|
|
|
OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Alabama > A Cop "open carries" in Alabama
|
|
||
| OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Alabama > A Cop "open carries" in Alabama
|
|||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ChronoSphere Regular Member 
|
http://media.myfoxny.com/swat/swat/swathooters.html Was messing around with some guns + hooters girls. His department stated that its legal to display your guns in public (I would imagine they're referring to open carry). Thought this would be a somewhat interesting link for you gentlemen. |
|||||||||
|
Wynder State Researcher 
|
While the 'reporting' was actually a commentary and nothing near real objective journalism, they're stating that the guns were privately owned and the officers were off duty. However, I think that what they're doing would be considered brandishing and foolish by anyone who wasn't a cop. |
|||||||||
|
unrequited Regular Member 
|
Definitely brandishing, and if any of us ever went into a Hooters with a long arm in hand, I doubt we'd walk out without being shackled. I guess that's why we have two sets of laws in this country. |
|||||||||
|
kurtmax_0 Regular Member
|
I didn't see any pistols. Rifles are pretty much understood to be legal to OC... I would say that some of those pictures could be considered brandishing. And while the report said the firearms were privately owned so no taxpayers paid for this, I'm pretty sure all the other stuff was taxpayer property. At least I'm not a NY resident and have to pay for cop hooter runs... Last edited on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 03:48 pm by kurtmax_0 |
|||||||||
|
bayboy42 Regular Member 
|
That LT is an idiot. Definitely one trip where I'd require the camera to be left at home. I bet dollars to donuts it was one of his own swat members with the camera  |
|||||||||
|
HankT State Researcher 
|
kurtmax_0 wrote: I didn't see any pistols. Rifles are pretty much understood to be legal to OC... I would say that some of those pictures could be considered brandishing. And while the report said the firearms were privately owned so no taxpayers paid for this, I'm pretty sure all the other stuff was taxpayer property. At least I'm not a NY resident and have to pay for cop hooter runs... FOX 5 INVESTIGATES A Fox 5 exclusive: our investigative team has obtained disturbing pictures involving a local police lieutenant who is already in hot water. What you're about to see raises serious questions about the character and reputation of an elite and highly trained part of the police department. Watch John Deutzman's report and then view some other photos that were not in his report John Deutzman tells us that Lt. Andriani is currently on an extended vacation and has not been suspended from the force. Lt. Andriani called Wednesday afternoon and said that no laws were broken because the photos were taken in Alabama on their trip home. In Alabama, you are allowed to display guns in public. He also said the guns are privately own and not paid for by taxpayers. He explained they are attempting to take pictures for a calendar with the Hooters girls -- and that the cops were off duty at the time. He denies all the allegations against him in the lawsuit, including having police work at his house. He said his hands were not actually touching the girl's breasts in the picture shown in John Deutzman's report. Andriani insists he wasn't home when John came knocking two days ago. What's really interesting is that Lt. Andriani: actually thought it was a good idea to do all the things he did. Sometimes, you just can't stop people from doing stupid stuff. What a dolt. He's through. Last edited on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 04:03 pm by HankT |
|||||||||
|
Agent19 Regular Member 
|
just another incident where the criminal (idiot) provides the best evidence against themselves. Last edited on Thu Nov 15th, 2007 05:30 pm by Agent19 |
|||||||||
|
openryan State Researcher 
|
This is hillarious, sad actually. A few morons can make all the police look like idiots. I hope this guy gets fired. They really should have used better judgement here. I wonder what their wives said about these pictures...? |
|||||||||
|
kurtmax_0 Regular Member
|
Oh, I wasn't saying he isn't stupid, just debating if it's even controversial if it's illegal or not. |
|||||||||
|
LEO 229 Regular Member 
|
The cops were off duty (traveling back) and took advantage of a photo-op with some hot hooters girls.. who would pass that up!! I did a photo with a hooters girl once ON DUTY but she was not holding my gun and I was not holding hers.  I am sure the guns were made safe prior to handing them over for the photo. To me.. no real harm and if it had been a bunch of civilians they would have been within their lawful rights, no questions asked!! Please remember that it is only brandishing if people are threatened and I am sure with everything being observed and the camera being used it was rather obvious what was going on.  |
|||||||||
|
nitrovic Regular Member 
|
Last edited on Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 04:33 am by nitrovic |
|||||||||
|
nitrovic Regular Member
|
Last edited on Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 04:34 am by nitrovic |
|||||||||
|
kurtmax_0 Regular Member
|
1. People do get arrested for carrying long-arms. There was a thread about that last year. 2. There is no 'brandishing' law in Alabama. What you get charged with is disorderly conduct (S13A-11-7). It doesn't really apply, so you won't ultimately get convicted unless your lawyer has no brain... |
|||||||||
|
nitrovic Regular Member
|
Last edited on Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 04:35 am by nitrovic |
|||||||||
|
LEO 229 Regular Member
|
nitrovic wrote: While I'll agree that it is not brandishing, it is very disturbing. I also dispute the "off duty" remark. We had a bunch of guys go to Katrina as well and they got paid for the travel time (I'm sure Hoboken did as well). Therefore they were on duty. Either way the LT. deserves to get fired. At the VERY least demoted to officer one and made to retire. In regards to being "off duty" it means there were not patrolling the streets. They were traveling and just because your getting paid during travel time is does not explicitly mean you are "on duty." It only means your being compensated for your time. Even during lunch you are getting paid but you are not actually working. I am not sure why the LT should be been fired either. Is it because they took photos? Is it because they allowed citizens hold weapons rendered as safe prior? It has been a while since I have seen the photos but I do not recall anything so egregious that he should be fired or demoted and forced to retire. Taking the photos may have been an error in judgement but I do not find it so serious that anyone's employment on the department needed to be terminated. |
|||||||||
|
kurtmax_0 Regular Member
|
IIRC he was fired for other reasons. 'Supposedly' he was having his underlings do housework and stuff for him as well... My question is: If a bunch of us went to a hooters in alabama with 'rendered safe' rifles and started posing.. how long do you think it would take for the cops to arrive and gun us all down? Last edited on Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 11:26 pm by kurtmax_0 |
|||||||||
|
sigshape Regular Member
|
kurtmax_0 wrote: IIRC he was fired for other reasons. 'Supposedly' he was having his underlings do housework and stuff for him as well...he won't be replying to this |
|||||||||
|
smttysmth02gt Regular Member
|
You guys are all being flat out silly if you think the cops should be fired for taking pictures with hooters girls with guns. That's plain retarded. If no laws were broken then no laws were broken. End of story. My only question would be, what are NJ police officers doing down here in AL? Were they on vacation? How did they transport their firearms down here (although I believe that any LEO can transport his/her firearms in any state in the U.S.)? You guys are so contradictory sometimes. You think you can open carry and that's ok, but you think cops can't? Meh. There is nothing wrong with what he did. |
|||||||||
|
kurtmax_0 Regular Member
|
This was a necroed thread. They were on their way back from Katrina iirc. We aren't being contradictory. The fact is, if non-cops did the same thing, they would get arrested, even though it's not against the law. Additionally, cops shouldn't be using their official equipment, with their official uniforms, etc. to pose with hooters girls. What kind of image are they trying to portray? Like it or not, they are representing the NYPD, and now the NYPD is represented by hooters girls. Do you think there is any large corporation in the US that wouldn't immediately fire their employees for doing the same exact thing? Don't even get me started on how unresponsible they were with their firearms. They aren't toys to wave around and pose for pictures. Last edited on Sun Jun 14th, 2009 04:35 pm by kurtmax_0 |
|||||||||
|
smttysmth02gt Regular Member
|
kurtmax_0 wrote: This was a necroed thread. They were on their way back from Katrina iirc. Oh boy. As I stated previously, no laws were broken. And I seriously doubt that a cop would arrest someone for having pictures taken with an unloaded Ar15. You guys ARE contradictory...and WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too biased against LE. You guys assist in creating the "us vs them" mentality. Personally, I don't really care what you think they "should" or "should not" be doing. The law is what matters, not your opinion. If you're going to think your opinion is that precious, then you won't mind being arrested for disorderly conduct if someone calls the cops because you're OC'ing. Legal or not, that would be a legitimate charge against you. Btw, it was NJPD, not NY. You guys really need to reconsider your approach to LE. |
|||||||||
|
HungSquirrel Regular Member
|
And I seriously doubt that a cop would arrest someone for having pictures taken with an unloaded Ar15. Carry one in Mobile. See what happens. |
|||||||||
|
smttysmth02gt Regular Member
|
HungSquirrel wrote: And I seriously doubt that a cop would arrest someone for having pictures taken with an unloaded Ar15. They weren't CARRYING them around. Sheesh. There is a huge difference between standing in front of a camera with an unloaded AR15 and walking down a busy street with one. Let's be realistic people. |
|||||||||
|
kurtmax_0 Regular Member
|
Sorry, I incorrectly remembered NJPD. Like I said this thread was necroed so I couldn't remember the story completely. Actually, iirc, at least the guy in charge was fired. Although he had some other problems that were more... problematic.. as well. Also, I don't think anybody should be arrested over this. I'm simply asking what image you would like them to be portraying. I don't think a majority of people in this country would appreciate their cops posing with hooters babes and ARs. You never answered my question about a real corporation. The fact is, if you were a lineman for, say, Alabama Power, and posed with hooters babes with a line truck and cabling, you can bet your ass you'd be getting a pink slip the next day. Why should cops not be held to as high of a standard? Also, do you feel safe that someone who would treat a firearm so casually is allowed to carry anywhere in the US... even places that you cannot carry? Last edited on Sun Jun 14th, 2009 06:47 pm by kurtmax_0 |
|||||||||
|
smttysmth02gt Regular Member
|
kurtmax_0 wrote: Sorry, I incorrectly remembered NJPD. Like I said this thread was necroed so I couldn't remember the story completely. We do not operate based on "opinion", we operate based on the law. What they do on their off time is their business. I don't give a @#$% about it. That's my opinion if I were the owner of a company, or for that matter, those officers supervisor. I do not care if they had a giant orgy together and recorded it and put it on a website legally. They are human beings and are alotted the same freedoms that you and I are. They broke no laws, therefore, anything that may have resulted from this "incident" is complete and utter bull$hit. The only problem I'd see is them wasting taxpayer money via gas for whatever they were doing. As far as the pictures and video, I really don't care. Hooters is a resteraunt, not a strip joint, therefore anyone who doesn't like the pictures because of moral beliefs or whatever other reason is being silly. It has nothing to do with "standards" since that's relative to the individual. |
|||||||||
|
smttysmth02gt Regular Member
|
kurtmax_0 wrote: Also, do you feel safe that someone who would treat a firearm so casually is allowed to carry anywhere in the US... even places that you cannot carry? Missed this part. You would have to be more specific. I think that's quite nitpicking. Gun safety rules apply mainly when checking to make sure a gun is not loaded. After that if it's in your possession it's fair game. Acting like it's loaded constantly would be retarded and render it useless when doing anything with it short of shooting. In case you're wondering, I have no idea what kind of accusation you're trying to make here. Maybe letting the Hooters girls hold the unloaded AR? I don't know. This entire argument seems rather weak and biased, much like many others on this site I have seen that portray LEO's as worthless dogs who ALL want you to die a slave without any rights. Sorry, I choose to be objective and realistic. |
|||||||||
|
kurtmax_0 Regular Member
|
Perhaps you didn't see the picture of the cop wearing a white napkin mask acting like he was in the KKK? I'm not being unrealistic about the firearms. Yes, being unloaded makes them safe I suppose. I still wouldn't wave a rifle around at a horizontal level in a heavily populated area. You seem to be holding cops above everyone else. I've said several times that if this were a normal person working for a company, they would have their ass canned in a day. How come the cops get to play with rifles and hooters chicks in official uniforms and whatnot? Again, what kind of image are these cops trying to portray? You aren't concerned about them 'playing' with their firearms, posing with hooters chicks and acting as the KKK? Whatever happened to professionalism? I'm not bashing cops in general, but I can't see how you can defend these specific cops in this situation. No, they didn't do anything illegal, but they are supposed to be professionals. No, they weren't grossly unsafe, but they didn't treat firearms very respectfully. I doubt they could say with certainty that their firearms were pointed in safe directions at all times (it doesn't matter if they are unloaded). Last edited on Mon Jun 15th, 2009 02:09 am by kurtmax_0 |
|||||||||
|
smttysmth02gt Regular Member
|
kurtmax_0 wrote: Perhaps you didn't see the picture of the cop wearing a white napkin mask acting like he was in the KKK? Nope, I sure didn't see that picture. I don't hold cops above everyone else, but I am objective when discussing situations involving them because I actually know what they deal with. You guys have been biased against cops in nearly every situation I've seen on this board. It gets old when you refuse to be objective and pay attention. |
|||||||||
|
kurtmax_0 Regular Member
|
This entire forum, or just the Alabama section? I don't pay attention to most of the other subsections (except holsters). The thing is, most LEO encounters on this forum are going to be negative. If someone isn't harassed then there is nothing to write about! If 'bashing' a cop because he's harassing a law abiding citizen that isn't breaking any laws isn't being objective, than I guess there is no arguing with you. So yeah, I guess we 'bash' the handful of cops that go out of their way to be asshats, but you don't see us bashing cops that leave us alone. |
|||||||||
|
smttysmth02gt Regular Member
|
kurtmax_0 wrote: This entire forum, or just the Alabama section? I don't pay attention to most of the other subsections (except holsters). Nope. I'm talking about threads that nobody has direction involvement with. I'm not referring to any personal experiences here. |
|||||||||
|
kurtmax_0 Regular Member
|
Also, iirc the 'hooters cops' PD investigated and removed all of those involved from the SWAT team, and some of them to desk duty. Apparently even their own supervisors thought they were being a bit over-the-top. I think the main point of this story, however, is not that the cops should be fired, but that if non-cops were doing this in Alabama. That is, posing with hooters girls in a parking lot with rifles, you can bet there would be a heavy police response. |
|||||||||
|
smttysmth02gt Regular Member
|
kurtmax_0 wrote: Also, iirc the 'hooters cops' PD investigated and removed all of those involved from the SWAT team, and some of them to desk duty. Apparently even their own supervisors thought they were being a bit over-the-top. Stop comparing yourself in the situation...what about the TAC unit here in Mobile? Would that have the same response? I don't think so. |
|||||||||
|
jerg_064 Regular Member
|
smittysmith02gt wrote:We do not operate based on "opinion", we operate based on the law. Were not supposed to operate on 'opinion'. The sad factual truth is, that these days, our laws are made on opinions. Often these laws made from opinions contradict the Constitution-"The Supreme Law of the Land" and when they do the are in fact NOT law. smttysmth02gt wrote: Missed this part. You would have to be more specific. I think that's quite nitpicking. Gun safety rules apply mainly when checking to make sure a gun is not loaded. After that if it's in your possession it's fair game. Acting like it's loaded constantly would be retarded and render it useless when doing anything with it short of shooting. That is a rediculous and irresponsible statement. Guns SHOULD be treated as if they are loaded at ALL times by the mass majority of people. I've observed these rules since I was 4 years old and this way of acting most certainly does not 'render it useless when doing anything short of shooting'. The only thing this simple rule requires is keeping the muzzle pointed in a safe direction and not putting your finger on the trigger unless you plan to shoot what your aiming at. There are very few exceptions to this rule, such as dry fire pratice and putting a weapon in rack safe condition. There are other things such as this that are acceptable, but you should still NEVER recklessly point or waive a barrel around at or in the vicinity of other human beings or in a direction when you are unaware of what's beyond! Obeying this rule instills muscle memory in a person so that they unconsciously ensure they will never accidently shoot another person. Using this method significantly increases your chances of never shooting another innocent human being in a high stress situation or any situation where you cannot think and concentrate to your full potential. Such as a tired old hunter that's a bit lost and has been hiking for hours, his heart rate is up, his head is not clear, and he has sweat in his eyes. Then he sees something he belives is the game he's hunting. Normally he would just scope it and not put his finger on the trigger until he's 100% positive what he's aiming at. Since he didn't always impletment the first rule of firearms safety when handling weapons and his mind is cloudy and sweat is burning his eyes; he puts his finger on the trigger and is so exhausted and yet excited that he pulls the trigger early and kills another hunter. This is a very realistic situation that can be avoided by always practicing the first rule of firearms safety. Back on topic. Yes long gun OC is generally accepted, but that doesn't mean you can carry a firearm in your hands. It is not treated any differently than standing around in front of Hooters with a handgun in your hand. So what if there's no mag, there could still be a round in the chamber. LEOs as you said are normal human beings and make mistakes as such. If my handgun has to be holstered, then I'm pretty sure a long gun has to be slung. I don't think people are bothered by the fact alone that the LEOs were off duty at Hooters. It's the double standard, if you honestly believe you could go stand in front of Hooters with some friends and several AR-15s posing for pictures without being arrested or at least harrassed by LE, Then go do it. Prove your point. The fact that they let these random Hooters girls hold M-4s/M-16s close enough to the horizontal plane in a crowded area where the barrells without question were at least pointed at people legs is most certainly irresponsible. They're in a profession involving regularly handling weapons they should know better and should be held to a higher standard. When they exercise behavior otherwise, they should have consequenses, though not being fired on the first offense. |
|||||||||
|
smttysmth02gt Regular Member
|
You can respect them without fearing them. That's the reason OC is frowned upon from the get go, so I find it humorous you'd fear them that much to type so much about how to operate them. Thank you for the instructional. lol. That safety rant is wayyyyyyyy overboard. That's really all I'm gonna say so I don't hijack this thread, or have a brain aneurism from responding. Everyone knows the rules you typed out. My point was, there is nothing wrong with checking for rounds, seeing none, and handing it to someone to cop a feel or snap some pics with. Nuff said. |
|||||||||
|
jerg_064 Regular Member
|
I have absolutely no fear of any weapon. Using safety measures is what respecting a weapon is all about. A weapon is an inanimate object and only a fool would fear it. The safety rules are NOT about the weapon, they're about the person holding the weapon. Human error is the biggest cause all accidental deaths. I'm afraid of the 'goof with a gun' that disregards the rules of safety whenever s/he sees fit. I acknowledge that I'm a human being and as such I am prone to error; I refuse to be a 'goof with a gun' myself by irresponsibly disregarding the safety rules established in order to prevent death or grave bodily injury. Implementing muscle memory techniques is the most effective method in reducing 'human error'. "Practice like you Play and Play like you Practice" Last edited on Mon Jun 15th, 2009 03:01 am by jerg_064 |
|||||||||
|
smttysmth02gt Regular Member
|
jerg_064 wrote: I have absolutely no fear of any weapon. Using safety measures is what respecting a weapon is all about. A weapon is an inanimate object and only a fool would fear it. The safety rules are NOT about the weapon, they're about the person holding the weapon. Human error is the biggest cause all accidental deaths. Right, I can agree to that, but from the photos I saw, I saw nothing that would merit "bad safety" or anything. |
|||||||||
|
jerg_064 Regular Member
|
smttysmth02gt wrote: Right, I can agree to that, but from the photos I saw, I saw nothing that would merit "bad safety" or anything. I can't link the images so I'll list. 1479 appears as if it's pointed to the next to her. 1482-there's a hangun pointed at an LEO, and an M4 is almost horizontal 1483-girl 3rd from the right is pointing an M4 at the females to her right 1484-"^", girl 4th from left is pointing M4 directly at camera Come on... no bad safety, Seriously? |
|||||||||
|
smttysmth02gt Regular Member
|
jerg_064 wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:Right, I can agree to that, but from the photos I saw, I saw nothing that would merit "bad safety" or anything. It's a photo shoot dude. Obviously they checked for rounds...if they didn't then yes, bad safety, if they did, no harm can come from a verified unloaded gun. Yes, seriously. |
|||||||||
|
jerg_064 Regular Member
|
I can see what your getting at with it being a photo shoot n' all. But with the large number of people in a crowded area, outside a restaraunt where people go to drink and look at pretty women..... I think the firing pins should've at least been removed. And yea, I would be totally stoked if I was the one getting pictures with a bunch of Hooter's girls with assault weapons. Last edited on Mon Jun 15th, 2009 03:18 am by jerg_064 |
|||||||||
|
smttysmth02gt Regular Member
|
jerg_064 wrote: I can see what your getting at with it being a photo shoot n' all. But with the large number of people in a crowded area, outside a restaraunt where people go to drink and look at pretty women..... I think the firing pins should've at least been removed. I don't. Remove the ammo and the gun's a paperweight. Or in this case, a nice edition to eye candy. |
|||||||||
|
jerg_064 Regular Member
|
smttysmth02gt wrote: jerg_064 wrote:I can see what your getting at with it being a photo shoot n' all. But with the large number of people in a crowded area, outside a restaraunt where people go to drink and look at pretty women..... I think the firing pins should've at least been removed. Touche |
|||||||||
|
dixieborn Regular Member
|
Smtty, I think you've got a fair point that there is regularly a bias against LE among the forum or OC'ers. And yes, lots of the time it comes from bad experiences, but that shouldn't taint our opinion of all law enforcement officers. I do disagree with you, though, about the officers being able to do whatever they want on their own time. Apparently you have never served in the military, or on a police department, or other such post. Because it is a very clear expectation that a member of those organizations is a direct representative of that very organization. Especially while in uniform! I agree that they should not be arrested, prosecuted or anything of that sort. But I do believe their supervisors have every right to take corrective action for this. Because it was hugely unprofessional to be doing this in their police uniforms, with their SWAT vehicle, etc. You are correct, on their own time, they can go hang out at hooters, play with the girls, or in your words, have an orgy if they like! But most certainly not in uniform. Because they are held to a higher standard. That's not just me, a gun-toting, LE bashing forum writer saying that, that is what their superiors will say. Just my two cents, cause for a legal stink? No. Unprofessional and inappropriate? Yes. |
|||||||||
|
smttysmth02gt Regular Member
|
dixieborn wrote: Smtty, I think you've got a fair point that there is regularly a bias against LE among the forum or OC'ers. And yes, lots of the time it comes from bad experiences, but that shouldn't taint our opinion of all law enforcement officers. Then perhaps we both agree and disagree...and can possibly agree to disagree in some way. :-) |
|||||||||
|
bigz Regular Member 
|
smttysmth02gt wrote: jerg_064 wrote:I can see what your getting at with it being a photo shoot n' all. But with the large number of people in a crowded area, outside a restaraunt where people go to drink and look at pretty women..... I think the firing pins should've at least been removed. alot of people have been killed with a "unloaded gun" treat all guns as if they are loaded! |
|||||||||
|
ccwinstructor Centurion Member
|
Thank you for participating on this forum. Police officers are not always badmouthed. I posted a thread where I had interaction with the Sawyer County Sheriff's Department in Wisconsin, and I spoke positively of them. It is in the Wisconsin forum, open carry in northern Wisconsin. Guns are not magic talismans, and are there for us to enjoy and use. I do not see anything wrong with a photo shoot with guns involved. I think police are held to somewhat higher standards than the rest of us, but they deserve a private life as well. The idea that guns should not be in pictures is a meme of the control freaks. Guns are a normal part of society. If anything, they should be put on a pedistal and celebrated. |
|||||||||
|
smttysmth02gt Regular Member
|
bigz wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:jerg_064 wrote:I can see what your getting at with it being a photo shoot n' all. But with the large number of people in a crowded area, outside a restaraunt where people go to drink and look at pretty women..... I think the firing pins should've at least been removed. Your statement makes entirely no sense. |
|||||||||
|
HungSquirrel Regular Member
|
He's saying careless people have killed when they thought the firearms they were handling incorrectly were unloaded. As such, he re-stated Rule 1. Striking silly poses with rifles pointed laterally in an urban environment means violating Rules 1 and 2 at the very least, as the firearms are not being treated as loaded, and the muzzles are likely pointed at persons and/or dwellings within the maximum range of the rifles. |
|||||||||
|
smttysmth02gt Regular Member
|
HungSquirrel wrote: He's saying careless people have killed when they thought the firearms they were handling incorrectly were unloaded. As such, he re-stated Rule 1. Striking silly poses with rifles pointed laterally in an urban environment means violating Rules 1 and 2 at the very least, as the firearms are not being treated as loaded, and the muzzles are likely pointed at persons and/or dwellings within the maximum range of the rifles. Right. And if you seriously think that nobody checked the chamber before handing the gun to the hotties to strike some poses, then I believe you would be wrong. |
|||||||||
|
HungSquirrel Regular Member
|
Rule 1 does not say "check the chamber." It says "all guns are always loaded." I reiterate, the cops violated Rules 1 and 2 at the least. They may have violated Rule 3; it has been a long time since I saw the pics, so I don't remember. |
|||||||||
|
smttysmth02gt Regular Member
|
HungSquirrel wrote: Rule 1 does not say "check the chamber." It says "all guns are always loaded." I reiterate, the cops violated Rules 1 and 2 at the least. They may have violated Rule 3; it has been a long time since I saw the pics, so I don't remember. I'm not exactly sure how to respond to such foolish logic that defies reality on a possibility that has already been ruled out. I will end with saying, I really don't think it's a big deal. |
|||||||||
|
HungSquirrel Regular Member
|
"Foolish logic"? In some photos, were the rifles not pointed laterally? Does Rule 1 say "all guns are loaded, unless you're a good boy and check the chamber"? |
|||||||||
|
ccwinstructor Centurion Member
|
HungSquirrel wrote: Rule 1 does not say "check the chamber." It says "all guns are always loaded." I reiterate, the cops violated Rules 1 and 2 at the least. They may have violated Rule 3; it has been a long time since I saw the pics, so I don't remember. So, how do you clean your firearms? My version of "rule one" is treat firearms as if they are loaded, until you prove otherwise. There are things that you need to do with firearms that you would never do with a loaded firearm, such as cleaning it, repairing it, and some traininging exercises. |
|||||||||
|
smttysmth02gt Regular Member
|
HungSquirrel wrote: "Foolish logic"? I really don't care what your rules state. My rules do not disregard common sense. |
|||||||||
|
HungSquirrel Regular Member
|
ccwinstructor wrote:HungSquirrel wrote:Rule 1 does not say "check the chamber." It says "all guns are always loaded." I reiterate, the cops violated Rules 1 and 2 at the least. They may have violated Rule 3; it has been a long time since I saw the pics, so I don't remember. My rule is a firearm is still a firearm until the barrel, bolt, and frame have been separated. While stripping the firearm, it is pointed at no one. I thought that was everyone's rule. |
|||||||||
|
smttysmth02gt Regular Member
|
HungSquirrel wrote: ccwinstructor wrote: It's a rule to be used within reason. In other words, if you have seen someone check the chamber or done it yourself, act as if it is loaded until you check it yourself. If doubt has been removed and you still act like it's loaded, while your principle may be right upon good practice, it still is sort of stupid logic to act as if it can be fired when you already know it cannot. |
|||||||||
|
Daddyo Regular Member 
|
Treat every gun like it is loaded ALWAYS, because of this: http://www.thegunzone.com/nd.html and this: http://www.negligentdischarge.com/ Even when dry firing or bore sighting, I keep it pointed away from anything I don't want a hole in and make sure there is something on the other side that will stop a bullet. |
|||||||||
|
bigz Regular Member
|
smttysmth02gt wrote: HungSquirrel wrote:ccwinstructor wrote: personally i think you just like to argue with people. I have read alot of your post and they are all confrontational. You disagree with everything, newsflash jackass your not changing anyones mind or converting them to your views. The rules of using a firearm are for your safety and the safety of others. My Grandpa taught me the rules at a very young age and i respect them. If you point a firearm at a person loaded or unloaded you are a REGISTERED idiot. It shows you do not respect what a firearm can do and how dangerous it can be. Being unsafe especially in public does nothing to help our cause, If people see us acting in a unsafe manner with our guns they think we are putting them in danger which you are. I carry a gun to protect me, my family, and if need be the lady in the checkout line behind me. not to put them in danger my pointing my gun in all directions. I take NO risk with my gun loaded or not. I dont have a problem with guns in pictures. Their are pictures of members here with their guns holstered. But trying to show out with a bunch of hooters girls to look cool and using unsafe practice with a firearm to do so is just stupid. no "logic" that you can think up in your mind can make this right. Cops or no cops it does not matter to me who they were it was stupid and unsafe. I know alot of leo that i respect and they do their job right. It seems to me you are either a leo or you will defend them no matter what they do. Disagreeing with members here is fine i mean its a DISCUSSION FORUM. But cominf here to disagree with evertything and constantly fussing and arguing is crazy. If you are here just to be in a confrontation you need to take your crap elsewhere!!! |
|||||||||
|
smttysmth02gt Regular Member
|
bigz wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:HungSquirrel wrote:ccwinstructor wrote: Sorry you feel that way. I do not wish to be confrontational, nor do I like to argue. I just wish to be objective and implement common sense on what appears to be many stubborn, and biased views. Take it easy. |
|||||||||
|
bigz Regular Member
|
everyone has a right to disagree but its like a bunch of 5 year olds. If you disagree thats cool just state your opinion and why you feel like that bu stooping to levels of insulting other members intelligence because they don't agree with your views is just crazy. And i am not just pointing you out there are others that do the same. |
|||||||||
|
smttysmth02gt Regular Member
|
bigz wrote: everyone has a right to disagree but its like a bunch of 5 year olds. If you disagree thats cool just state your opinion and why you feel like that bu stooping to levels of insulting other members intelligence because they don't agree with your views is just crazy. And i am not just pointing you out there are others that do the same. Sorry, I did not know that I insulted anyone. |
|||||||||
|
MichaelWDean Regular Member 
|
My definition of open carry is "gun stays in holster unless there is a lethal threat, or you're somewhere safe to shoot and you plan to shoot it at a safe target or while safely hunting." Personally, I dislike photos of people with guns who don't use and respect guns. Guns aren't fashion accessories. A chick brandishing a gun isn't erotic to me. It cheapens sane gun ownership. My wife packs, and keeps her gun in her holster too. The sexy thing about it is that it's in her holster, taken out only if needed, but it's there, keeping her free and safe. Freedom and safety are sexy to me. Brandishing guns is not. However, I find pix like this nice: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum65/27204.html She's obviously a gun owner, not some bimbo holding a gun for the first time. That's a nice family snapshot, not sleazy "gun porn" like those cops were doing. (Not that I have anything against porn, but I don't like "gun porn.") (I also will never have a photo of me taken with a gun pointed toward the camera. Sends an intimidating message, and also could be used against you in court to influence a jury.) However, that's just me. I think it's a taste issue, not a legal issue. I am against all gun laws. (Except that shooting them at someone's private property in a harmful way should remain illegal, and that shooting people in anything except self-defense should remain illegal, but those aren't really gun laws. They're property laws and murder/assault laws.) I hate all gun laws. The smallest cobwebs grow into the thickest shackles. MWD Last edited on Thu Jun 18th, 2009 05:05 am by MichaelWDean |
|||||||||
|
MichaelWDean Regular Member
|
I think all LE should be elected, not simply hired/appointed. And I would not vote for a cop that did stuff like in those pictures. |
|||||||||