Video: Citizen is detained for open carry.

[jcizzle]

You are probably correct that we are cut from a different cloth. Based on your statements here, I'm pretty certain that is the case.

The point I'm making is that I believe you simply like one and dislike the other so principle does not apply.

I don't agree with that but one of the nice things about this country is that we don't have to agree.

Michael Brown

Apparently our founding fathers had no principles either since the founded many documents to assure to limit govt powers rather than individuals. I guess I'm too old school and would rather see govt powers limited. I can see though how one wbo is employed by the govt would take a different stance on limiting the abilities of govt employees. Not that a govt or pd job is bad (it's an honorable profession) however it would make one biased in that discussion. Just as I would be biased of things that limited the way i do my job too.

 

[kd5rjz]

I agree. Will some officers do it? Sure. That's why I've posted my opinions on how to handle the ones that use it as an excuse to harass. Reinforcing that you're a good guy exercising their rights and not out to intimidate anyone or troll for a bad LEO contact will go a LONG ways towards making this type of improper procedure, short lived.

I wonder if you can get a double holster with an owb holster and a youtube camera holster?? Possibly there's a market someone should look into?

 

[Michael Brown]

Apparently our founding fathers had no principles either since the founded many documents to assure to limit govt powers rather than individuals. I guess I'm too old school and would rather see govt powers limited. I can see though how one wbo is employed by the govt would take a different stance on limiting the abilities of govt employees. Not that a govt or pd job is bad (it's an honorable profession) however it would make one biased in that discussion. Just as I would be biased of things that limited the way i do my job too.

As has been stated previously, I am a citizen before I am a police officer and will still be one when I am not a police officer. I am also a believer in limited government. I also believe the government has a role in public safety. the length to which that role extends is the issue and I doubt the founders would take issue with that otherwise they wouldn't have left open the means to amend the Constitution.

Whatever the legislature of this state decide they want is what I will enforce. If they decide that spitting, speeding, or fraud are no longer criminal, I will no longer enforce those laws. It makes me no never mind.

What I do NOT want is someone who isn't even meticulous enough to verify their statements making blanket decisions about what I should and shouldn't do. There are consequences to every action and decision and I prefer that the people who make those decisions be thorough before running off half-cocked making their decisions based on rumors.

Michael Brown

 

[jcizzle]

What I do NOT want is someone who isn't even meticulous enough to verify their statements making blanket decisions about what I should and shouldn't do. There are consequences to every action and decision and I prefer that the people who make those decisions be thorough before running off half-cocked making their decisions based on rumors.

Michael Brown

Enough butt hurt on me saying Tulsa PD already. I already admitted I was wrong on that. However, the problem I had with it still stands through the verification of MWCPD and TCSD.

Regardless of which freakin PD has that stance, the problem still stands that some (NOT TULSA PD) do have that stance and it's a way of hassling citizens into giving up their right. I never said the checks were illegal and that these officers and pds wouldn't be within the law or not upholding the law that the legislature put into place. Simply that we need that law amended in the future until constitutional carry if constitutional carry ever does happen.

C'mon, if MWC does really follow through on their statement and stops everyone OCing for permit check, how many times will someone stop for lunch in MWC only to be bothered (within the law) by a LEO just checking my permit because I was legally OCing in the same restaurant as him before that person decides it's not worth the wasted time and left my gun in the car or at least didn't OC in MWC? They would be fully within the law, however, would have been hassling the citizen into voluntarily giving up a right. Not in Tulsa Though.

By the way, did I mention that I was wrong on Tulsa? Point still stands though. BTW... I hope nobody is seeing this exchange as a cop bash. Simply the need for an amendment next year. Most LEOs are honorable and know their job. Just need protections from those who aren't and don't. Not in Tulsa though.

 

[Michael Brown]

Enough butt hurt on me saying Tulsa PD already. I already admitted I was wrong on that. However, the problem I had with it still stands through the verification of MWCPD and TCSD.

Regardless of which freakin PD has that stance, the problem still stands that some (NOT TULSA PD) do have that stance and it's a way of hassling citizens into giving up their right. I never said the checks were illegal and that these officers and pds wouldn't be within the law or not upholding the law that the legislature put into place. Simply that we need that law amended in the future until constitutional carry if constitutional carry ever does happen.

C'mon, if MWC does really follow through on their statement and stops everyone OCing for permit check, how many times will someone stop for lunch in MWC only to be bothered (within the law) by a LEO just checking my permit because I was legally OCing in the same restaurant as him before that person decides it's not worth the wasted time and left my gun in the car or at least didn't OC in MWC? They would be fully within the law, however, would have been hassling the citizen into voluntarily giving up a right. Not in Tulsa Though.

By the way, did I mention that I was wrong on Tulsa? Point still stands though. BTW... I hope nobody is seeing this exchange as a cop bash. Simply the need for an amendment next year. Most LEOs are honorable and know their job. Just need protections from those who aren't and don't. Not in Tulsa though.

Not a matter of butthurt; Just an issue of considering the source before lending credence to their opinion.

So because some police officer somewhere MIGHT abuse their authority, we need a new law to bind every other police officer?

You already have a number of protections from dishonorable officers and other dishonorable citizens and multiple outlets for such grievances.

Your argument sounds suspiciously like the argument that we need laws against "assault weapons" because someone might kill someone with one.

Enforce the laws we have until there's a problem that's significant enough that it warrants changing the law to the extent that it hinders the law enforcement's mandate of public safety and citizens' rights to be safe in their persons and effects.

Michael Brown

 

[Glocktogo]

I wouldn't want to make it adversarial but I think the issue is that otherwise law abiding citizens shouldn't be harassed, detained or even inconvenienced by an officer. Maybe I'm weird but I still think the 4th amendment is a big deal.

The 4th is a BIG deal. However, I don't think in the grand scheme of things, verifying a permit for a freedom that's been restricted for a LONG time is all that big an inconvenience. It's certainly not an illegal search & seizure under the 4th. The moment the permit is verified, the cause for contact is over. All a polite member of society needs to do is extend their hand for return of the permit, while thanking the officer for their service to the community.

I'm all for constitutional carry. Perhaps if the more cantankerous members of out tribe will smooth their ruffled feathers long enough to accept some minor inconveniences with grace and humility, we won't give the anti's any ammo to prevent us from getting constitutional carry in the future?

 

[jcizzle]

So because some police officer somewhere MIGHT abuse their authority, we need a new law to bind every other police officer?

You already have a number of protections from dishonorable officers and other dishonorable citizens and multiple outlets for such grievances.

Your argument sounds suspiciously like the argument that we need laws against "assault weapons" because someone might kill someone with one.

Enforce the laws we have until there's a problem.

Once again. There is a difference in laws limiting the rights of all citizens and laws that specifically limit govt powers. If I could walk up to an officer and ask to see verification of his latest qualification and training or whatever else and he was forced by law to take the time to stop and show it to me for no reason other than my curiosity, then it would be even and all would be well. The difference is that this law only gives power to the govt official and not everyone. The assault weapon thing is not even in the same ball park. You're trying to create something out of nothing. That's the type of stuff Joe Citizen needs protection from. Officers that may stretch one thing into something totally different to make it stick.

BTW... you mentioned earlier that rather than a law to hold them accountable to, they should just be held accountable to common sense, if that's the case, how about they drop out of the unions that shelter the worst offenders from being fired from their tax payer funded positions. Not too much "individual" accountability with that process. My employees have rules as to how they conduct my business. Employees of the public need clear rules as to how they conduct the public's business.

I'm done. I'm thankful for you and all the other LEOs that risk your lives with every traffic stop or phone call but still don't necessarily think you are gods and should be granted the power to rule with the iron fist.

 

[Michael Brown]

Once again. There is a difference in laws limiting the rights of all citizens and laws that specifically limit govt powers. If I could walk up to an officer and ask to see verification of his latest qualification and training or whatever else and he was forced by law to take the time to stop and show it to me for no reason other than my curiosity, then it would be even and all would be well. The difference is that this law only gives power to the govt official and not everyone. The assault weapon thing is not even in the same ball park. You're trying to create something out of nothing. That's the type of stuff Joe Citizen needs protection from. Officers that may stretch one thing into something totally different to make it stick.

BTW... you mentioned earlier that rather than a law to hold them accountable to, they should just be held accountable to common sense, if that's the case, how about they drop out of the unions that shelter the worst offenders from being fired from their tax payer funded positions. Not too much "individual" accountability with that process. My employees have rules as to how they conduct my business. Employees of the public need clear rules as to how they conduct the public's business.

I'm done. I'm thankful for you and all the other LEOs that risk your lives with every traffic stop or phone call but still don't necessarily think you are gods and should be granted the power to rule with the iron fist.

You have thrown more red herrings into this post than I've seen in a long time.......

If you want more laws, don't be suprised with the downside.

As an aside, you cannot thrown out a whole bunch of snide cop generalizations and then try to King's X your way out of it by saying that you thank and respect cops.

That's just being a little whiny *****.

Michael Brown

 

[jcizzle]

I said I'm thankful for the LEOs. Respect is something that's earned individually. There you go twisting words. Just the kind of cop we need laws for. See, that's why this buy in the video recorded. Just bc someone is a cop doesn't mean they get it right either. I believe you even said something about going off half cocked and getting details wrong. It's the details that matter, right? Try living by your own rules. Oh yeah, that's right, you just want everybody else to live by those rules but not you bc you are a cop. I respect some cops. Many that I've gotten to know and ride along with at times. But don't respect all of ya. Just thankful for ya.

Hey, when in doubt, twist words and call names and curse words. That's a champ. Glad you rep the people of Ttown

OUT.

 

[Glocktogo]

I said I'm thankful for the LEOs. Respect is something that's earned individually. There you go twisting words. Just the kind of cop we need laws for. See, that's why this buy in the video recorded. Just bc someone is a cop doesn't mean they get it right either. I believe you even said something about going off half cocked and getting details wrong. It's the details that matter, right? Try living by your own rules. Oh yeah, that's right, you just want everybody else to live by those rules but not you bc you are a cop. I respect some cops. Many that I've gotten to know and ride along with at times. But don't respect all of ya. Just thankful for ya.

Hey, when in doubt, twist words and call names and curse words. That's a champ. Glad you rep the people of Ttown

OUT.

Are you sure we're finally getting the closure we're longing for?