Werz
Regular Member
That's a fair proposition.
-
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.
Open carrier stopped in Dayton
- Thread starter BB62
- Start date
B
Bikenut
Guest
Are you saying that I am limited to only addressing posts of conversations I currently am a part of and that I cannot respond to posts outside of those conversations because they don't involve me?Originally Posted by Bikenut
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
Mine was simply a statement of fact, prompted by your folksy criticism of words that I used in a discussion which did not involve you in the first place. You were the one who decided to play it out as ridicule, despite your own acknowledgement that you "don't know about high falutin' Aristotelian syllogism." But may I quote from some of your own words?
Originally Posted by Bikenut
... you, and some others, don't like *** being handed a little lesson in baiting and recording those who take the bait ...
Take a lesson from your own playbook. In these forums, at least you can delete the record of your own indignant responses.
And I put out some folksy bait to see if you would bite.
The snippet of my post you quoted as:
Originally Posted by Bikenut
... you, and some others, don't like *** being handed a little lesson in baiting and recording those who take the bait ...
actually read:
If you are going to quote me then try not to edit out words in order to make what I posted into something I never said. Leaving out words in order to remake my statement into what you hope people will believe is me ridiculing you in an attempt to turn the attention from your use of ridicule says a great deal about you and your credibility.
But then... all this side discussion has resulted in folks not talking about a couple of issues brought up in this thread.
1. Cops being given a lesson in baiting and recording working both ways.
and perhaps the issue of greatest importance whether in Ohio or any of the other States in these United States....
2. The idea that folks should not exercise the right to bear arms in ways (or for reasons) that might offend the public because if they do the public will pass laws so folks can't bear arms that way (or for those reasons). (often expressed as "Just because you can doesn't mean you should.)
After all... what difference does it make if the public passes laws to stop it or folks stop themselves because they are afraid of public opinion? Or, worse yet, folks are afraid of a negative opinion from their own gun owning supposedly right to bear arms supporting brethren? The end result of not exercising the right is the same.
Werz
Regular Member
I'm saying don't butt into the discussions of others and then complain that you don't understand what is being discussed. Didn't your parents teach you that?
The quote showed the standard triple asterisk of a redaction. The only words redacted were "the cops." The purpose was to demonstrate that you don't much like it when the tactics that you favor against "the cops" are turned on you.
Fellows like you carry a big hammer, and all you see are nails. Feel free to bang away.
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
can the citizen seek a redress of wrongs? A jury would decide the fate of any redress gaining. Unfortunately, being "informally detained-ish" does not seem to be a actionable act. So, some folks don't like uppity youngsters packing a evil black rifle-ish around on their back. Some don't have a problem with it. OK
Those cops knew he was legit and extended their stay at the citizen's behest. The citizen lost the initiative to sue those cops by engaging them in their quasi-leagl acts. That young pup needs to learn to not talk to cops, record the encounter, and the sue those cops who are too stupid to simply drive by, honk the horn, and wave, thereby not giving a chuckle head a opportunity to sue them.
Those cops knew he was legit and extended their stay at the citizen's behest. The citizen lost the initiative to sue those cops by engaging them in their quasi-leagl acts. That young pup needs to learn to not talk to cops, record the encounter, and the sue those cops who are too stupid to simply drive by, honk the horn, and wave, thereby not giving a chuckle head a opportunity to sue them.
Werz
Regular Member
Let's be honest about what really happened here. This was not a random "citizen" in an encounter with a random "cop." This was a school resource officer who knew both of these guys without inquiring about their identities. He clearly knew them in a context which had nothing to do with firearms, and he seems to be aware that both of them have a habit of craving attention.
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
Not only that, the officer finessed the two neophytes to stand in front of the dash cam and zoomed in on the firearm.
Giving the officer the benefit of the doubt, I believe he will distribute the video among other departments and other officers making sure they don't take the bait.
Werz
Regular Member
It also occurs to me that the department's school resource officer is much better suited to going out on non-threatening MWAG calls than the department "tough guys."
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
If the ultimate goal of the two 'ute's' was to not be confronted again, then they may very well have succeeded in spite of themselves.
FreeInAZ
Regular Member
Legal is legal, correct? If we are going to subscribe to the notion of "just because something is legal, doesn't mean you should do it!" then we all better be really comfortable with never carrying legally! The vast majority of U.S. citizens do not carry.
My point - who are they, or us to tell anyone engaged in a legal activity what they should do? That is not the free republic of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA I was born in. Either you support all rights or you support none. We will only gain the support of the general public IMHO, when we can show them that gun rights = human rights. It is incredibly easy to force an unarmed people to do your will. It's a much more difficult thing when the same populace understands that the 2A is about freedoms & safety. Things that all good people aspire to have.
My point - who are they, or us to tell anyone engaged in a legal activity what they should do? That is not the free republic of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA I was born in. Either you support all rights or you support none. We will only gain the support of the general public IMHO, when we can show them that gun rights = human rights. It is incredibly easy to force an unarmed people to do your will. It's a much more difficult thing when the same populace understands that the 2A is about freedoms & safety. Things that all good people aspire to have.
B
Bikenut
Guest
Well said!
Judging from how many gun control laws have been passed for many decades perhaps folks hiding their right to bear arms for fear offending the public would result in more restrictive gun laws hasn't protected the right to bear arms but has empowered and encouraged the anti gun folks to ... continue passing restrictive gun laws.
I will never understand what kind of logic there is in thinking not exercising the right to bear arms will prevent the anti gun portion of the public from passing laws to restrict the bearing of arms. After all... there is no need for restrictive laws if gun owners voluntarily restrict ourselves in fear of more restrictive laws since the end result is the same... the right to bear arms has been restricted. The anti gun faction of "the public" won because WE, the gun owners, did the anti's work for them just because we were too afraid we might offend... the anti's!
That which is not stood up for gets trampled. And those who don't stand up for the right just because they don't like who did it, what it was done with, how it was done, or why it was done, are opening the gate for those who would trample.
Last edited by a moderator:
Werz
Regular Member
In 1968, a man name Robert Paul Cohen was convicted of disturbing the peace for wearing a shirt emblazoned with “F*** the Draft” into a California courthouse. The United States Supreme Court reversed his conviction, upholding his First Amendment right to free speech on political issues, even if that speech was offensive to some. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
The Supreme Court held that the government could not prevent Mr. Cohen from exercising his First Amendment right. However, that would not prevent private parties from criticizing his behavior, particularly if they believed that it would damage their cause. And I am relatively certain that if such language was used in this forum in support of Second Amendment rights, it would not be tolerated here.
Likewise, the government cannot prevent Mr. Seaton from exercising his Second Amendment right to open carry as long as he does nothing illegal. Nevertheless, that does not prevent some of us from criticizing his actions if we believe that his behavior in conjunction with the act of open carry will damage our cause. Aside from expressing your own opinion on the matter, there’s nothing you can do about that.
OC for ME
Regular Member
This issue is not about those two citizens, not even about the gun. But, about the reason a bunch of cops, who knew he was legit, made contact anyway. When our fellow citizens see cops not engaging, but driving by, then our fellow citizens will come to understand that if the cops "think it is, he is, OK, then it must be OK."
The issue is the cops, not the citizens or the gun.
The issue is the cops, not the citizens or the gun.
JediSkipdogg
Regular Member
Actually they don't. They assume the officer is too lazy to investigate. I took a call a few weeks ago (I'm a dispatcher) about a suspicious vehicle parked on the street running. The caller called back three times and I had to tell the officer the caller wanted him to get out of his vehicle and look inside the car. There was nothing illegal with anything.
People will just keep calling until they see the police interact with the subject to some extent.
Would that it would be so simple. The issue IMHO is the response and how it is perceived.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
Grapeshot said:
You mean, "Would that it were so simple" don't you, OC?Sorry, could not help myself.
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
This is a good case to read. (Even though I have some issues with the case)
State v. Boswell, 2014-Ohio-886
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2014/2014-ohio-886.pdf
In other words, you voluntarily talk to police, it's at your own risk.
State v. Boswell, 2014-Ohio-886
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2014/2014-ohio-886.pdf
Primus
Regular Member
I don't know how your rules are set up but I know out dispatchers are required to dispatch dumb calls. If not they get in trouble. Im pretty tight with my dispatchers and they are constantly apologizing for the bogus calls, but we all understand its just part of the gig.
From what I understand from some of the guys that have been around for a long time (like 20 plus years) when it used to be cops in the dispatch center they could/would tell complainants they wouldn't send a unit for dumb calls. Now we have non police and they can't or they'll be reprimanded. Not sure if its just a rules/regs thing or what.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
commonsense1776
Regular Member
Adam Lanza walking down the street. Bad stop? Ignore him? How are the police officers to know? Jeez...