This is infuriating

how about this one:

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_19880471

Man some AGs are just the lowest form of human on this planet...

From what I read, she videotaped her encounter with the whales, then edited out the boring parts etc and produced a finished product. Then, later, the feds come around, ask for the video, she provides it, then they charge her with "lying to investigators" and "tampering with evidence" because she gave them the finished product.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1247284.html

No, I'm gonna say, while I agree personally with that argument, you know it's dead in court as well as I do. It doesn't meet the reasonable officer standard of Graham V Conner (Yes, disarming a compliant individual does fall under Use of Force), a reasonable officer is going to believe hes probably carrying loaded, based on demeanor. Because of that, Terry v Ohio and Arizona V Johnson take over. Remember, we don't have to make an arrest, or even find a crime in Terry. All we have to do is articulate reasonable suspicion that the person

A)May have committed a crime
B)May be armed.

In our situation, using the Graham v Conner reasonable man standard, we've got both A and B rolled up into one sexy ball of hot crimelove.



I agree with you about most of this, although there's no need to bash Americas greatest leader in your little speech.

I also agree about the tactics, use of cover, approach etc, but no one wants to hear about officer safety here haha.

Can someone explain to me what has this AG so turned on about whales?

Having the capability to lock up harmless people in prison for years for noncrimes gets some people really hot apparently. I say we lock up the AG.

Maybe AGs and judges should have a police-taser-esque "trading places" type training where they do a year in prison to see how it feels.

Ah hah!
there we go.

ETA: My big question is who the **** is the complainant on this garbage??

Orcas obv. they have standing.

yes if officer friendly needs to be a douche there will be a statute to fall back on every time. The point is there is no need. Just ask OC dork to move along nicely.

CA's mega****** gun laws are the direct result of Ronnie being scared of black panthers.

I had a LT I worked with once who'd been with the agency for like 30+ years.

He'd roll up on OCers in parking lots and sit in his car and yell hilarious **** about gun laws while questioning their intelligence through his PA. If they started to get in their vehicle he'd hit the "welp" a few times and go "run along now, hero. Points been made".

No idea how that never made YouTube.

douchebaggery by a cop... wow shocking. where did the LT carry his pistol?

OCers can be on the weird side once sometimes but they don't bother me. Once in a while I carry OWB under a shirt and its much more comfortable. If I had a retention holster I would do it more.

He only did it to a small group of OCers he already knew. He never did it to any he didn't know.

His issue (and mine) were the ones that like to start immediately quoting gun laws upon contact, as though the problem isn't that we'd like a little cooperation from your dumbass to quit freaking out all the elderly women at Wal-Mart with your sexy tacti-cool GLOCK with the trijicon TFO's and the rail light (on a 27), the problem is that even though we've contacted you 35 times, and I've PERSONALLY spoken to you eight times, you immediately assume I don't know you have a right to carry.

As I told one OCer "You ever seen two kids making out on a bench at the mall? Well, you're alot like that. People are going to stare, people may even take pictures and make snide remarks. You're going to possibly even attract the attention of LE. You're not breaking any laws, but you are socially awkward and incapable of fitting in with normal society"

That speech actually got a few OCers to untuck their shirts and cover up for me haha.

That someone carrying a highly fatal weapon can do so in public without the alert of the public is wishful thinking because it gives the armed an advantage over the unarmed

Get armed then.

GET THIS CRAZY BITCH THE **** OFF THE STREETS!

"You just shot an unarmed man"
Eastwood:"He shoulda armed himself."

So your saying the average person is justified in being afraid of a person carrying a firearm openly? Or are you saying that its impolite and they should hide it?

I know you didn't ask me, but my take is this:

I don't like the term "justified" in the context of your question.

I look at it like this. Suppose I'm walking through midtown, and I've REALLY gotta piss. I mean bad. Now, I'm "justified" in whipping out my junk and pissing on the side of the Hard Rock Cafe. I mean I've got a damn good reason. I was about to piss my pants.

An I going to do it? Hell no! It's not socially acceptable and its going to create a disruption.

Same with OC.

So I guess I'd say the latter.

That in no way answers the question he asked. He asked if the people who were calling 911 were justified in being scared of an open carrier. Oh, and btw FU for thinking OC isn't "justified" or "socially acceptable" or any other garbage. If it's legal to open carry, then **** off, it's none of your business if someone is doing it.

Umm.. No but public disruptions were my business.

I'm not saying I'm in support of arresting OCers, however it does greatly concern me to see such a large number of OCers get so butthurt about being called out on their douchy behavior. Lets place it more as an abnormal clothing option.

If you choose as a man, to leave the house in 6" stiletto heels and a miniskirt and pink feather boa, wouldn't you say it's entirely appropriate to assume you'll get more looks and awkward stares than had you chosen the polo shirt and blue jeans instead?

Lastly, please work on reading comprehension. My statement was that the public wasn't justified in panicking, and I didn't care for the way NeBlis used the term in his questioning.

Do I believe it's socially unacceptable? Without question. And you know it is too, you just choose not to care.

Learn to write in a way that doesn't suck then. There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. If you want to use a stupid analogy that could easily apply to either the OCer or the person calling the police, and then not explain your point in a reasonable manner, don't get pissy when someone doesn't understand what your were trying to say.

As far as being "socially unacceptable" once again FU. If it's legal, then no, cops have no business harassing an OCer. If the cops are getting called, then they are perfectly w/in their rights to drive by and check the situation out. However, they should never approach or speak to someone who is in no way breaking a law. If they do decide to come up and say hello, then they shouldn't get all butthurt when the OCer tells them to gtfo.

Why do you think that? Also not to be a prick but, how often do you use your sherpa these days?