Tazered for Open Carry

[scot623]

When others suggest the effectiveness of a camera to defend against prosecution, it's a good idea. When I do the same, this happens.

Cameras ARE a great idea for defending against improper LEO actions and prosecution. "Government required cameras" is a whole different thing.

 

[stainless1911]

Post 71

 

[Superlite27]

I've seen video from consumer installed dash cams that proved very useful. Surely you don't believe a new law requiring these camera's is needed? If someone wants a dash cam, they can buy one.

I'm considering putting a go-pro on my dash. Too many good reasons for it. here are only a couple:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOTIiveesvs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWvG4KAYJfY&feature=related

There's also one of a driver in Russia coming to a stop at a crosswalk, and another guy walking across the street "acts" like he's been hit and lays down in front of the car. Too bad for him, the video shows the car stopping about five feet away. Scam FAIL. I can't seem to find the video again, though.

I've seen so much ignorant crap happen right in front of me, and in today's litigious society, I can't find any negatives to recording full time in order to gain evidence "just in case".

 

[stainless1911]

I've seen more than one video of people throwing themselves on a hood to fake a claim.

 

[scot623]

Post 71

Why should they be required? Why do you care if some random Joe is aided by his dash cam? Certainly I don't care. If someone is concerned, they can install a cam for their own protection. If YOU want one, by all means get one. But why should I be required to have a camera if I don't want one?

Who is going to pay for all these cameras? Michigan already has the highest car insurance rates in the country( or close to it). You'd like to see them required, what if they were and the cost had to be born by each car owner? Could you afford to pay the $500-$700(complete guess) for a camera with hard drive storage capabilities installed by a pro?

Individual liberties and freedom of choice has to mean something.

 

[Raggs]

I've seen video from consumer installed dash cams that proved very useful. Surely you don't believe a new law requiring these camera's is needed? If someone wants a dash cam, they can buy one.

That isn't nice, the poor deserve dash cams as well! Let the Government pay for it!

 

[stainless1911]

That isn't nice, the poor deserve dash cams as well! Let the Government pay for it!

I feel that if the .gov requires something, then the .gov should pay for it, regardless of income.

You guys are getting better, keep practicing.

 

[Raggs]

I feel that if the .gov requires something, then the .gov should pay for it, regardless of income.

You guys are getting better, keep practicing.

What?

 

[TheQ]

I feel that if the .gov requires something, then the .gov should pay for it, regardless of income.

You guys are getting better, keep practicing.

The "government" can't "give" anything to anyone unless it first "takes" by "force" (read: theft) from someone else.

 

[Grapeshot]

The "idea" that was brought up by stainless and I have commented on is "government required dash cams". Grapeshot then commented on the "idea". Grapeshot concluded his statement that the "idea has merit". I can't help but think he was still talking about "government required dash cams". In fact, I asked him directly. So rather than you trying to decipher what he may have meant...I'm sure he'll be along any second to clarify.

When you quote out of context (selectively too) you change the meaning. Altering the meaning of another's post is a specific violation of the rules.

Repeating my statement with highlights:

It [highlight]might not sit well [/highlight]with most consumers [highlight]to be required[/highlight] to have a dash cam, but it surely [highlight]might be a nice option[/highlight] for those interested to consider. I see many potential benefits, the idea has merit.

The rules of sentence relationship and paragraph formatting clearly relate/link "the idea has merit" to "potential benefits" and then to "nice option."

At no time did I suggest in the slightest way that the government should require dash cams.

I'm truly sorry that you "can't help but think" that things not in evidence are factual or is it perhaps indicative of intentionally disruptive conduct. I am spending more time on the Michigan sub-forum for a reason, at the request and direction of others. Can you help but to think why?

Bottom line on this thread is: discuss facts, not personalities, stay within the rules and post responsibly or see an immediate thread lock and expect that postings of a similar agenda driven nature on other threads will be edited.

Politicians, the media, antis, potential new members/uses all follow these threads. These internal squabbles do us much damage and are totally unnecessary. Believe me when I tell you they will stop.

 

[scot623]

I'm truly sorry that you "can't helpBottom line on this thread is: discuss facts, not personalities, stay within the rules and post responsibly or see an immediate thread lock and expect that postings of a similar agenda driven nature on other threads will be edited.

Politicians, the media, antis, potential new members/uses all follow these threads. These internal squabbles do us much damage and are totally unnecessary. Believe me when I tell you they will stop.

This has been a civil debate, with use of sarcasm to make a point. I haven't seen any talking about personalies here. If you want to hang out and respond to every post, rock on.

I hope you can tell the difference between a personal squabble and a debate about an idea. I'd hate to every thread locked.

And you don't need to remind me about antis reading these boards.. I brought it up to you in a post you deleted.

 

[Grapeshot]

Originally Posted by Grapeshot

I'm truly sorry that you "can't helpBottom line on this thread is: discuss facts, not personalities, stay within the rules and post responsibly or see an immediate thread lock and expect that postings of a similar agenda driven nature on other threads will be edited.

Politicians, the media, antis, potential new members/uses all follow these threads. These internal squabbles do us much damage and are totally unnecessary. Believe me when I tell you they will stop.

This has been a civil debate, with use of sarcasm to make a point. I haven't seen any talking about personalies here. If you want to hang out and respond to every post, rock on.

I hope you can tell the difference between a personal squabble and a debate about an idea. I'd hate to every thread locked.

And you don't need to remind me about antis reading these boards.. I brought it up to you in a post you deleted.

I see that again you have altered my statement (quote above) leaving out important parts - thereby changing the meaning. I have seen the personality issue raised and have archived some in editing/deleting your post - thereby preventing their deletion.

If you'd hate to see threads locked and posts deleted, then do not participate in conduct likely to bring that about. Simple- yes?

To those that understand the nature of things, I appreciate your patience and concerns.

To those that do not wish to follow the spirit and intent of OCDO as expressed through the rules and moderator intervention, you alone are ultimately responsible for any action taken as a result.

This thread has no further redeeming value.