Open carry stop of two law abiding citizens. Being patronized. Wisconsin

[onus]

ONUS, did you give that Mcbeth character your logon? This "advice" sounds like something he would suggest!

whats a logon ?

 

[davidmcbeth]

ONUS, did you give that Mcbeth character your logon? This "advice" sounds like something he would suggest!

Joe,

I never advocate threatening anyone. Its pointless. I've had rifle barrels touching my head from the po po ... good times.

I've never been arrested for any crime. I'm a very tolerant person...for the most part. I have been involved in politics for >30 yrs, ran for office, ran campaigns, etc. I have been called a "monster", "terrorist", etc by all sorts of people because I unabashedly support the 2nd amendment. When mass shootings happen and I am giving testimony concerning goofy anti-legislation, I do not say "I'm sorry" or anything like that as I had nothing to do with such tragedies...I stick to supporting the 2nd amendment. Push come to shove, I simply state that the framers knew instances of crazy people shooting other folks was anticipated and they still penned the 2nd amendment. Then they get all huffy..."the children!" ... I say better a few hundred kids by wackos over the years than hundreds of thousands by our gov't ('cause kids grow up..they ain't 5 yrs old forever). Then I'm called all sorts of vile names.

But since most are democrats who support abortion .. I usually zing them with the millions of murders that they have supported and continue to support. "Women's rights" they'll claim ... then I say that most murdered are women .. then they get all pissed off.

Hey, better be pissed off than pissed on !

 

[OC for ME]

Were the officer’s actions lawful and justified by public safety concerns? Or was it an unjustified response to lawful open carry?

Only a judge will be able to answer these two questions.

 

[protias]

Doug, we have several threads on this already. Why create a new one?

 

[eye95]

whats a logon ?

Well, for the lazy, here is the first thing that pops up if you type "definition logon" into Google:

log·on
ˈlôgˌän,ˈläg-,-ˌôn/
noun
1.
another term for login.

Notice that it is a noun. That means that "your logon" is proper usage of the word.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

 

[Franky]

Doug, we have several threads on this already. Why create a new one?

Joe, no big deal. A moderator you are not.

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

When the cop said he would shoot the law abiding citizen in the head, the law abiding citizen should have said "thank you for the warning sir. now, in all fairness I must warn you as well. if you decide to fire lethal rounds at me for doing nothing illegal or threatening I will respond by firing lethal rounds back at you. I too am wearing a bulletproof vest and my friend with the long gun is a crack shot. so if you want to have a shoot out over me doing nothing illegal, just call your wife and children right now and tell them you wont be home tonight"

I mostly agree with Eye about this statement.

While it is somewhat satisfying to make such a statement of opinion here, doing so in the described situation approaches the condition of "Terminal Stupidity".

Never tell some one what you are going to do. That gives them time and warning to prepare.

I would however admonish the LEO about making "terroristic threats".

 

[Primus]

Primus is a cop apologist. Primus views any encounter a OCer has with LE as "OCer deserved it, the cop is being unfairly maligned" situation. Primus, via his words, would be supportive of banning LG OC everywhere. His position in this thread speaks to the truth of my words.

Are you done wasting time and space on a thread trying to explain myself or my stance to other people? This thread was about an encounter, not what I think or feel about it. I know, I get it, guys like you lurk around analyzing every word people say and wait to pounce when they utter words that you feel "have an agenda". Your one of those guys who must put people in categories and then writes them off as whatever you label them as.

The fact the cop said "will shoot you in the head" DOES cross the line. I have no qualms with saying that. I'm on the fence as to if that's a "threat". I guess by definition of the word it could be a threat. But let me ask this. Is the fact you are carrying a firearm on your hip a threat? Isn't it a deterrent? How does it deter? By being pretty and shiny? No. It's a deterrent because it says to the BG "if you try to harm me or my family, I will shoot you (in the head? chest? center mass of available target?)". So I guess maybe that's just an implied "threat" why the guy explaining what would happen if they reached for their weapons.

It's context guys.... he said if they made a move to shoot at them, they would shoot first. Period. I'd rather not break down every word, but it's there for the guys who are smart and unbiased. Again, maybe he didn't need to say the "in the head part".

 

[carolina guy]

Are you done wasting time and space on a thread trying to explain myself or my stance to other people? This thread was about an encounter, not what I think or feel about it. I know, I get it, guys like you lurk around analyzing every word people say and wait to pounce when they utter words that you feel "have an agenda". Your one of those guys who must put people in categories and then writes them off as whatever you label them as.

The fact the cop said "will shoot you in the head" DOES cross the line. I have no qualms with saying that. I'm on the fence as to if that's a "threat". I guess by definition of the word it could be a threat. But let me ask this. Is the fact you are carrying a firearm on your hip a threat? Isn't it a deterrent? How does it deter? By being pretty and shiny? No. It's a deterrent because it says to the BG "if you try to harm me or my family, I will shoot you (in the head? chest? center mass of available target?)". So I guess maybe that's just an implied "threat" why the guy explaining what would happen if they reached for their weapons.

It's context guys.... he said if they made a move to shoot at them, they would shoot first. Period. I'd rather not break down every word, but it's there for the guys who are smart and unbiased. Again, maybe he didn't need to say the "in the head part".

You are correct...the LEO crossed the line, not only with the voiced threats, but with the drawn weapons.

If these LEOs are so nervous when presented with someone OCing (but otherwise doing nothing to be suspicious or cause alarm besides being armed) they need to find another (safer) career.

 

[MKEgal]

Primus is a cop apologist.

Actually, that's another incarnation of the stalker who's already been banned about a dozen times now.

Doug, we have several threads on this already. Why create a new one?

And he's repling with 3 (or is it 4) separate accounts just on this thread.

since most are democrats who support abortion ... I usually zing them with the millions of murders that they have supported

You're conflating 3 unrelated things.
1) If you're speaking to support the right to bear arms, stick to that, don't get into health care.
2) Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life. Even if you count a fetus as a human life, abortion is lawful.
3) I don't count a fetus as anything other than a part of the woman it's attached to.

 

[eye95]

What stalker are you talking about? I have identified two return posters and have correctly named their previous identity. If you are going to make such a charge, tell us who the poster was.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[fjpro2a]

Moist Eyes!!

3) I don't count a fetus as anything other than a part of the woman it's attached to.[/QUOTE]

SAD!!!

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

2) Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life. Even if you count a fetus as a human life, abortion is lawful.
.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Gun Control is "lawful" and not an infringement upon our Right To Bear Arms. Do you believe that this makes it right?:dude:

3) I don't count a fetus as anything other than a part of the woman it's attached to.

Does this change if that fetus were to have its metabolism cease as a result of a drunk driver, a gunshot from an attacker or any other reason, do you support additional charges being brought against the person who causes this condition or is this all irrelevant because it is just an insignificant "part" of its host?

 

[JustaShooter]

Does this change if that fetus were to have its metabolism cease as a result of a drunk driver, a gunshot from an attacker or any other reason, do you support additional charges being brought against the person who causes this condition or is this all irrelevant because it is just an insignificant "part" of its host?

But that's different! Then it is a *wanted* part of the woman it's attached to. Surely you can see how that would justify different treatment under the law?

 

[carolina guy]

But that's different! Then it is a *wanted* part of the woman it's attached to. Surely you can see how that would justify different treatment under the law?

Regardless of your feelings about abortions being right or wrong, one thing I find darkly amusing is that a woman gets to "choose" if the father will have to pay child support for 18 years or not, but he gets no similar say in the matter.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

But that's different! Then it is a *wanted* part of the woman it's attached to. Surely you can see how that would justify different treatment under the law?

I am certain that a finger is a "wanted" part, but there is no charge of manslaughter because you destroyed the function of a finger...

 

[JustaShooter]

So then you see my point - on the one hand, a fetus is just a part of the female's body that is incubating it and has no separate identity, but on the other hand that same fetus is a separate individual that can cause additional or more severe charges to be attached to a crime committed against the female. Either it is an individual with its own rights, or it is not, but currently it is treated both ways, and the only difference is whether or not the female has expressed a desire to keep the fetus.

 

[carolina guy]

So then you see my point - on the one hand, a fetus is just a part of the female's body that is incubating it and has no separate identity, but on the other hand that same fetus is a separate individual that can cause additional or more severe charges to be attached to a crime committed against the female. Either it is an individual with its own rights, or it is not, but currently it is treated both ways, and the only difference is whether or not the female has expressed a desire to keep the fetus.

Well...there are also other fundamental differences...the finger will never continue to develop and be able to eventually exist separately from the female's body, the fetus likely will. The finger is also present from the time that the female was also nothing more than a fetal extension from another female, the fetus was not.

 

[Interceptor_Knight]

So then you see my point - on the one hand, a fetus is just a part of the female's body that is incubating it and has no separate identity,

Actually... No. There has been no legal argument that a fetus is "just a part of the female's body". This has absolutely zero to do with the Roe v Wade decision. It has more to do with Rights protected by the US Constitution. A fetus is looked at as simply a parasite until which time it has a "natural" birth unless someone other than the biological host or her medical practitioner cause it harm. During this time, the privacy Rights of the host are the only ones recognized by the Court and the fetus is afforded no rights. If this fetus is born prematurely, it will be instantly be afforded Rights under the US Constitution but if the host decides to eliminate it, it could "legally" be decapitated, forcibly removed and tossed in the refuse container with other biological "waste". The mother could be charged with manslaughter if she were the one to destroy the newborn and toss it in a dumpster, but the doctor would be paid if his services were contracted to do it.

Well...there are also other fundamental differences...the finger will never continue to develop and be able to eventually exist separately from the female's body, the fetus likely will. The finger is also present from the time that the female was also nothing more than a fetal extension from another female, the fetus was not.

This is irrelevant in the eyes of the Court. If you have a botfly egg on your face and a larvae grows, you may destroy it at any stage of development even after it exits from your tissue. The botfly and a human fetus are no different in the eyes of the Court. The only differentiation is if the human fetus matures and is "born" or as I mentioned if someone other than the mother and her doctor harm it during development.

 

[JustaShooter]

Well...there are also other fundamental differences...the finger will never continue to develop and be able to eventually exist separately from the female's body, the fetus likely will. The finger is also present from the time that the female was also nothing more than a fetal extension from another female, the fetus was not.

So does that mean that the fetus should be considered a separate entity / individual or not? It certainly doesn't argue that it should be treated one way in one case and a different way in another...