Re: Found the fat tripping cop....harassing citizens.
Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:57 pm
To whom?Van wrote:He didn't violate any laws but he was clearly a threat anyway. Of course he was a threat.
Sordid clambake
https://mail.theoneboard.com/board/
To whom?Van wrote:He didn't violate any laws but he was clearly a threat anyway. Of course he was a threat.
ftfymvscal wrote:
Towhomwho?
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.mvscal wrote:To whom?Van wrote:He didn't violate any laws but he was clearly a threat anyway. Of course he was a threat.
Of course it didn't. Because he wasn't a threat to anyone, you pearl-clutching ninny.Van wrote: Fortunately, it didn't go any further.
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.Van wrote:He didn't violate any laws but he was clearly a threat anyway. Of course he was a threat.
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 ?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.
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"?Van wrote:Morons carrying loaded AR-15s on public streets have nothing to with real freedom.
Mace wrote: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.Van wrote:He didn't violate any laws but he was clearly a threat anyway. Of course he was a threat.
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.Derron wrote: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 ?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.
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 wrote: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"?Van wrote:Morons carrying loaded AR-15s on public streets have nothing to with 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 ?
No reason other than the second Amendment of the US Constitution allows it.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.
I see the connection here after you point it out so well.Van wrote: Common sense ...... shot in the back of the head just for being such a goddamned dick.
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.Derron wrote:No reason other than the second Amendment of the US Constitution allows it.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.
The right to feel "safe and free"?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.
Fuck you. Seriously. No bullshit. No trolling. Just a big, hearty FUCK YOU.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.Derron wrote:No reason other than the second Amendment of the US Constitution allows it.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.
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.
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.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.
What??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.Derron wrote:No reason other than the second Amendment of the US Constitution allows it.
"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."88 wrote:the investigation that should occur
In your case there is no "apparently" about it since you clearly can't read and comprehend even the simplest declarative statements such as...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.
Stupid, hard-headed old people. Christ.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.
mvscal wrote:Fuck you. Seriously. No bullshit. No trolling. Just a big, hearty FUCK YOU.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.
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 wrote:In your case there is no "apparently" about it since you clearly can't read and comprehend even the simplest declarative statements such as...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.
Stupid, hard-headed old people. Christ.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.
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.Truman wrote:What??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.Derron wrote:No reason other than the second Amendment of the US Constitution allows it.
Why? What part of the definition of inalienable defeats you?
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.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.
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.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.
Already agreed to that one, too. Jesus, you are one serious...And the law is not going to change, idiot, because it's called the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Check your act here. You're the one whose panties are in a wad about absolutely nothing, Mister Nazi Storm Trooper Cops.stupid fucking drama queen
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.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.
No, Van, you didn't. You stated the law is legal, but it needs to be changed. I asked you "why".Van wrote: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.Truman wrote:What??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.
Why? What part of the definition of inalienable defeats you?
Because I don't trust the government to determine who is legal in who isn't.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.
No, I didn't. I already answered it with two simple words: 'common sense.'Truman wrote:No, Van, you didn't. You stated the law is legal, but it needs to be changed. I asked you "why".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.
You ducked it.
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.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?
Tell that to the current SCOTUS.Truman wrote:WE are the government, fuckstick.
Why are you asking Van then?Truman wrote:A non-gay, liberal hand-wringing response would be appreciated.
Is there a group of people out there who are legal yet very volatile and stupid?Truman wrote:WE are the government, fuckstick.
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.Toddowen wrote:Is there a group of people out there who are legal yet very volatile and stupid?
This wouldn't have been a problem either if the cop had used common sense.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.
Jeep Guy, All About Harley Guy, Hand Wash Your Car at a Car Wash Guy...........Van wrote: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.Toddowen wrote:Is there a group of people out there who are legal yet very volatile and stupid?
That list is practically endless.
Common sense or a psychic?Mace wrote:This wouldn't have been a problem either if the cop had used common sense.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.