What do you think of how this guy handled being stoped for OC? - Page 4
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 105

Thread: What do you think of how this guy handled being stoped for OC?

  1. #31
    People who get upset about women breastfeeding in public usually also:

    1. Complain about the "dirty" pictures in the National Geographic magazines in their doctor's office; and

    2. Arrive early for their doctor's appointments so they can read the National Geographic magazines.

  2.   
  3. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    733

    Cool Just a little interjection.......

    As a former LEO in the state in question, let me assure you that there was:

    1) No good reason why this officer should be ignorant of the fact that PA has preemption for the carry of firearms. ACT 120 class (PA's police academy) covers this repeatedly.
    2) Absolutely NO REASON AT ALL for the "F-bomb" cop's behavior. Unfortunately, his attitude is not all that uncommon.
    3) State law VERY CLEARLY states that the possession of a firearm, in the absence of any other criminal activity, is not even grounds to stop and question an individual, much less draw a weapon or illegally detain. Again, we learned it in academy.

    I really don't understand why people make such a big deal about exercising their constitutional rights. Just because you CAN do it means YOU CAN DO IT. Why should you be the hostage to someone else's ignorance of the law?
    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

  4. Thank you Boomboy007!
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  5. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Thank you Boomboy007!
    I second that!

    That is a good damned point: "Just because you CAN do it means you CAN do it".

    If it is legal then there is no good reason for a cop to hassle someone about it.

    I mostly see the bad side of LEO now that I have started following gun rights, unfortunately.

  6. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    475
    You all are forgetting "I am the law and I say you can't" Place the F-bombs where ever they are needed. As you heard him say show me respect and do what I say. For some reason the police believe we have no choice but to do as they say and not to question their authority. So while I know I have the right I will not argue that point with the police due to what I have learned from past experiences. The police need to start policing their own to help improve their image in the public eyes.

  7. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    What if she's feeding someone else's child?
    I guess those darn polygamists are SOL.

  8. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    I then beg to offer the question:

    How do you feel about or react to a no breastfeeding sign?

    Do you ignore it anyway, because it is your right?
    Do you respect the rights of the private property owner and not enter and leave the baby (or the breasts) outside the store?
    Do you do it in the restroom because concealed means concealed and it really isn't violating anyone's rights that way?

    You know there was an Applebee's restaurant in TN that was involved in a lawsuit over not letting a woman breastfeed in the restaurant. Obviously the child was too young to enjoy anything on the "kid's menu" and required sufficient processing of the food that they ate. The lawsuit resulted in every location receiving, "The Applebee's Guide to Breastfeeding Mother's Rights." Everyone across the board was disapointed with the guide as it did not include any pictures, which, IMHO would have cleared a lot of the "issues" up.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    1. [snip]
    2. I carry a voice recorder EVERY time I carry, and usually when I'm not carrying. It is the norm for LEOs to either not know or not care about the law, especially regarding CCW or open carry. It is also not uncommon for them to engage in "flights of fancy" in official reports. Having and using a voice recorder where lawful to do so ensures that there are negative consequences to any propensity for "creative writing" exercises. Never being allowed to testify under oath constitutes a "negative consequence"... perhaps a career ending one.


      [snip]
    What do mean by this statement?

    Thanks,

  10. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    1,519
    Quote Originally Posted by FTG-05 View Post
    What do mean by this statement?

    Thanks,
    Look up the term "Brady" in connection with police testimony.

    Prosecutors are obliged to divulge when they have LEO witnesses who have documented mendacity problems. It often makes them "poison", since their middle names automatically become "Reasonable Doubt". Smart prosecutors won't EVER use them as witnesses, since any drunken defense attorney with a concussion can take that suspect testimony and run into the reasonable doubt endzone to an acquittal.

    My best friend here is a criminal defense attorney. He once had a case where one of the prosecution witnesses was an LEO with a perjury CONVICTION. With a genial smile, he proceeded to vivisect the cop on the stand about his lack of honesty. The cop got that deer in the headlights look, and the prosecutor had an aneurysm, because the conviction was "sealed"... which it was... as evidence against the cop... AS A DEFENDANT. As a witness, it was COMPLETELY admissible and torpedoed the case.

    I imagine it must be kind of tough to be a cop if NOBODY will let you testify under oath to ANYTHING.

  11. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    Look up the term "Brady" in connection with police testimony.

    Prosecutors are obliged to divulge when they have LEO witnesses who have documented mendacity problems. It often makes them "poison", since their middle names automatically become "Reasonable Doubt". Smart prosecutors won't EVER use them as witnesses, since any drunken defense attorney with a concussion can take that suspect testimony and run into the reasonable doubt endzone to an acquittal.

    My best friend here is a criminal defense attorney. He once had a case where one of the prosecution witnesses was an LEO with a perjury CONVICTION. With a genial smile, he proceeded to vivisect the cop on the stand about his lack of honesty. The cop got that deer in the headlights look, and the prosecutor had an aneurysm, because the conviction was "sealed"... which it was... as evidence against the cop... AS A DEFENDANT. As a witness, it was COMPLETELY admissible and torpedoed the case.

    I imagine it must be kind of tough to be a cop if NOBODY will let you testify under oath to ANYTHING.
    That right there, is a beautiful thing.
    One must be wary of the mentality creating the problem or the law creating the crime.

    I love America and the Constitution, if you don't then get out!

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast