Glory's Sun

Police just don't like when people actually know their rights and the laws.. so when they encounter someone who does, the police will always call it resisting.

it's all part of the machine.. and we feed it daily.

JumpinJesus

I'm of the belief that if people who talk an awful lot about defending the 2nd amendment spent half as much energy defending the other 9 amendments in the bill of rights, they wouldn't have to spend so much energy talking about defending the 2nd amendment.

And, regardless of the situation, one's attitude when dealing with the police often dictates their response as well.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

ngdawg

I'm just posting because seeing JumpinJesus' name as the most recent poster made me think someone had a post called "What Would Jesus Do".

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

dc_dux

I would agree, particularly the "attitude often dictates response" but would add that dk has been an outspoken and passionate defender of the 1st, 4th, 5th...9th amendments.....although I dont always agree with him.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

JumpinJesus

Heh.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

Glory's Sun

we all know what JJ would do, he would've pulled out the camera and started asking the cops to make man love with each other so he could further his career.

JumpinJesus

Here we are derailing a perfectly good thread just so we can make man-love jokes.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

Strange Famous

As I said, many things are technically legal but will judged as suspicious.

I gather its legal to carry a knife in the US, but if you stood outside a grade school with a machete you'd be arrested. I suppose you are just being obtuse for the sake of making an argument. This guy hasnt gone to jail, and the way he behaved he was asking to be nicked.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

World's King

I fucking hate white people.

__________________
heavy is the head that wears the crown

Plan9

Me too.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

murp0434

Well this thread certainly has been derailed. I don't see how the prev. comments were in any way constructive...

...anyway...the facts are clear here. unfortunately somebody's life was ended with a bullet and 150 ft away somebody else was standing in his front yard with a gun on display. IMO most cops are idiot assholes but they still have a job to do, and questioning a 'red-blooded American' who is 'exercising his rights' to display his gun in public sometimes falls in that category.

to the white people comment...just imagine how much attention this story would be garnering if the guy in Michigan was black or Mexican or something...just think:
"LOCAL POLICE ARREST GUN-TOTING MEXICAN IN A NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR YOU: STAY TUNED FOR DETAILS" ..course I'm assuming he's not

__________________
These are the good old days.


How did I become upright?

JumpinJesus

Aren't we all assuming this scenario is even true?

And murph, in case you didn't know (just in case) both WK and Crompsin are crackers.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

Plan9

...I've had enough of your racist slurs!

...

This entire story sounds like a DK BDSM fetish wet dream.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Kingruv

Murp,
I'm curious as to how you know the person in Michigan isn't black? It may well be all the cops are black and the home owner is white or vice versa. It should not make a difference.
The problem is we all know it does depending on where you are.
Everything considered, from the places I've been over the years, white southern crackers are about as egalitarian as anyone else when the truth is revealed. A lot seems to change between whether you live in a large city or small town or out in the country.
I used to live in North Carolina and found wide varieties in strange places like Winston-Salem as opposed to Forsythe County a big shift down in cop attitude. Go over into Davie County and it changes even more. Who is the top dog barking? In counties it is generally elected sheriffs and hired police chiefs in cities. That certainly changes who answers to who.
That is the politics of power, who gives the power/who can take it away.

DK knows a secret I know (it shouldn't be a secret) The popularly called 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment is the hardware (no pun intended) that keeps the door shut and or open on the federal government.
This is different than the 18th amendment that prohibited alcohol and the one (21st) that said it was ok a few years later. It is different than the slow power grab (17th amenment) that disallowed states from sending senators to Washington as a check against federal power.

Once the hinges and locks are taken off a door there is little left to hold the door up or secure it in it's place. I've seen places that has no secure door. People peer out from the dark room looking to see whats coming. They live in fear and do not know what the night holds.

Remember, the next article after the right to bear arms is one to prohibit soldiers from being quartered in homes. If you think that has no relevance, ask someone who lived in Nazi occupied Europe. Folks often think of the 4th as being what protects them from intrusion, it is there for that.
If you look at the intrusions our forbearers were accustomed to and compare it to the current electronic intrusions you are subject to now, the 3rd seems to have new meaning.
Without the right to self protection and means of liberty against oppression, this will become like the also rans.
Besides that, when Britain gets in a pinch like they were in the 30's and 40's, who will GIVE them guns for the folks at home to protect themselves if we get rid of all our privately owned guns.

Plan9

Urgh. Ugh. Meh. Oh, America.

Yeah, nice metaphor... but I say having a gun doesn't change any of that alarmist poetry. A gun by itself doesn't turn Joe Wimpy into Joe Hero. It's just a tool, an implement. It isn't a magical merit badge of valor, it isn't burglar repellent, it doesn't do anything that the operator can't make it do. Even the pathetic training I experienced in the military said as much when it brainwashed me with, "Your M4 is an instrument, you are the weapon."

Perhaps it is these paranoid gun owners that "live in fear and do not know what the night holds." I'm not a statistical genius nor do I play one on TeeVee, but I'm sure there is a large number amongst the clutch-of-death-on-a-1911 "living in fear" crowd. Gah, I'm sick of the hoopla. Relax, people.

...

I'm all for open carry but this ultra-violent, litigation-happy, guns-will-eat-my-baby Baa!-Baa! society makes it way impractical.

Discretion is the better part of valor. Keep a low profile. It aids in hiding you from the man, ya know.

Legal or not, common sense would dictate that walking around your front yard with a visible piece is a great way to get unwanted attention.

Plus, the guy was doing vehicle maintenance? I'm not a tactical mechanic, but I'd reckon a sidearm just gets in the way. Whenever I'm working on cars, I ditch the watches, rings, clown shoes, necklaces, MP5K PDW chest rig, whatever. That's just common sense safety. And you might scratch the finish!

...

Huh, you live in NoVA, too? We should go shooting some time.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Kingruv

[QUOTE=Crompsin;2593289]Nice metaphor... but I say having a gun doesn't change any of that alarmist poetry. A gun by itself doesn't turn Joe Wimpy into Joe Hero. It's just a tool, an implement. It isn't a magical merit badge of valor, it isn't burglar repellent, it doesn't do anything that the operator can't make it do. Even the pathetic training I experienced in the military said as much when it brainwashed me with, "Your M4 is an instrument, you are the weapon."

Perhaps it is these paranoid gun owners that "live in fear and do not know what the night holds." I'm not a statistical genius nor do I play one on TeeVee, but I'm sure there is a large number amongst the clutch-of-death-on-a-1911 "living in fear" crowd. Gah, I'm sick of the hoopla. Relax, people.

...

I'm all for open carry but this ultra-violent, litigation-happy, guns-will-eat-my-baby Baa!-Baa! society makes it way impractical.

Discretion is the better part of valor. Keep a low profile. It aids in hiding you from the man, ya know.

Legal or not, common sense would dictate that walking around your front yard with a visible piece is a great way to get unwanted attention.

QUOTE]

I never wrote it as a metaphor, just an analogy since it is true in practice as well as in principle. I was not thinking of America when I wrote about people peering out a door thats no longer there.
If you had seen Rhodesia and South Africa before their current condition you would know what I mean. When people are stripped of the means to defend themselves it changes everything for everyone. Neither place was perfect before by any means , but destroying everything that was, was not the answer. (of course it was the answer for Mandellas retribution and his wifes blood lust

The American public has been generally induced into giving up small rights to the point there will be no rights. They have been mis-educated, lied to, taught revised histories, made to believe whatever before was wrong and only what we give you is right.

I don't dispute what you say about discretion, it's true. But as long as I can push you further and make you take more of my crap, and have you bow to it, I will continue to do it. If you don't push back I could keep on until you have nothing because I take everything.
No weapons don't make Joe Wimp into Joe Hero. But to quote Harry Callahan, "a man's got to know his limitations"

If you were in that situation it would be a different story wouldn't it.
Not likely SCSD is going to walk up on you in your driveway even if they see you carrying if it's in a holster. I doubt DK is in much different situation in TX.

That being said I'll throw in another scene.
A former cop working as a bodyguard walks into a building where his employer works.
He goes to the security desk to check his weapons in before proceeding upstairs.
He tells security rather than leaving the weapons bag in his car he wanted to check them in.
Upon opening the bag, the man gets thrown to the wall, spread eagle while being searched and cuffed. He is immediately taken to jail and charged with possession of an unregistered handgun and other charges. He is thrown in lockup and told his things will be held for trial and destroyed afterwards.
The bodyguards boss calls their boss and immediately demands his release and return of his gear. No can do. Was he deprived of due process? Was he wrong for maintaing a low profile?

As far as being approached by 5 armed men of any ilk makes me cautious. On the other hand I choose not to live in a place like that.

Your treatment of this makes me guess you're a nihilist. No? Partial?

Where are you by the way, UMW, Germanna, NVCC?

Plan9

Pfft, UMW is for girls (I used to bang one from there). I'm farther north and spend far more money on tuition than those schools. Big league, dude.

...

I'm not a nihilist, I'm just playing the averages. I could go my whole life with a M18 Claymore offensive mine strapped to my chest and the detonator between my narrow buttcheeks... but I'd rather do other things in life. I have a concealed carry permit and I keep a piece in my car "just in case." I have a shotgun for "home defense." I study first aid, martial arts, land nav, and I own all five seasons of the A-Team on DVD. Try it, mofos... I'm ready.

But I don't go to bed at night wearing a bandoleer of 12g buckshot praying that a racial minority in a ski mask breaks in my house to steal my gigundo plasma TeeVee after raping my pleasantly plump wife and taking a dump on the 3'x5' US flag I have above my fireplace.

I like how you use 1% examples or examples of countries that aren't the US. We're NOT Rhodesia or South Africa. This is Spoiled Crackerland where running water, electricity, and Starbucks are a given.

Sure, Americans give up their rights. That's a given. Society, in general, is giving up rights for safety. That's how the pendulum is swinging these days. Eventually things will get too shitty and will swing back to "The Good Ole Days." Life is cyclical and so is everything else, especially politics. Hell, ten years from now I'll vote probably Republican (gasp).

The victors write the high school history books, education is a government-fabricated lie, TeeVee is a placating cancer. We get that. And we also stand idly by and watch as we let The Man rape us and our children. Enough. Dear Freedom Fighters, the world isn't your color of taupe. Deal with it. People generally tolerate what they like and learn to accept it. Look at the peons throughout history.

You can push me pretty far, but I have my limits. And like a lot of normal people, I'm not going to get on an Internet forum and post a tirade about my limits like a psychopath. I wouldn't wanna spoil the surprise and I certainly don't want my own DHS database entry.

Fictional characters are rarely authoritative sources. I am, however, a huge Eastwood fan.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Stare At The Sun

Lawyer.

Get a good one, and go from there.

Kingruv

Cromp,

You should ditch school and go to writing plot for Quentin Tarantino.

BTW, I doubt there will be a Republican Party in 10 years to vote for.

dksuddeth

well so far, in this thread, i've only seen two people actually care to discuss the main point I asked about and that was concerning the illegal order to turn over a video recording device, then be arrested for refusal. Everyone seems focused on the individual carrying a gun.....because he was carrying a gun. This should go a long way in to showing everybody how skewed their sheeple thought processes take them. The individual in the OP broke no laws, yet most here question his 'common sense' simply because they, in his position, wouldn't have been carrying that gun. Your 'common sense' isn't the law and unless you talk your representatives in to making it so, it is irrelevant.

Now, if anyone is truly interested in answering the question, i'll repost the same scenario/incident from a point already in to the confrontation.

Now, would anyone actually care to respond concerning the 4th amendment protections ONLY????

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

loganmule

ok on the 4th Amendment, dk, here goes.

Was there an unreasonable search and/or seizure? Yes.

Rat: The general rule is that law enforcement must have a warrant, to enter onto private property to search, seize, arrest, etc. There are exceptions (consent given by owner, observance of crime in progress, or other exigent circumstances), but none are applicable here. The "arrest" occurred when the guy was cuffed. It was done without probable cause. That would be false arrest, with battery. This analysis applies to what happened when the officers returned 15 minutes later. No warrant, where there's no justification for its absence, and no crime in progress = illegal law enforcement action.

Most states grant qualified immunity to law enforcement, for action taken, in good faith, in the performance of their duties. To me, this qualifies under the "reckless disregard" exclusion of these immunity laws.

Bottom Line: The guy did nothing wrong, and there is civil exposure to law enforcement (the actions warrant an internal investigation also).

Yes, the guy could have said or done something differently, behaved more respectfully, yadda yadda. The point is that he shouldn't have been put in that position in the first place. Private property is just that, whether you're inside your house or not, and the 4th Amendment protections equally apply. To those who put some of the blame on the guy, take the same facts, only put him inside his home, answering law enforcement's knock on the door. The legal result should be the same either way.

Caveat to the victim: this doesn't constitute legal advice; you need to retain an attorney and guided by his advice.

ASU2003

If it were CSI... since the guy in the driveway knows how to use guns, he stole the neighbors gun, drugged him, put him in the car, shot him, planted the gun, wrote a fake suicide note, and went to work on his car so he would have an alibi.
The cops were taking precautions because they didn't know if the guy in the driveway would start shooting if they accused him of murder.



I'm just guessing here, but maybe the police worry about you selectively editing the video tape, or adding in something that didn't happen. But the securing the area thing doesn't sound right.

loganmule

Anything is possible. Hence the reason for the word "probable" in probable cause. Is it more likely true than not that the neighbor did what you suggest as a possibility? If the answer is "no", which clearly seems to be the case on the facts presented in the OP, then that suspicion by law enforcement, assuming it was their explanation for the action taken against the neighbor, wouldn't withstand 4th Amendment scrutiny.

izzzzy

I would comply and document as much as possible,then get a lawyer.

Strange Famous

I dont see what the guys colour has to do with it.

Many people seem to gloss over the part of this which strikes me as incredible.... the guy was carrying a metal IN HIS OWN FRONT YARD WHILE WORKING ON HIS CAR.

I am sorry to stress this overly, but HE WAS ARMED, IN HIS OWN FRONT YARD, WHILE WORKING ON HIS CAR.

When the police came along he obviously says to them "yes, Ive got a metal on me" and shows them the piece... it isnt unreasonable for them to restrain him. Then he starts filming them etc, I mean, either the guy is very naive, as in childish, or he is willfully trying to provoke them.

I dont expect its illegal to go up to a police and say "youre a god damned coward and you dont have the guts to take out your truncheon and hit we with the balls with it, I guarantee it" - but it wouldnt be very sensible would it? And if he did hit you in the nuts it would be a crime, but you damn well know there's no point complaining about it.

There's such a thing as common sense in this world, and if you go out of your way to antagonise police (ie - start filming them, demand that they give your metal back and acting aggressively) you can expect them to make things miserable for you. The guy went out of his way to wind up the coppers and acted in an aggressive and obnoxious way - so he had a hard time. Thats the facts of life, isnt it?

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

dksuddeth

SF, yet again, even though you 'stress it', it is irrelevant. Here in the USA, we have a RIGHT to bear arms, especially on ones own property. I realize that the culture of rights and firearms between our countries is nearly opposite, but you have to get over your preconceived notions of what is and isn't acceptable to appreciate what authority police have and have not available to them.

Everything you spoke about here, again, is irrelevant. If society is to function correctly and there is to be an authorized police force to take action against individuals who break laws, there can be no such thing as 'common sense' to guide law enforcement. If you do utilize such a measure, than there is no way to determine just when or how laws are to be abided by or conduct to be measured. There is a very solid and inviolable line between citizen rights and law enforcement authority and not only do we have the right to bear arms (especially on our own property) but police have no authority to interfere with that right in any way, shape, or form unless a law has clearly been violated. We have very clear cut supreme court precedent that says carrying a firearm is a completely legal act and is in no way to be used as suspicion of a crime. Now, we do have what is called a 'terry search', in which a police officer may pat down a suspect for any weapons (for officer safety) only during the detainment period. This terry stop would only apply in so far as them detaining this individual on suspicion of a crime or for the duration of police interaction, which MIGHT apply in the first part of the confrontation.

We also have supreme court precedent that clearly states that videotaping the police in public service incidents is completely legal because there is absolutely no expectation of privacy for public servants operating in the course of their assigned duties, so ordering to stop recording or turn over video recording devices is completely outside of the authority of law enforcement.

Now, with that in mind, is it possible for you to have any other objective opinion about the violations of the 4th amendment or are you still stuck on your own personal opinion about what should and should not be done according to your own personal ideals?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Strange Famous

Yeah well - thinking there is no "common sense" in the situation is probably why this guy got to spend the night in the cells. If he goes into court and starts babbling on about his rights etc I expect he will get a community service order for his troubles too, so for his sake lets hope he learns a bit of common sense instead.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Kingruv

If you were referring to my point about race, you are right, race should have nothing to do with it. The problem is many times it does, even for those, (and at times, particularly those) that deny they treat someone differently because of their race.

He may not have even had the weapon on until they showed up. He may have been baiting them for a confrontation. But if they are able to do this with impunity including the local government, then he only has privileges they deign to extend to him and not rights that were once held. If thats what he has, it's what you've got too. It is for certain that point is proved day after day.


I may have missed this about English law but what you said about not expecting it's illegal say that to police is not true in most places in this country. "Curse and Abuse" is a common charge here for police to file when someone mouths off to them in public.
I don't recall him coming up to them but that they came on his property where he was.

There is still some disconnect between Britain and America on what is the expectation to rights. Many people here expect to be left alone as long as they are
"IN HIS OWN FRONT YARD" as you put it. (there is an odd legal presumption about carrying in general compared to carrying just when you expect trouble. If you carry all the time and happen to shoot someone in self defense it has often been labeled self-defense, whereas someone carrying on a specific occassion because they were thinking something might happen because they had been having troubles were tried for premeditated felony. That's lawyer thinking for you)
No it doesn't make sense (to me anyway) to be carrying while working on my car or truck while in my own driveway. But where I live, if I chose to do that the local leo's aren't going to ask me if I'm carrying a gun they can clearly see in a holster. If I'm own my on property and they have no interest in me other than gathering information, they'll likely glance at it and never mention it unless they are asking out of curiosity of why I'm carrying it at the moment.
Here (in this area) you can carry holstered legally as long as it is in the open.

On the other hand if I happen to be over in Washington on the street carrying open while working on my vehicle, I might as well lie down on the street and wait for the DC Metro Police to pick me up since I'm not there dealing drugs. If I were carrying a gun in DC it had better be concealed. It might be breaking the law but it would be discreet and as Bush 41 would say "prudent".

As far as the original point about the phone being taken and him arrested for obstruction; if you don't have a right to personal defense, you basically have no rights.

The Miranda "warning" has been turned into Miranda "rights". Centered around the 5th Article against self incrimination, it was decided many years ago police should be required to recite a laundry list of rights (rights you already had) if they arrest you. I don't disagree with the concept, but it has been stretched too much by both pro-law enforcement and pro-"civil" liberties that it has lost meaning for common people.
The police are able to detain him, take what was evidently a lawfully owned weapon and that had not been observed being brandished, prevent him from recording them skating on thin ice doing all this while not being connected to what they were on call for, all under color of law. As long as they are just "detaining" him and not "arresting" him they don't have to read him Miranda, ergo he has no rights really, while having them all (at this point its as if they can do pretty much as they please, he can't stop them)
If you are arrested, you are what? Stopped? If you are being detained by police, put in handcuffs and placed behind the cage in the backseat is that not being "stopped"?
You may say, "but to arrest you they have to charge you". That is the case, but it is also the case that many are charged only to have the police drop the charges after they get what they want. No harm, no foul? They know most folks are like dogs caught in a coyote trap, they're just happy to get out and be done. Most aren't going to come back because the police will deny everything and never willingly give evidence they did anything wrong.
Every-once-in-awhile they tag someone prickly, only to learn the hard way they should have left well enough alone.

I'm no anarchist by any stretch and I do live keeping a low profile. But there have been times I've had to put my foot down when push comes to shove and tell people to slow down and ask themselves if they really want to step across my line.
Again, I don't live in Michigan and though it would be more convenient, I don't live in DC for the same reason, the powers that be in those places do not respect individual rights, only "civil" rights. (the ones they say are ok)

dksuddeth

if that is the way things are now in the UK, I feel badly for you because I have no idea how anyone can function in society over there without knowing what boundaries are where. good luck.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Jimellow

Interesting scenario. It would be an interesting creative writing exercise.

Regarding the gun. I suspect it could be a murder. The gun in the victim's lap isn't the one they used to kill themself, but was instead planted by the murderer, after which he walked away with the murder weapon, perhaps down the block, to work on his car.

To wear said gun while working on car isn't the most intelligent decision - and given the switcheroo plan, such a decision wouldn't be consistent with his intelligence - but I suspect it's possible. Perhaps he was cocky and wanted to toy with the officers, as serial killers have been known to do; making it a sort of game.

__________________
Desperation is no excuse for lowering one's standards.

dksuddeth

thank you CSI Jimellow. now, perhaps you didn't read enough of the original post where the police already acknowledged that it was a suicide and nothing else????

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Jimellow

I read it, but I am not sure their initial reaction/conclusion is enough to rule out something else. The murderer could have taken two identical guns to the scene, the murder weapon and the decoy he left with the victim.

Actually, that's a pretty interesting scenario within itself.

I enjoy this aspect of the thread more than the legal and lawyer aspects.

If the person used two identical guns, and fired the decoy into the air (or somewhere else that wouldn't leave a trace), left the shell and gun, and walked away with the murder weapon, is there any way they could catch him?

I suspect the police would be suspicious about the questioned man having a gun identical to the one used in the suspected suicide, and perhaps that could initiate a thought process that would make them suspicious of shenanigans.

__________________
Desperation is no excuse for lowering one's standards.

Plan9

Whenever someone says "two identical guns" it makes me think, "It was the one-armed man!"

And then it makes me ignore the conversation.

Guns are like wedding rings. Nobody buys more than they need.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Jimellow

Interesting comment, but I admittedly don't understand it.

I am not a big proponent of guns and don't own any myself, but I'm curious about the context of "need" in the way you used it.

Hypothetically, if someone were planning a murder in the complex situation created above, wouldn't they "need" two similar guns to succeed?

I'm not intentionally being dense, but am trying to understand the statement. I understand the wedding ring in the example, but not the guns.

__________________
Desperation is no excuse for lowering one's standards.

Plan9

Threadjacking Action:

Couple of hot educational tidbits:

- People "need" guns the way that people "need" cigarettes, booze, football, and lingerie. It's a hobby.

- Legal guns are expensive ($500+ for anything worthwhile) and require a rather annoying and thorough registration process and background check unless you consider person to person sales, which are considered a "huge loophole" by jihading anti-gun clerics. I'll leave out illegal activities such as theft and the black market because those engaging in illegal activities are already more dangerous than any normal person with a firearm. Reality: Guns are inanimate objects. People operate them.

- If someone intelligent was planning a murder, they probably wouldn't use a gun unless absolutely necessary. You can kill somebody with $2 steak knife just as easily and for a heckuva lot cheaper if you're motivated and inclined to do such.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Jimellow

Good points.

Need is an interesting concept when you think about it. I agree.

__________________
Desperation is no excuse for lowering one's standards.

Strange Famous

Sure, guns are inaminate objects.

They are tools, designed and built spefically to kill.
-----Added 16/2/2009 at 02 : 26 : 32-----

Its the same as anywhere. If you go out of your way to antagonise police you can expect hassle over it, and if you really insist on pushing it too far you can expect some grey days.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

blktour

I visit another forum and this popped up from a guys experience. and boy were they so MISSING what he was saying. they were just giving him crap that it was a female cop that pushed him.
Here it is:

"I almost went to jail last night.

APD was dispatched to Platinum Jaxx last night.

I was trying to hail a cab when I was told to leave the area. I told the officer I was trying to hail a cab and I was again told to leave. When I questioned her demands I was threatened with being arressted. When questioning what could I possibly be arrested for I was pushed. This was not a crowd control packed deal. It was just me and she used both hands and pushed me.

At that point I walked across the street because I thought I should definitely leave before I was tackled and a story fabricated.

Is this the defacto standard we can come to accept from APD?

I feel like if an officer has to put their hands on you, you should go to jail.... PERIOD. They should not be touching you unless it is to arrest you."

Plan9

Huh, I'm amazed at your one-for-one... so do explain why I don't have a 50+ body count to go along with my hobby.

I mean, I've had a whole boatload guns for many, many years and nothing bad has ever happened. That's so weird.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

MSD

I would attempt to sue for excessive force, go to trial because I have a legitimate reason to claim that my rights were violated, and lose because regardless of what my rights are, a jury will rule based on emotion.

Then I'd be harassed by police at all possible opportunities until I moved to a different state.