| Author | Post |
|---|
ShooterMcGavin
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 43 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 11:17 pm |
|
bugly wrote: ...When it becomes more, such as; "I need to run your info", even though you've done nothing, force them to comply with the law by asking them what you're being charged with. If they refuse, you have them by the 'nads. ...
When you provide your ID, you are consenting to them running your info. After they have your ID, how do you "force them to comply"? You won't prevent them from running your info with physical force and you won't be able to convince them to stop.
bugly wrote:
... it just makes it harder for the rest of us to continue open carrying without harassment. If all the police see when they talk to open carryers is; confrontation and refusal to even be civil, they WILL step up the harassment and they WILL make it difficult to even own guns, ...
You are saying that, if we step up and let them know that we know our rights, AND that we know when they (the police) are not acting within the law, they will increase harassment frequency? I must disagree. I think the opposite would be the result. The police would start to think before stopping someone who is clearly abiding by the law, just to harass them and waste their time.
|
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 01:58 am |
|
NavyLT wrote: bugly wrote: Now we're coming closer to the point. Absolutely oppose when the scope of authority is breached. A simple ID request is not that breach.
The US Supreme Court has said that is a breach.
The request isn't the breach, but when you politely decline to share personal information and they insist it is the breach. (I try to do it politely, but even if I wasn"t, I haven't done anything wrong.) They can't willy nilly stop people and ask for Papers. When they are asking for I.D. that is what they are asking for. Believe me they have all kinds of personal information on you once they have that.
|
Ajetpilot
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 02:12 am |
|
bugly wrote: ... confrontation and refusal to even be civil, they WILL step up the harassment ...
Who said you have to refuse to be civil? You merely have to calmly, and unemotionally assert your rights. That's all. What is so wrong with that?
|
bugly
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 02:23 am |
|
Ajetpilot wrote: bugly wrote: ... confrontation and refusal to even be civil, they WILL step up the harassment ...
Who said you have to refuse to be civil? You merely have to calmly, and unemotionally assert your rights. That's all. What is so wrong with that?
Based solely on how responses have been written, civility is not part of the equation.
The responses have been such that if asked by LEO to show ID, the response would be "kiss my @$$". Or so they have been interpreted.
There is a fine line between assertiveness and militancy, where one draws that line may determine where he sleeps that evening...or ever again.
|
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 02:40 am |
|
| I am not advocating not being civil either, hope you didn't infer that from my posts. I am telling you from personal experience they make you feel like you are being an ass for civilly standing up for your civil rights.
|
Tawnos
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 507 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 03:51 am |
|
bugly wrote: Ajetpilot wrote: bugly wrote: ... confrontation and refusal to even be civil, they WILL step up the harassment ...
Who said you have to refuse to be civil? You merely have to calmly, and unemotionally assert your rights. That's all. What is so wrong with that?
Based solely on how responses have been written, civility is not part of the equation.
The responses have been such that if asked by LEO to show ID, the response would be "kiss my @$$". Or so they have been interpreted.
There is a fine line between assertiveness and militancy, where one draws that line may determine where he sleeps that evening...or ever again.
See, now you're just making stuff up.
|
bugly
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 07:54 am |
|
Not really, check through the posts and look at how the responses have been. It's been "I wouldn't give them any information" "they don't have the right to ask".... yada yada. Tough guys that usually pee themselves when the first shot is fired.
I personally wouldn't go into battle with any of those guys, they obviously could use some real "old fashioned" military discipline. Try copping that attitude in a foxhole.
I'm finished battling wits with unarmed opponents in this thread. Good day to you all, hope you have some good luck with your attitudes, some day you might grow up.
|
Tawnos
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 507 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 08:17 am |
|
bugly wrote: Not really, check through the posts and look at how the responses have been. It's been "I wouldn't give them any information" "they don't have the right to ask".... yada yada. Tough guys that usually pee themselves when the first shot is fired.
I personally wouldn't go into battle with any of those guys, they obviously could use some real "old fashioned" military discipline. Try copping that attitude in a foxhole.
I'm finished battling wits with unarmed opponents in this thread. Good day to you all, hope you have some good luck with your attitudes, some day you might grow up.
Seriously, you're going to have to pull sources. I just reread the thread, and the only "tough guy" (well, quasi tough guy, mostly pissed at the blatant and admitted breaking of the law by a supposed law enforcement officer) post was by me, calling Johnny Law a douche for arresting someone for not showing papers. You'll note that I am a person who has had a couple encounters with police, both here and in California. In no case did I ever provide identification, and in both I was let go with no charges filed nor any issue raised.
Basically, the only one who is truly acting the part of "internet tough guy" here is you. You've made disparaging comments regarding the maturity ("grow up and act right" & "some day you might grow up"), actions under pressure ("usually pee themselves"), while excusing yourself from similar behavior ("screw 'em, I wouldn't give him the time of day"), and other such indications of the ITG profile. The only thing the rest of us have said is that we have a right to be secure in our persons and papers, and that any attempt to infringe upon that will be met with stonewalling. Why is that such a problem for you?
|
ShooterMcGavin
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 43 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 08:29 am |
|
| Tawnos, I know you are trying to use reason, but I think we should just let him leave the thread.
|
NavyLT
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 03:44 pm |
|
bugly wrote: Not really, check through the posts and look at how the responses have been. It's been "I wouldn't give them any information" "they don't have the right to ask".... yada yada. Tough guys that usually pee themselves when the first shot is fired.
I personally wouldn't go into battle with any of those guys, they obviously could use some real "old fashioned" military discipline. Try copping that attitude in a foxhole.
I'm finished battling wits with unarmed opponents in this thread. Good day to you all, hope you have some good luck with your attitudes, some day you might grow up.
Interesting. I started out in foxholes in 1984. I haven't peed myself yet.
Great, now I've got this song going in my head, "Another troll bites the dust. And another one gone, and another one gone. Another troll bites the dust."
Last edited on Sun Jul 5th, 2009 03:46 pm by NavyLT
|
Current time is 07:59 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 |
|
