Shame on you pierce county sheriff!

[mjbskwim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by tattoo View Post
Some just have a need for confrontation. Lets go open Carry over here or there and see if we can get a cop to make a mistake so we can post a thread on it and make ourselves out as heroes. The internet is a good place to learn but also a platform for some to preach. Or toot there own horn. Learn it and do what feels right to you. I think the live by the Bill of Rights types might just need to adjust to the 21st century. Thats where we are now and it is a different world.
KEY WORD ADJUST.
JMHO.
Dave

How far do we need to adjust? Don't carry? Don't own firearms? Be careful what you say about the president? How much of the Consititution no longer applies in this new world?

OK I still think y'all is completely nutz ,but I don't agree with just adjusting to the new times.
But we do need to remember we aren't in the ol' west either.

You guys just can't see it through your "fight everybody that doesn't agree with us" eyes

If we are going to be heard we need to be subtle not aggressive.

Zealots in any form are looked upon as idiots first,in today's times.This is where the adjustments need to be.

We need to communicate (say this reeeaaalll ssslllooowww) better.
Confrontation doesn't solve anything.It just pisses people off and they don't hear your point of view. Yeah I understand they don't listen anyway.

Neither do you
Zealots have very bad hearing.

I am not saying give up rights,I am saying educate people and cooperate with people to make the pro gun side look like they care about something other than being right.

Your posts make it seem that all you care about is being right.

 

[JohnWayne]

OK I still think y'all is completely nutz ,but I don't agree with just adjusting to the new times.
But we do need to remember we aren't in the ol' west either.

You guys just can't see it through your "fight everybody that doesn't agree with us" eyes

If we are going to be heard we need to be subtle not aggressive.

Zealots in any form are looked upon as idiots first,in today's times.This is where the adjustments need to be.

We need to communicate (say this reeeaaalll ssslllooowww) better.
Confrontation doesn't solve anything.It just pisses people off and they don't hear your point of view. Yeah I understand they don't listen anyway.

Neither do you
Zealots have very bad hearing.

I am not saying give up rights,I am saying educate people and cooperate with people to make the pro gun side look like they care about something other than being right.

Your posts make it seem that all you care about is being right.

 

[JohnWayne]

If I don't then how do I live with myself and the Oath that I took to support and defend? How do I make those two things come to terms without losing a little bit of my soul???

By understanding that you aren't always right. Even if you are right about one thing, you can still end up losing your war.

As I said before, if police are called because of this guy, they have a legal duty to positively ID the guy, not just take his word. If they feel by words or actions that he might be uncooperative, they can disarm him until they are finished with their contact.

The guy, asked for this. All OC people do. Its no surprise he recorded the conversation, he wanted the contact.

 

[svg4]

I promised myself I would not comment on this well-traveled subject but my
frustration drives me to respond. (and I admit it is just my view) I join the people who are sick of the few people who make most of the noise about the police and regular citizen's reaction to open carry. Look at the news! People have a right to be afraid of people with guns. They are not thinking "I feel more comfortable and safer because this stranger is caring a gun." Sure it is your right to carry. It is also your right to jump out of the dark and scare little children. What I question is your motivation. There are
so many things you could be doing that would be doing good and helping the gun cause. Are you trying to convince us that you are not using your "right" to get some kind of gratification. I am sure there are many answers to that, but in fact your selfishness puts officers, women and children in a state of fear. They aren't "learning". They are afraid and that is what they are going to remember. When it comes time to vote, they will support the non-gun lobby.(like our misguided mayor) What good have you done?
While I am giving my views, I would like to comment on the attitude of a few
members about the police. I am tired of hearing police generalized as power
hungry, looking to deny your rights, self-serving people. This is not my
experience. Have I met some I didn't like, of course. Like many others who have responded to this thread, I wonder what you get out of always trying to set them up. There must be some reason to tell the whole forum of their
confrontations with businesses. Of the thousands of us that are on this forum, how many of us go out and seek confrontations with police. They make it sound like they are doing this to secure and protect our rights. They don't speak for me! I admire the police willingness to serve, with people out there just trying to get them into a confrontation that no matter how they handle, these guys criticize.(this case in point) They have more important things to do, like responding to domestic calls, robberies, car wrecks and assisting regular people, like our families. I thought we all got our CHL so we would have a gun when there was a real call for it. I ignore the argument that the police should not be sent. We all know how many wackos are out there shooting up buildings and people for no reason. We need to respect that these officers have no idea what they are walking into. All they know is there is a guy with a gun. I may not come off as a gun rights/ 2nd amendment rights guy, but I am. I am sure there are many with a different view on open carry and the police, but after talking to many shooters at the range, I decided to throw out my four cents and speak for a different group. Thanks for listening

 

[gehrheart]

The guy, asked for this. All OC people do. Its no surprise he recorded the conversation, he wanted the contact.

Yes some do ask for it, however taking the OC's as a whole and saying they are asking for it might be going to far.

You are saying that by exercising a right, a person is asking for trouble?

 

[svg4]

Exercising a right at the wrong time, when we are trying to win friends and votes, is more like flaunting. I don't care if they do it, but pick your times. Again, just because you have the right, doesn't mean you have to excercise it to the detriment of others. This is not the old west and you are not John Wayne. Your make people afraid. Afraid people vote to stop what they are afraid of. Conceal the gun. You are safer, you can protect them and they don't even know it and the police can get on with their job. Every body wins. Just like John Wayne movies!

 

[tattoo]

I am an open Carrier. I have NO need, or want, to have any attention or confrontations with our LEOs. I will willingly show my ID if asked. I will not argue with a LEO about how I feel or how he or she is handling the situation. If I feel I have been violated or wronged by them, I will file a report after the altercation. If I feel it has been so bad that it warrants such a thing. Most of the open carry folks are good people who I feel would do the same. The few, are the ones that make the rest look bad. They are the reason I walked away from the Open Carry Dot Org Forum. And will not have any affiliations with that group. We all deserve to be able to protect our families and our self's. And to bring the negative attention on us is to give us all a black eye. In the end, its all up to your own personal beliefs and feelings about the whole thing and you must do what you must do. I will continue to open carry. And do so proudly.
Good luck to you all in your decisions.
Ranting over and out.
Dave

 

[mjbskwim]

Yes some do ask for it, however taking the OC's as a whole and saying they are asking for it might be going to far.

You are saying that by exercising a right, a person is asking for trouble?

Young lady,and this is an assumption because my ex would do this,read what he said.

My ex was the best at changing what I said into something negative and nothing close to what I actually said.

Oy bubbleguming vey

 

[gogoDawgs]

All these OC guys are activists- just like PETA, etc. They are militant in their pursuit to confront LEO as much as possible. That's why he was recording the conversation. How do you know these LEO weren't responding to a call from Starbucks or someone in Starbucks.

If they are called and they believe a crime has been committed or IS ABOUT TO BE COMMITTED, they are covered under Terry. If then, they attempt to confirm his ID, they can detain him until they have POSITIVELY identified him- not just him giving a name. Then if not crime has been committed and they determine no crime is 'about to be committed' then they'll let the guy go.

This is all what the OC nuts miss. They pick and chose the Constitution they want to read. Here, they ONLY read the narrow reading of the 4th- not all the case law and state/city law associated. If they had they would understand all of the above.

Then they find some rumpkin deputy to take a few of all the facts and give his legal finding- even though he's not a judge.

And really, all this even does is wind up the OC wingnuts and associates. Most of us with common sense will tell ya that this is SUCH a remote situation for gun carriers that it really only happens when these nutbars try to make it happen.

Thanks for all the name calling.

Perhaps State v. Flora would help explain that carrying a firearm is not RAS or PC of a crime about to be committed. Do not think for one minute that I do not know all of the case law associated.

 

[gehrheart]

Young lady,and this is an assumption because my ex would do this,read what he said.

My ex was the best at changing what I said into something negative and nothing close to what I actually said.

Oy bubbleguming vey

Ummmm??????? Was that in English?

What does my question have to do with what ever it is you said.
First, i am not a young lady. Middle aged white male, so not at all clear where you got young lady from.

Secondly, I wasn't even referencing your post. I was referencing JohnWayne's post where he was stating that all OCers are looking for trouble.
I was asking for clarification on that, as I see that as really all encompassing. Is that what Mr. JohnWayne was meaning to state?

I do believe there are those who OC that are going out of their way to create conflict, and that is unfortunate as that really does no one good. But to say they all do is way too much of a stretch.
Second question, well more of the first, is exercising a right a wrong thing to do?



And please, can you restate that in real sentence structure so that I may know what it is you are trying to convey to me? Or at least I am assuming it was meant for me as you quoted me in your post.


??????

 

[gogoDawgs]

By understanding that you aren't always right. Even if you are right about one thing, you can still end up losing your war.

As I said before, if police are called because of this guy, they have a legal duty to positively ID the guy, not just take his word. If they feel by words or actions that he might be uncooperative, they can disarm him until they are finished with their contact.

The guy, asked for this. All OC people do. Its no surprise he recorded the conversation, he wanted the contact.

Your ignorance of this situation is highly apparent.

The police were not called because of this guy. (Tom) Tom was standing in line at Starbucks on his lunch time. As he had done for several days and no one called, the staff at this location knows Tom. A plain clothes officer came up behind him in line and demanded his ID.

The police do not have a 'duty to positively ID the guy'. Can you show me a RCW that states police are duty bound to ID all men with guns?

Since he was not operating a motor vehicle Tom was under no obligation to show his ID nor to answer his name and address. Verbally giving the officer your name and address while on foot is perfectly acceptable and legal per RCW.

Tom did not 'ask for it' and you make no persuasive argument that demonstrates your assertion. Your blanket statement that 'all OC people' do is also absurd. Tattoo (Dave) and myself both OC and I can say with certainty that neither Dave nor myself (Nick) are asking for confrontation. I am confident that Dave will agree.

Many people record conversations and interactions with the police on their iPhones. That is all Tom did and he started it after he was confronted by the officer to protect him. Perhaps the ACLU and other groups asking that the Seattle PD to be investigated demonstrates regular citizens waryness of police interaction.

 

[Riot]

Your ignorance of this situation is highly apparent.

The police were not called because of this guy. (Tom) Tom was standing in line at Starbucks on his lunch time. As he had done for several days and no one called, the staff at this location knows Tom. A plain clothes officer came up behind him in line and demanded his ID.

The police do not have a 'duty to positively ID the guy'. Can you show me a RCW that states police are duty bound to ID all men with guns?

Since he was not operating a motor vehicle Tom was under no obligation to show his ID nor to answer his name and address. Verbally giving the officer your name and address while on foot is perfectly acceptable and legal per RCW.

Tom did not 'ask for it' and you make no persuasive argument that demonstrates your assertion. Your blanket statement that 'all OC people' do is also absurd. Tattoo (Dave) and myself both OC and I can say with certainty that neither Dave nor myself (Nick) are asking for confrontation. I am confident that Dave will agree.

Many people record conversations and interactions with the police on their iPhones. That is all Tom did and he started it after he was confronted by the officer to protect him. Perhaps the ACLU and other groups asking that the Seattle PD to be investigated demonstrates regular citizens waryness of police interaction.

This same old song and dance...look, if you go out and try to stand outside of what the sheeple do you won't be treated like a sheeple. Got it?

If you stand out and draw attention, you will get attention. Unwanted, unwaranted, undeserved attention.

If you strap a gun on your hip and open carry you will get attention. If you want to be treated like a sheeple, then act like one!

 

[U201494]

gehreart:

You are saying that by exercising a right, a person is asking for trouble?

Is this a statement or a question, because JohnWayne sure didn't say that, nor did he imply it (my take on it).
It looks to me like you jumped a long way to get to a conclusion that might start an arguement. Some how you went from "asking for a confrontation with his choice" to "asking for trouble by exercising a right".
My ex used to do this also.

 

[BigCat]

My ex used to do this also.

Hahhaha.

 

[JohnWayne]

Your ignorance of this situation is highly apparent.

The police were not called because of this guy. (Tom) Tom was standing in line at Starbucks on his lunch time. As he had done for several days and no one called, the staff at this location knows Tom. A plain clothes officer came up behind him in line and demanded his ID.

The police do not have a 'duty to positively ID the guy'. Can you show me a RCW that states police are duty bound to ID all men with guns?

Since he was not operating a motor vehicle Tom was under no obligation to show his ID nor to answer his name and address. Verbally giving the officer your name and address while on foot is perfectly acceptable and legal per RCW.

Tom did not 'ask for it' and you make no persuasive argument that demonstrates your assertion. Your blanket statement that 'all OC people' do is also absurd. Tattoo (Dave) and myself both OC and I can say with certainty that neither Dave nor myself (Nick) are asking for confrontation. I am confident that Dave will agree.

Many people record conversations and interactions with the police on their iPhones. That is all Tom did and he started it after he was confronted by the officer to protect him. Perhaps the ACLU and other groups asking that the Seattle PD to be investigated demonstrates regular citizens waryness of police interaction.

Make all the excuses you want. If the cop felt "Terry" applied, he thought ID'ing the guy was applicable. You have to admit, a guy walking around with a gun is not the norm. Tom was acting like a little kid with a new toy, wants to show it off and show the big, bad evil doing police who knew their rights.

OC carriers are much the same way. That's why they carry recorders- to show these big bad bullies are mean to them. Save your broken record about trampled rights.

 

[gehrheart]

gehreart:


Is this a statement or a question, because JohnWayne sure didn't say that, nor did he imply it (my take on it).
It looks to me like you jumped a long way to get to a conclusion that might start an arguement. Some how you went from "asking for a confrontation with his choice" to "asking for trouble by exercising a right".
My ex used to do this also.

Wow, I really wasn't out to ruffle feathers with this, however, it is apparent that I have.
It was a question. I thought simple one at that, so I thought.
First I just wanted to make comment, as I thought we were have a conversation here, that I think the concept of calling an entire group trouble makers might be a far stretch, followed that with a question, because I was unclear, if that was what he meant.


I am quite amazed and befuddled as what I said that has ruffled a few feathers. Maybe some one would be so kind to enlighten my simple mind.

And why with two of you comparing me to your ex.

Sounds like you really have Ex issues, was it perhaps communication problems. (yes that was a slight jab, I should retract that.)

 

[mjbskwim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnWayne View Post

The guy, asked for this. All OC people do. Its no surprise he recorded the conversation, he wanted the contact.

Yes some do ask for it, however taking the OC's as a whole and saying they are asking for it might be going to far.

You are saying that by exercising a right, a person is asking for trouble?

Did he say that by exercising a right,a person is asking for trouble?

No That is why I figured you were a woman that heard/read one thing and just ASSumed another.
As my ex's did.So chill out if you are a woman.Just speaking from experience.

OK R..E...A...L sloooowww forrrr youuuu

Originally Posted by mjbskwim View Post
Young lady,and this is an assumption because my ex would do this,read what he said.

My ex was the best at changing what I said into something negative and nothing close to what I actually said.

Oy bubbleguming vey

Young lady( a young female,saying this because young women seem to change what they hear and read to what they can make a fuss of)

READ WHAT "HE" SAID Kind of self explanatory,huh?
HE What HE said


And again,I was seeing that you changed what John Wayne said into something else,so I ASSumed that you were a woman posting

So by him saying a OCer is trying to get attention,you wanted to know if anyone trying to exercise his RIGHTS was seeking attention.
He said Open Carrier's,not other people trying to exercise their rights to do things most would find normal.

People don't find others open carrying a normal activity.

Was I clear enough or do I need to call you and talk real slow?

 

[browntown]

So to the people who say "why wouldn't you just show ID?"
If you open carry everyday, would you still be fine with being stopped by officers asking for ID everyday? At what point would you start believing that asking for ID constantly was an infringement of you going about your merry life? For me it would happen pretty quickly.

Zeigen sie mir ihre papiere. Schnell.

 

[PACkinMAN]

It is the right of every citizen of the state of washington to be able to carry openly firearms. Stopping someone because of this is equal to stopping someone based on race, sex, or clothing. The OC'rs in this state are being discriminated against. Say what you want, but they are being done wrong, under law. To debate this is to futile, and if you do not believe in equal rights for all, then you don't deserve to be American. The end. If you think Oc'rs should show ID, lobby Olympia, otherwise to infringe upon their right is simply ignorant, and quite frankly bigotry.

 

[td1622]

I wonder if the officer felt like he had to do something because it is an unusual situation and everyone was looking at him to do something, so he did as little as he could and asked for an ID .... he may have not known what else to do.

On the other hand we need to get to a place where it is no big deal.