Found the fat tripping cop....harassing citizens.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Van wrote:He didn't violate any laws but he was clearly a threat anyway. Of course he was a threat.

To whom?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:01 pm

mvscal wrote:
To ~~whom~~ who?

ftfy

Sincerely, smackaholic

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:03 pm

mvscal wrote:
Van wrote:He didn't violate any laws but he was clearly a threat anyway. Of course he was a threat.
To whom?

To anyone who could be injured or die as a result of being shot by a loaded AR-15. Piss off a normal person and the result might be a fist-fight or what have you. Intruduce a loaded AR-15 to the equation and things may very well escalate into something newsworthy.

Which it did. Fortunately, it didn't go any further.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:04 pm

Van wrote: Fortunately, it didn't go any further.

Of course it didn't. Because he wasn't a threat to anyone, you pearl-clutching ninny.

Fuck off.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:10 pm

Van wrote:He didn't violate any laws but he was clearly a threat anyway. Of course he was a threat.

You're right, he didn't violate any laws....and he was legally carrying a concealed weapon. BFD! He threatened no one and the cops should have let him go. The cops escalated a situation for no reason other than the guy was legally carrying guns and wrongfully arrested him for resisting, which he didn't. He also didn't interfere with the cop performing his duties but yet that's what they ended up charging him with. You'd have a point if he'd made any threats to anyone, but he hadn't, and would never have been cuffed and detained if the cop had any police skills other than that of a Nazi storm trooper.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:37 pm

88 wrote:

There is a time and place for citizens to keep and bear arms. Public spaces are not proper, if they alarm other members of the public.

Care to expound on that a little bit and what your definition of "public"and "proper" is ? And how that should be determined and enforced ?

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:43 pm

Van wrote:Morons carrying loaded AR-15s on public streets have nothing to with real freedom.

But under the US Constitution and with some restrictions all ready in place, that is his right under the 2A. So removing his right to carry a loaded AR on a public street would help preserve"real freedom"?

How about the hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens legally carrying weapons every day ? That has nothing to do with real freedom ?

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:47 pm

88, that Satellite pic you post shows an intersection in the middle of some sort of agriculture fields. Yes, there is a housing development a few blocks away, but, it is not what you are trying to paint it as. So what if it is in the "city limits". That means jack shit. Cougars and wild hogs don't read city limits signs. It would not be odd to expect such an area to be lousy with hogs as they probably use those fields as buffets. And if there are hogs, there are cougars, if there are cougars in that area as cougars are as fond of bacon as most folks.

Someone mentioned Watertown, Ma. I will admit that carrying an AR down the street today there might be a bad idea, I'll bet there are an assload of Watertown residents who wish the fukk they did have an AR right about now.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:35 pm

Mace wrote:
Van wrote:He didn't violate any laws but he was clearly a threat anyway. Of course he was a threat.
You're right, he didn't violate any laws....and he was legally carrying a concealed weapon. BFD! He threatened no one and the cops should have let him go. The cops escalated a situation for no reason other than the guy was legally carrying guns and wrongfully arrested him for resisting, which he didn't. He also didn't interfere with the cop performing his duties but yet that's what they ended up charging him with. You'd have a point if he'd made any threats to anyone, but he hadn't, and would never have been cuffed and detained if the cop had any police skills other than that of a Nazi storm trooper.

A Nazi storm trooper would have shot him on sight and wouldn't have bothered to come up with a story about the guy threatening him with the gun.

Eagle Scout training? With an AR-15?

Defending this guy on lawful grounds is fine. Trying to argue that he isn't a moronic gun whacko? No chance. It's legal to own an AR-15 and it's probably just as legal to walk into a crowded theater with a loaded one strapped to your chest, but if you do so you're either a lunatic or a gun-addled idiot.

Defending gun-addled idiots who walk around carrying loaded AR-15s FOR NO FUCKING REASON on the basis of "freedom!" is just laughable.

Laughable, as in mvscal and his comical internet tough guy act.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:38 pm

Derron wrote:
88 wrote:There is a time and place for citizens to keep and bear arms. Public spaces are not proper, if they alarm other members of the public.
Care to expound on that a little bit and what your definition of "public"and "proper" is ? And how that should be determined and enforced ?

Common sense and probable cause both dictate that any moron walking around in public carrying a loaded AR-15 fully deserves to be stopped, questioned, and as mvscal so often loves to say about stupid people, shot in the back of the head just for being such a goddamned dick.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:40 pm

Derron wrote:
Van wrote:Morons carrying loaded AR-15s on public streets have nothing to with real freedom.
But under the US Constitution and with some restrictions all ready in place, that is his right under the 2A. So removing his right to carry a loaded AR on a public street would help preserve"real freedom"?

How about the hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens legally carrying weapons every day ? That has nothing to do with real freedom ?

Common sense. There is no (good) reason whatsoever for any citizen to carry a loaded AR-15 in public. No freedoms worth a bucket of spit are at risk there.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:49 pm

Van wrote:There is no (good) reason whatsoever for any citizen to carry a loaded AR-15 in public. No freedoms worth a bucket of spit are at risk there.

No reason other than the second Amendment of the US Constitution allows it.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:50 pm

Van wrote: Common sense ...... shot in the back of the head just for being such a goddamned dick.

I see the connection here after you point it out so well.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:11 pm

Derron wrote:
Van wrote:There is no (good) reason whatsoever for any citizen to carry a loaded AR-15 in public. No freedoms worth a bucket of spit are at risk there.
No reason other than the second Amendment of the US Constitution allows it.

That isn't at issue. I've already stated that it's legal. It shouldn't be, but it is, so until the law is changed that's a nonissue.

The point is about common sense and what this moron thought would happen by parading his stupidity so blatantly in public. He's just lucky he didn't run into Mace's Nazi storm trooper cop because all the 2nd Amendment rights in the world wouldn't do him a lick of good if that cop felt threatened and decided to eliminate the threat through the application of deadly force. Dead men can't bitch about their Constitutional rights.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:43 pm

Apparently Van's a fucking idiot who thinks people should be arrested when they're not breaking the law. Maybe that's how things work in your neck of the woods, but not where I live. If people got locked up for not having common sense, you'd have been incarcerated years ago.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:58 pm

88 wrote: But if you choose to do so, you have to respect the rights of others to feel safe and free in public places.

The right to feel "safe and free"?

Talk to your Mommy. I'm sure she'll be happy to tuck you in and read you a story.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:59 pm

Van wrote:
Derron wrote:
Van wrote:There is no (good) reason whatsoever for any citizen to carry a loaded AR-15 in public. No freedoms worth a bucket of spit are at risk there.
No reason other than the second Amendment of the US Constitution allows it.
That isn't at issue. I've already stated that it's legal. It shouldn't be, but it is, so until the law is changed that's a nonissue.

The point is about common sense and what this moron thought would happen by parading his stupidity so blatantly in public. He's just lucky he didn't run into Mace's Nazi storm trooper cop because all the 2nd Amendment rights in the world wouldn't do him a lick of good if that cop felt threatened and decided to eliminate the threat through the application of deadly force. Dead men can't bitch about their Constitutional rights.

Fuck you. Seriously. No bullshit. No trolling. Just a big, hearty FUCK YOU.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:01 am

88 wrote:Arrested? No, unless he is a dick during the investigation that should occur and he should reasonably expect to occur and should voluntarily participate in.

And give up his gun because some fatass idiot cop orders him to when he's done absolutely nothing in violation of the law? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. :roll: I can understand why you're an attorney who has nothing better to do than post on a message board all day.

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:05 am

Van wrote:
Derron wrote:No reason other than the second Amendment of the US Constitution allows it.
That isn't at issue. I've already stated that it's legal. It shouldn't be, but it is, so until the law is changed that's a nonissue.

What??

Why? What part of the definition of inalienable defeats you?

Look, Van, I don't own a gun. I don't need one. But I reserve the right to purchase and carry one if I so desire. And I certainly wouldn't wet myself if I saw a man swinging an AR on a tactical sling walking down a rural road with a 10 year old kid. Granted, this isn't Texas, but the pick-'em-up trucks parked out-front of my high school with gun racks splayed across the back winder weren't exactly an uncommon occurrence in my formative years. Maybe it works diff'ernt living out there in nut land as you do, but most folks I know are fairly comfortable in the presence of guns.

Still believe the law needs to be changed? Have at it. There are TWO mechanisms within the United States Constitution that provide for it. Sorry, but your opinion and Jsc's polls ain't gonna cut it. Deal with it.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:09 am

88 wrote:the investigation that should occur

"Hi! How are you fellas doin today? Me? Oh, not too bad all things considered. So, what are you two up to this afternoon? Working on a merit badge? That's great. My nephew was an Eagle Scout. You mind if I see your paperwork on that .45. Just a formality, you understand. Well, looks like everything's in order. You folks have nice day."

Yeah, that's some pretty tough police work there.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:50 am

Mace wrote:Apparently Van's a fucking idiot who thinks people should be arrested when they're not breaking the law. Maybe that's how things work in your neck of the woods, but not where I live. If people got locked up for not having common sense, you'd have been incarcerated years ago.

In your case there is no "apparently" about it since you clearly can't read and comprehend even the simplest declarative statements such as...

I've already stated that it's legal. It shouldn't be, but it is, so until the law is changed that's a nonissue.

Stupid, hard-headed old people. Christ.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:55 am

mvscal wrote:
Van wrote:That isn't at issue. I've already stated that it's legal. It shouldn't be, but it is, so until the law is changed that's a nonissue.

The point is about common sense and what this moron thought would happen by parading his stupidity so blatantly in public. He's just lucky he didn't run into Mace's Nazi storm trooper cop because all the 2nd Amendment rights in the world wouldn't do him a lick of good if that cop felt threatened and decided to eliminate the threat through the application of deadly force. Dead men can't bitch about their Constitutional rights.
Fuck you. Seriously. No bullshit. No trolling. Just a big, hearty FUCK YOU.

You..."no trolling"?

Dude, that clown ship sailed during the First Age of these here smack boards. You long ago passed into Bobo Valinor, and there is no coming back.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:57 am

Van wrote:
Mace wrote:Apparently Van's a fucking idiot who thinks people should be arrested when they're not breaking the law. Maybe that's how things work in your neck of the woods, but not where I live. If people got locked up for not having common sense, you'd have been incarcerated years ago.
In your case there is no "apparently" about it since you clearly can't read and comprehend even the simplest declarative statements such as...

I've already stated that it's legal. It shouldn't be, but it is, so until the law is changed that's a nonissue.
Stupid, hard-headed old people. Christ.

Yes, dumbass, I read the bullshit you posted and it's clear that you know it was perfectly legal but yet you think he should have been arrested. Dumbfuckery at its finest. And the law is not going to change, idiot, because it's called the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Anyone else you'd like to have arrested for not breaking the law, you stupid fucking drama queen?

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:04 am

Truman wrote:
Van wrote:
Derron wrote:No reason other than the second Amendment of the US Constitution allows it.
That isn't at issue. I've already stated that it's legal. It shouldn't be, but it is, so until the law is changed that's a nonissue.
What??

Why? What part of the definition of inalienable defeats you?

None of it, obviously, since I'm not arguing that the guy wasn't within his legal rights to do what he did. I have already conceded that point. In fact, I never contested it.

Still believe the law needs to be changed? Have at it. There are TWO mechanisms within the United States Constitution that provide for it. Sorry, but your opinion and Jsc's polls ain't gonna cut it. Deal with it.

I agree with you, and I am dealing with it. I really don't give two shits about it. Like gay marriage, abortion rights and the WNBA this is just another news story to me. We will soon move on to another story that doesn't affect me, and I'll be equally blase about that one too.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:12 am

Mace wrote:I read the bullshit you posted and it's clear that you know it was perfectly legal but yet you think he should have been arrested.

No, I said it shouldn't be legal, but since it is legal he wasn't breaking the law and should not have been arrested.

How did you ever get this far with such a horrific inability to read and comprehend basic English?

And the law is not going to change, idiot, because it's called the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Already agreed to that one, too. Jesus, you are one serious...

stupid fucking drama queen

Check your act here. You're the one whose panties are in a wad about absolutely nothing, Mister Nazi Storm Trooper Cops.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:20 am

Van wrote:Common sense and probable cause both dictate that any moron walking around in public carrying a loaded AR-15 fully deserves to be stopped, questioned, and as mvscal so often loves to say about stupid people, shot in the back of the head just for being such a goddamned dick.

You clearly did not say he should have been arrested. No, you thought he should be "stopped, questioned, and shot in the back of the head." My bad, dumbass.

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:26 am

Van wrote:
Truman wrote:
Van wrote: That isn't at issue. I've already stated that it's legal. It shouldn't be, but it is, so until the law is changed that's a nonissue.
What??

Why? What part of the definition of inalienable defeats you?
None of it, obviously, since I'm not arguing that the guy wasn't within his legal rights to do what he did. I have already conceded that point. In fact, I never contested it.

No, Van, you didn't. You stated the law is legal, but it needs to be changed. I asked you "why".

You ducked it. I'll ask you again: Why should it be illegal for someone to stroll down a public street carrying a weapon in a non-threatening fashion? A non-gay, liberal hand-wringing response would be appreciated. TIA.

Would you prefer a discussion limiting your First Amendment rights? They do that in Just-OK Britain, you know. I'd suspect that you would be just a little bit more animated defending that right were it to be case.

Toddowen · Post by **Toddowen** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:35 am

Why should it be illegal for someone to stroll down a public street carrying a weapon in a non-threatening fashion? A non-gay, liberal hand-wringing response would be appreciated. TIA.

Because I don't trust the government to determine who is legal in who isn't.

Truman · Post by **Truman** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:02 am

WE are the government, fuckstick.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:11 am

Truman wrote:
Van wrote:I'm not arguing that the guy wasn't within his legal rights to do what he did. I have already conceded that point. In fact, I never contested it.
No, Van, you didn't. You stated the law is legal, but it needs to be changed. I asked you "why".

You ducked it.

No, I didn't. I already answered it with two simple words: 'common sense.'

The Founding Fathers did not envision weapons of that sort when they wrote the Constitution, and I am confident enough in their combined intellect and wisdom to believe that they would have been strenuously against the notion of Joe Citizen walking down the street with a loaded AR-15 in our current society.

I don't believe for one second that their idea of inalienable rights or even the need for a well-regulated militia would have included such things.

Common sense. I think one of those dudes even wrote a piece about it.

I'll ask you again: Why should it be illegal for someone to stroll down a public street carrying a weapon in a non-threatening fashion?

Depends on the weapon. There is simply no need for a private citizen to own such a weapon, much less for him to walk through town with it.

And "non-threatening" is entirely a matter of one's perception. I guarantee you that most people would immediately feel threatened were they to encounter some asshat rolling through the local shopping mall with a loaded AR-15. If I'm a person of Arab appearance and I'm walking with my brother who also looks Arab and we're both licensed to carry concealed handguns, well, hell, when I see Johnny Reb coming towards me with a gun like that (especially on the heels of 9/11 or any other event that inspired mass hysteria against Arabs) you can bet your ass that my hand would be inching towards that concealed weapon. As soon as Elmer Fudd sees me doing that, you know he's thinking the same thing.

In the blink of an eye what should have merely involved nothing more than hard looks could easily escalate into Derron's idea of porn.

Limit it to concealed handguns on the street and neither person immediately feels threatened.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:11 am

Truman wrote:WE are the government, fuckstick.

Tell that to the current SCOTUS.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:16 am

Truman wrote:A non-gay, liberal hand-wringing response would be appreciated.

Why are you asking Van then?

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:18 am

Fuck you. Seriously. No bullshit. No trolling. Just a big, hearty FUCK YOU.

<---------

Toddowen · Post by **Toddowen** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:28 am

Truman wrote:WE are the government, fuckstick.

Is there a group of people out there who are legal yet very volatile and stupid?

I think it best that some legal boundry be in place.

I'm not ready for every ghetto monkey to brashly expose their arsonal in public.

I know the argument will be that they're probably armed to the teeth anyways. But I just might like to feel that ignorance is bliss for the time being

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:37 am

Toddowen wrote:Is there a group of people out there who are legal yet very volatile and stupid?

Raider Fan, SECBSH, Hood Rat, NASCAR Neck, Philly Fan (any sport), Soccer Fan, Softball Guy, Road Rage Moron, Reactionary Thumper, any follower of strict Sharia law, Bowling League Guy, etc.

That list is practically endless.

Toddowen · Post by **Toddowen** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:43 am

Also should mention that once the free for all of carrying an ar-15 is in place, that is going to be a "ghetto thing" in obtaining street cred for being seen in public flashing ones weaponry as if they were $3,000 rims on their Lexus.

And then of course we'll have the whole racial profiling things to deal with when the police start questioning them.

Toddowen · Post by **Toddowen** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 6:52 am

If I was coloured and wanted to get some easy suit money, I would immediately go out and exercize my right to carry an AR-15 down the street in any town USA that will have LE who will violate my 2nd amendment rights....just like how dimskull exhibited while his son held the camera.

Should be a cinch. Heck..multiple towns and multiple civil suits. Who needs to work with easy $$$ like that just waiting to be picked from the tree? Think I'll start with areas that have backwoods police departments who protect a community of potentially gulible jurors. Southeast Connecticut sounds perfect. How about your burg? Are you all ready to fork out the dinero for dimwit's African equal?

By the way, I do hold a CCW and consider myself pro-gun. I don't want to see hunters being harrassed by the police just because they want to cross the street from one side of the the state gaming preserve to the other, or someones private land. But I'm not in favor of open carry. In my opinion it should all be concealed except if someone is legitimately hunting or engaged in target practice where applicable.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:43 pm

88 wrote:Back in the 1980's, I was a member of two different university rifle teams. I used to have on campus with an Anschutz rifle (e.g., from the range to my apartment or to someone else's apartment). I was stopped frequently. It was never a problem.

This wouldn't have been a problem either if the cop had used common sense.

R-Jack · Post by **R-Jack** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:49 pm

Van wrote:
Toddowen wrote:Is there a group of people out there who are legal yet very volatile and stupid?
Raider Fan, SECBSH, Hood Rat, NASCAR Neck, Philly Fan (any sport), Soccer Fan, Softball Guy, Road Rage Moron, Reactionary Thumper, any follower of strict Sharia law, Bowling League Guy, etc.

That list is practically endless.

Jeep Guy, All About Harley Guy, Hand Wash Your Car at a Car Wash Guy...........

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:11 pm

Mace wrote:
88 wrote:Back in the 1980's, I was a member of two different university rifle teams. I used to have on campus with an Anschutz rifle (e.g., from the range to my apartment or to someone else's apartment). I was stopped frequently. It was never a problem.
This wouldn't have been a problem either if the cop had used common sense.

Common sense or a psychic?