was free to go from the very beginning...the argument that only police officers are confrontational is laughable.

You undoubted refer to this thread and misrepresent the context and conclusions there as well.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...call-for-mowing-my-lawn&p=1719574#post1719574

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Should it be a "prime example", then no doubt you can supply us with a few vitriolic quotes.

The idea was that you could peruse the thread and discover them quite readily on your own. However, ironically, I did roughly what you are challenging me to do in one post on that thread (though in that case it was the referring to cops as jack-booted thugs). I also see that you yourself posted in that thread so I can presume you are familiar with it. I therefore question your motives for having me single out particulars.

Sorry, I thought the idea was "if you talk s___ be prepared to back up what you say or look like an idiot."
You said the words, not back them up.

Post the "vitrolic comments" that you seem to think are so prevalent.

 

[jrob33]

You undoubted refer to this thread and misrepresent the context and conclusions there as well.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...call-for-mowing-my-lawn&p=1719574#post1719574

First let me say that I am not an enemy to OC, I have been waiting for OK to become an open carry state and fully intend to OC. And I realize that alot of police officers have an issue with citizens Open carrying even when it is leagal, and many seem to take it upon themselves to "stop" OC even after their state has deemed it legal. Those officers have to be dealt with strongly. But I dont feel that every single police officer should be treated as an enamy to "the cause" simply because he is a police officer. now genreally speaking i try to defer to the mods...BUT

to say I misrepresented the thread in question? how exactly did i misrepresent it? Are you trying to say the OP was not berated by other posters for his actions? here is a direct quote from the OP.

"Now I kinda feel stupid for bringing it up, people painting me as some benedict arnold for not fighting tooth and nail for my rights and telling this nice officer to eff off"

obviously the op felt "jumped on" as well, And this was only in the first page of the thread. The Op received advice ranging from just ignoring the officer completely to yelling at the officer to get the !*&$ off his property. So when I read a comment saying that its "always the officers here that are confrontational" is riddiculous. Or are you saying i misrepresented the officer? I counted at least 4 times in the first page where the OP emphasized that the officer was polite, friendly etc.