What the Hell?

[Werewolf]

Tirade? I thought it was a well thought and reasoned response. What part of it do you see as a tirade?

Not a tirade IMO either. Good post that addressed the issue of authority, abuse thereof and connected the dots in this thread.

Some are just a bit over sensitive (understandable, in some cases) when it comes to LEO's and the less than stellar behaviors exhibited by a very small proportion of their community.

 

[BadgeBunny]

Not a tirade IMO either. Good post that addressed the issue of authority, abuse thereof and connected the dots in this thread.

Some are just a bit over sensitive (understandable, in some cases) when it comes to LEO's and the less than stellar behaviors exhibited by a very small proportion of their community.

That is not true -- at least not for me anyway. I can see both sides of the fence. However, expecting an officer to conduct business based solely on someone's feelings getting hurt is a serious safety issue for both the officer and the civilian.

In my younger years I was anything but law-abiding and even then I was always treated with respect and dignity by the LEO I encountered. Even when I truly did not deserve it. The two times I have felt there was an issue I got names and badge numbers and dealt with those issues in a mature, reasonable manner.

I'm just not exactly sure how it is that certain folks seem to have the same problems over and over.

 

[BadgeBunny]

LOL at Bob doing what Bob does best ...

Dude ... here's the WHOLE definition ...

tirade[tahy-reyd, tahy-reyd]  
noun

1. a prolonged outburst of bitter, outspoken denunciation: a tirade against smoking.
2. a long, vehement speech: a tirade in the Senate.
3. a passage dealing with a single theme or idea, as in poetry: the stately tirades of Corneille. [emphasis added]

 

[1shot(bob)]

That is not true -- at least not for me anyway. I can see both sides of the fence. However, expecting an officer to conduct business based solely on someone's feelings getting hurt is a serious safety issue for both the officer and the civilian.

In my younger years I was anything but law-abiding and even then I was always treated with respect and dignity by the LEO I encountered. Even when I truly did not deserve it. The two times I have felt there was an issue I got names and badge numbers and dealt with those issues in a mature, reasonable manner.

I'm just not exactly sure how it is that certain folks seem to have the same problems over and over.

OK. This is the last time I'm going to say this: this is not about hurt feelings, manliness, or small penis compensation, it's about following the rule of law.
If the LEO has nor rule of law to support his actions I have no legal ramification to abide by his requests. If he is overstepping his boundaries I am not obliged to follow his commands. It's not about feelings, it's about rights. His need to feel safe does not trump my rights. Ever!
What part of that do you not understand?
That was the topic of this post and some people keep trying to veer of into personal attacks about feelings and manhood. Stop it! Please!
We have the OK SDA and Terry v. Ohio as a discussion point. How do we interpret those two seemingly adverse legal documents? Does one supersede the other? Are both relevant in a traffic stop?
Another point in the topic is 'Are you willing to lay down your rights when a LEO is over-stepping his bounds?'

Ad hominem attacks and red herrings are NOT part of the discussion.

 

[1shot(bob)]

LOL at Bob doing what Bob does best ...

Dude ... here's the WHOLE definition ...

tirade[tahy-reyd, tahy-reyd]  
noun

1. a prolonged outburst of bitter, outspoken denunciation: a tirade against smoking.
2. a long, vehement speech: a tirade in the Senate.
3. a passage dealing with a single theme or idea, as in poetry: the stately tirades of Corneille. [emphasis added]

It's what I do best? Can you cite more examples?
See: Ad hominem.

I quoted the first definition from my Google search in it's entirety. I apologize if I didn't look at every word definition available.
Did you see my post as 'vehement'? No, I won't Google 'vehement' for you.
I'll agree with definition 3 though. Maybe by that definition I was on a 'tirade'.

 

[BadgeBunny]

OK. This is the last time I'm going to say this: this is not about hurt feelings, manliness, or small penis compensation, it's about following the rule of law.
If the LEO has nor rule of law to support his actions I have no legal ramification to abide by his requests. If he is overstepping his boundaries I am not obliged to follow his commands. It's not about feelings, it's about rights. His need to feel safe does not trump my rights. Ever!
What part of that do you not understand?
That was the topic of this post and some people keep trying to veer of into personal attacks about feelings and manhood. Stop it! Please!
We have the OK SDA and Terry v. Ohio as a discussion point. How do we interpret those two seemingly adverse legal documents? Does one supersede the other? Are both relevant in a traffic stop?
Another point in the topic is 'Are you willing to lay down your rights when a LEO is over-stepping his bounds?'

Ad hominem attacks and red herrings are NOT part of the discussion.

The interpretation of the SDA statute and Ohio v. Terry have been hashed out on this board more times than Carter has little liver pills and the end result is always the same. Neither of them give a conceal carry holder an absolute right to refuse an officer's request to relinquish a firearm.

Quoted because I couldn't say it any better:

The Attorney General has plainly stated that "inspection" does not affect the issues laid out in Terry V. Ohio and is superseded by federal caselaw.

The legislators who wrote it were concerned about officers using traffic stops as opportunities to check for stolen guns or to develop a database of serial numbers, not to deny the officer the safety that caselaw provides him/her.

However since the Terry decision is usually applied to potential criminal activity that might be assisted by a firearm, before I would choose to disarm someone, I would be certain I had reason to do so, not disarm someone as a matter of course.

However, it is unlikely that an officer will articulate his suspicion if he is diasarming you via Terry, and he is under absolutely no obligation to do so, so my advice would be to do exactly as he says until the duration of the contact is over and if you feel your rights have been violated, file a complaint later.

The only time I have disarmed a CCW holder was when the individual had committed some other type of crime or had shot someone in self-defense in which case the disarming was for evidentiary purposes not officer safety.

I am not in favor of disarming someone during the course of a traffic stop but the legislation's intent is not to prevent it from occurring on the basis of officer safety.

Michael Brown

Whether or not you think an officer should disarm someone on a stop, or it makes you uncomfortable, is completely irrelevant to the issue. As long as an officer can articulate their reasoning behind a request (and I don't mean to you in the middle of a stop) then the request is lawful and should be obeyed.

 

[1shot(bob)]

The interpretation of the SDA statute and Ohio v. Terry have been hashed out on this board more times than Carter has little liver pills and the end result is always the same. Neither of them give a conceal carry holder an absolute right to refuse an officer's request to relinquish a firearm.

The frequency of a topic being hashed on a forum such as this is irrelevant, unless the admins make it a sticky and say "Never discuss this topic again".
The OK SDA does grant me that right. Terry v. Ohio seems to take away that right. Hence the discussion.

Quoted because I couldn't say it any better:

<<edited by the forum software>>

Whether or not you think an officer should disarm someone on a stop, or it makes you uncomfortable, is completely irrelevant to the issue. As long as an officer can articulate their reasoning behind a request (and I don't mean to you in the middle of a stop) then the request is lawful and should be obeyed.

With all due respect, that is Michael's opinion. He has every right to that opinion.
If all officers acted as he claims to act in these situations we wouldn't even need this discussion. They don't. They should.
Maybe if we talk about it enough they will start doing it as he does. Maybe they need to be educated also.

 

[Michael Brown]

this is not about hurt feelings, manliness,.

Given your propensity to badger this topic regardless of the merit, I think that's exactly what it's about for you.

Michael Brown

 

[BadgeBunny]

The frequency of a topic being hashed on a forum such as this is irrelevant, unless the admins make it a sticky and say "Never discuss this topic again".
The OK SDA does grant me that right. Terry v. Ohio seems to take away that right. Hence the discussion.



With all due respect, that is Michael's opinion. He has every right to that opinion.
If all officers acted as he claims to act in these situations we wouldn't even need this discussion. They don't. They should.
Maybe if we talk about it enough they will start doing it as he does. Maybe they need to be educated also.

What right does the SDA grant you, specifically?

Dude ... talk about personal attacks ... that just ain't right. All stops are not the same. What is appropriate for one stop is inappropriate for another. It is up to the officer to determine what is appropriate and what is not and as long as he can articulate his position there is no lawful reason to disobey a request to relinquish a firearm.

 

[1shot(bob)]

Given your propensity to badger this topic regardless of the merit, I think that's exactly what it's about for you.

Michael Brown

You're entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong you are.