To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#2,426
#2,426
CNCVol88 said:
Or if you're doing nothing wrong you can simply answer the damn questions and be on your merry way. This approach tends to work better in the end.
Click to expand...

That's not a guarantee. The police are not asking you questions because they want to be your friend; they have plenty of friends. Again, you have nothing to gain and a lot to lose by cooperating with the police. The safest thing to do is say NOTHING. I'll take the Supreme Court's advice on this rather than VN. The Supreme Court has told all of us to say nothing to the police under any circumstance. Even your honest, truthful responses can be used against you.
 
#2,428
#2,428
CNCVol88 said:
They might have... And if the officer passed by and saw nothing wrong with it he would have kept going. An mp5 would be enough for me to touch base and investigate if I were LEO...

That being said, is that your beauty there hog?
Click to expand...

Not that one, just an off the web pic.

I don't own any guns anymore. All gone...
 
#2,429
#2,429
tim said:
There is common sense and then there's no sense. Some on here display no sense when it comes to common sense. It's people like this that cause people like us to have rights restricted, problem is the people with no common sense don't realize it. Walking around in an urban setting is going to get the police involved, period. Without citizens calling in on suspicious activitty we will lose more battles than we will win. If the police didn't respond and simply told the complainant that the person was well within their rights to walk around the city/school with a gun they may not call the next time there is an incident like in Newtown, CT. If only someone had seen him and called several young lives would be around today.
Click to expand...

I don't advocate open carry. With that said, I don't want the police violating people's rights because of it. As for your police response and Newtown example, you of all people should know the police have absolutely no duty to protect anyone. It was up to those teachers and administrators to protect those kids and they failed miserably. In addition, their parents failed them by turning over their education and security to the government by sticking them in a government school.

Government is inept and bureaucratic -- and it will NEVER deliver a quality, efficient product.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,430
#2,430
gannon goodson said:
that's not a guarantee. The police are not asking you questions because they want to be your friend; they have plenty of friends. Again, you have nothing to gain and a lot to lose by cooperating with the police. The safest thing to do is say nothing. i'll take the supreme court's advice on this rather than vn. the supreme court has told all of us to say nothing to the police under any circumstance. Even your honest, truthful responses can be used against you.
Click to expand...

wut???
 
#2,432
#2,432
Gannon Goodson said:
In my world the cop wouldn't have even engaged the guy, much less remove his personal property like it was his. The guy in the video made the mistake of not asking immediately if he was being detained. Instead he went full-on stupid and got chatty with him. The key is to end police contact as quickly as possible. So I'll ask from the get-go "Am I being detained?" If the officer says no, I walk away immediately. If he says I am being detained, then I'll invoke my rights and say absolutely nothing. Don't cooperate and always KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.
Click to expand...

In my world, the police officer would approach the guy and say "Hey Bob, why you carrying the big gun today?"

Bob would say "Well Rick, I thought it looked good with this shirt."

Rick, "Ha, ha. Okay Bob, don't shoot anyone today, okay? Call me first."

Bob, "You got it Rick, see you at church Sunday."

But, I'm an idealist.
 
#2,435
#2,435
hog88 said:
wut???
Click to expand...

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson:

"Any lawyer with his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to the police under any circumstances."

Who should I listen to? A Supreme Court justice or a VN poster who tells me to talk to the police. You really need to watch the YouTube video posted on this subject. It's 48-minutes long, but it's by far one of the most informative I've seen.
 
#2,436
#2,436
Gannon Goodson said:
Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson:

"Any lawyer with his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to the police under any circumstances."

Who should I listen to? A Supreme Court justice or a VN poster who tells me to talk to the police. You really need to watch the YouTube video posted on this subject. It's 48-minutes long, but it's by far one of the most informative I've seen.
Click to expand...

sarcasm GG
 
#2,437
#2,437
hog88 said:
Sorry all of them were swept away in the flood.... :)
Click to expand...

.wink_m.jpg
 
#2,441
#2,441
YorkVol said:
In my world, the police officer would approach the guy and say "Hey Bob, why you carrying the big gun today?"

Bob would say "Well Rick, I thought it looked good with this shirt."

Rick, "Ha, ha. Okay Bob, don't shoot anyone today, okay? Call me first."

Bob, "You got it Rick, see you at church Sunday."

But, I'm an idealist.
Click to expand...

and apparently that constitutes violating someones rights and/or rites.
 
#2,444
#2,444
hog88 said:
No that would be an ideal interaction.
Click to expand...

Look, I agree with you on principle but with the law being what it is, it's not beyond the realm of rational thought for an LEO to question a man who would appear to be carrying a fully automatic weapon and check to make sure. The guy being questioned had nothing to worry about. He just wanted to be an Internet tough guy and a 1 minute conversation turned into a 5 minutes confrontation
 
#2,445
#2,445
CNCVol88 said:
Look, I agree with you on principle but with the law being what it is, it's not beyond the realm of rational thought for an LEO to question a man who would appear to be carrying a fully automatic weapon and check to make sure. The guy being questioned had nothing to worry about. He just wanted to be an Internet tough guy and a 1 minute conversation turned into a 5 minutes confrontation
Click to expand...

I agree the guy is an idiot. Still doesn't negate the fact that you are under no obligation, or shouldn't be, to hand over your legal property upon request.
 
#2,446
#2,446
hog88 said:
I agree the guy is an idiot. Still doesn't negate the fact that you are under no obligation, or shouldn't be, to hand over your legal property upon request.
Click to expand...

Wasn't a handover. Just a simple "let's check this out." I guess I just see it differently. Also don't see it requiring a search warrant since it's right out in the open. Just a quick look and everything is on the up and up. The dude could have been some crazy waiting to go on a spree.. Then we'd have LG in here telling us guns are bad mkay instead of us pro gun guys having it out over the details. Honestly I'd rather have that than LG proving yet again he is completely ignorant about guns. :)
 
#2,447
#2,447
LouderVol said:
and apparently that constitutes violating someones rights and/or rites.
Click to expand...

No, it would if the LEO forcibly separated the individual from his property and then demanded ID under the threat of arrest for obstruction (a favorite catch-all charge among law enforcement). Kind of like this...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqMJDHDXI7U[/youtube]
 
#2,448
#2,448
CNCVol88 said:
Wasn't a handover. Just a simple "let's check this out." I guess I just see it differently. Also don't see it requiring a search warrant since it's right out in the open. Just a quick look and everything is on the up and up. The dude could have been some crazy waiting to go on a spree.. Then we'd have LG in here telling us guns are bad mkay instead of us pro gun guys having it out over the details. Honestly I'd rather have that than LG proving yet again he is completely ignorant about guns. :)
Click to expand...
Why is this so hard to understand?
 
#2,449
#2,449
Gannon Goodson said:
I don't advocate open carry. With that said, I don't want the police violating people's rights because of it. As for your police response and Newtown example, you of all people should know the police have absolutely no duty to protect anyone. It was up to those teachers and administrators to protect those kids and they failed miserably. In addition, their parents failed them by turning over their education and security to the government by sticking them in a government school.

Government is inept and bureaucratic -- and it will NEVER deliver a quality, efficient product.
Click to expand...

Jeez.
 
#2,450
#2,450
tim said:
Why is this so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

Just comply, right? I hear that a lot from law enforcement. To me, it's the definition of a police state. I'm developing a new-found problem with authority and I/we will not comply. I'm not turning over my personal information so it can be run through NCIC and my name, DOB, and any other pertinent information can be put on a report/log generated by the contact.

It's none of your business who I am or what I'm doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top