66427vette wrote:Most of the guys who open carry around here are the mall minja types the like to draw attention to themselves or guys looking for trouble to put on YouTube .
Agree 100%
Moderators: mpallett, bakerjw, renegade, Hush
66427vette wrote:Most of the guys who open carry around here are the mall minja types the like to draw attention to themselves or guys looking for trouble to put on YouTube .
Accusing Trooper of being logic-averse. That's rich. What a tool.poikilotrm wrote:I don't know who that is, but if you find what I say incorrect or improperly thought out, try using logic and reason to refute what I say. I know that has historically been difficult for you, but try.TROOPER wrote:How... "Leondard Embody" of you.
I typed "Leonard Embody" into Google, and this is what I got:poikilotrm wrote:No. People going about their daily lives, not bothering anyone, but with a weapon on their hip are not in need of being confronted in the first place. Cops will actively seek to interact with open carriers in order to intimidate and harrass them. This isn't bias, this is observable fact and openly stated policy in many cop shops. The only people regularly seeking to provoke violence and disrupt peaceful society are the cops when it comes to open carriers. Carrying does not somehow make the carrier "culpable", as you suggest.doubloon wrote: But nothing to do with the mindset of the person confronted by the cop I guess? It takes two to tango.
Singling out cops negatively and ignoring the culpability of any other party involved in the situation certainly comes across as bias even if you deny it after you say it.
It may take two to tango, but in the event you are open carrying, it only takes action on the part of the cop to destroy a life or lives.
Mindset only applies to acts comitted. A person sitting drinking a cup of coffee in a cafe with a Sig on his hip has his mind on his coffee, most likely. A cop seeking to confront that peacable and law abiding citizen isn't doing so for any other reason than to harass. Your attempt to blame the victim is, as always, repugnant.
Let's follow your mindset though. Given that nearly 100% of violent crimes are committed by people wearing pants, would wearing pants in public, a perfectly legal activity, just like OC, be RS or PC for a stop?
Oh, and in pretty much every state, acting in a manner that is presumptively legal, like say, oh, I don't know, ummm, OC, means that there is zero RS or PC for a stop.
Edited to add: One other thing, CCW/OC people are the single most law abiding demographic in the US. Why do cops then seek to harass them so eagerly?
Yes. His forum handle was, "Kwik2Sue". Later he changed it to "Kwikrnu" after he realized that having a lawsuit-happy name made him appear less of a victim and more of a lawsuit seeker.tsands974 wrote:Wasn't he the one with the Hello Kitty arsenal?
Since both Guv candidates in Texas (R and D) say publicly that they are for passing an Open Carry law in Texas, the people of Texas will need to hash out all these issues as they relate to OC.whiterussian
The law would only require concealing w/i School/Airport Zones. NOT disarmament.
When fired upon, return fire. Your statement seemed insulting, and frankly, it still does. In fact, I dare say your insult was worse than my return, so you win, let's let it go.TROOPER wrote:
-------------- ETA ---------------
My remark to you, Poik, wasn't meant to be a hit-and-run insult. I assumed you knew about Embody given that he had - at least for a while - an active presence on this site, as well as a commonality of interest regarding LEO interactions with the public. Not that I assumed you were best friends, but in such a small community, I assumed you at least knew of his name and why he was modestly well-known.
We're in a different era of ST, one of more civility and so on. There's no need to insult me.
They have to respond to all calls. The Terminex guy called the police on me because he saw an airsoft gun in my house (with orange tip and everything), and the police came. Even if it were a real gun, it would have been legal, and the police knew that I had a gun permit. So arguably, they didn't need to come. But they respond to all calls.whiterussian1974 wrote:That's why they just send a Patrol to the Scene.
Not true in the slightest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v. ... f_Columbiasilencertalk wrote: They have to respond to all calls.
Nope. They don't. I can give you a few examples if you like.But they respond to all calls.
Great example!poikilotrm wrote:...
Not true in the slightest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v. ... f_Columbia
...
doubloon wrote: Great example!
In both those cases the police responded to the call.
Responding and providing protection are two different things.
Just like reading and comprehension.
Poik, is it possible that "they respond to all calls" is referring specifically to the police in the jurisdiction which "silencertalk" resides? Is it also possible that "respond" does not necessarily mean show-up-and-investigate-the-call? If we're going to nit-pick every single thing stated here, then let's go by the words typed, and not the words you choose to infer. IE, he didn't say, "It is the Constitutional Law of every internationally recognized sovereign nation that all police agencies must provide physical presence to every emergency call regardless of individual circumstance." In which case, your quoting of Wikipedia law might be appropriate.silencertalk wrote:They have to respond to all calls. The Terminex guy called the police on me because he saw an airsoft gun in my house (with orange tip and everything), and the police came. Even if it were a real gun, it would have been legal, and the police knew that I had a gun permit. So arguably, they didn't need to come. But they respond to all calls.whiterussian1974 wrote:That's why they just send a Patrol to the Scene.
Perhaps the riots in Baltimore did not go as well as he hoped. Can't people see that ALL police are dishonest ALL of the time?TROOPER wrote:Damnation, man, why are you so angry all the time?
poikilotrm wrote: NOBODY in my AO is enthusiastic about the cops being around. The same goes for people in Chicago, NYC, New Orleans, Baltimore, and a whole host of other locales. The cops are a far greater threat to an honest decent person than any drug dealer or other scum.
I believe there is a lot of truth in this for quite a few people. It's kinda sad.ick wrote:...
Perhaps the riots in Baltimore did not go as well as he hoped. ...
Not angry. I just can't abide liars, mental deficients, criminals, and people who enthusiastically support criminals and liars.TROOPER wrote:
Damnation, man, why are you so angry all the time?
I didn't give a damn about Baltimore. I still don't. I absolutely stand by my quote.ick wrote:Perhaps the riots in Baltimore did not go as well as he hoped. Can't people see that ALL police are dishonest ALL of the time?TROOPER wrote:Damnation, man, why are you so angry all the time?
That sure would make me irritable.
I found this old gem from January of 2013....
poikilotrm wrote: NOBODY in my AO is enthusiastic about the cops being around. The same goes for people in Chicago, NYC, New Orleans, Baltimore, and a whole host of other locales. The cops are a far greater threat to an honest decent person than any drug dealer or other scum.
Concealed carry makes sense to bad guys and the fashion conscious. It's hard to get your Gucci on with a 7" wheel gun on your hip.YugoRPK wrote:... IF I am carrying. Still don't see the point.