A Bad Experience With IMPD outside Circle Center Mall

[bobzilla]

I have yet to see any form of compromise in your conversations...

Then you haven't looked very hard. Besides... isnt' this the pot calling hte kettle black?

 

[ATF Consumer]

Then you haven't looked very hard. Besides... isnt' this the pot calling hte kettle black?

Doesn't take long...you only have just over 100 posts...and not even close.

 

[bobzilla]

YEah... sorry. Most topics are just too far out there for me.

 

[finity]

Also have know several officers, active and retired. Vast majority are upstanding people that have to deal with far worse segments of society than most INGO members will ever experience.

Interesting how some think a particular right is absolute. This thread contains several posts promoting OC as an absolute right that cannot ever be inappropriate. Some people think freedom of speech is an absolute right to include profanity anytime, anyplace, any situation. Do those that promote their absolute right to OC anytime, anyplace, and any situation also support others right to absolute free speech? All types of speech anytime, anyplace, and any situation? Do you want your children exposed to profanity in McDonalds?

With Rights come Responsibility. Just because you can do something does not always mean you should. I swear and I carry, but try to act with some respect and discretion regarding my surroundings. No swearing around children, no OC at the mall. Hope there is never a reason for my gun to leave the holster. However, if necessary it will be used to protect my family and myself.

I see your point about civility & social responsibility. I understand what you are saying there & I agree.

What I think you may be misunderstanding is the difference between "Rights" (those the government can't infringe on) & prerogatives (that many call "rights").

It is my Right to say whatever I want while in my own home, on the public street, park, government building, etc. That's protected by the First Amendment.

I have the ABILITY to say whatever I want in someone else's home or on their property but I don't have the Right to do it. That is not protected speech AT ALL. If they don't want you to say it then they have the power to tell you to stop & then tell you to leave if you don't.

I have the Right to keep & bear arms on my own property or on public property. That Right is protected by the Second Amendment. I have no right to carry on someone else's property. It is NOT a protected right AT ALL.

Now, to what you are referring to, there are times when you should compromise. That's what makes us civil & allows society to function. If I WANT to compromise to realize a benefit that I wouldn't otherwise get, then that is my choice. There shouldn't be a law that MAKES me compromise...at least without very extenuating circumstances.

But there are times you shouldn't, also. Like when THE GOVERNMENT tries to infringe on a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT. I will not accept a law that bans profanity in public. I will not accept a law that bans guns or the display thereof in public. I will not accept a law that promotes one religion over another.

On the third hand I am under no impression that those Rights are not violated on a regular basis. It is just irritating when people are so easily willing to give up our Rights in the name of...civility, compromise, security, ethno-centricity, religious insecurity, or whatever else the reason is that makes someone forget completely our supposed "American Values". It's those people who are the problem & caused/allowed those Rights to be infringed in the first place.

So, bottom line: Compromise all YOU want but don't make it a LAW that OTHERS have to compromise along with you. If you don't like my speech in a public place, leave. If you don't like the OC of a gun in a public place, leave.

It's pretty simple, really.

ETA: The "you" I'm referring to isn't necessarily YOU.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No, I wouldn't want my children to listen to someone swearing, but I can exercise my right to leave. It's not my place to try to limit anyone's rights or be their moral compass. It's my responsibility to mind my own business. Rights are absolute, whether you agree with them or not.

And you so stole that line from spiderman.

I'd like to articulate that you have indicated that you would be offended/troubled by a protected form of free speech. And because of the individual's "colorful language" you suggest that you had the right to leave (which, I'm assuming most people with children, in that instance, would). Now, had the person, using "colorful language," exercised another option in trying to get his point across, it is doubtful that you would have suggested leaving. Assuming this is place of business, then that business has possibly lost revenue from a potential customer. If the offender had compromised and used different verbage he still would have been able to get his point across, you wouldn't have been offended, and the business still has the opportunity to sell you something.
However, basing my reasoning on other poster's comments. The offender shouldn't care that he has another option, which may be less offensive or possibly less troubling, to a third party. He has a legally protected right and he can express it in any way he sees fit.
I agree...... he does have a legally protected right.....he can express it in any way he deems, however, it is devoid of the extension, to others, of common courtesy. The type of courtesy that allows the offender to still "have his say," the parent not having his child exposed to profanity, and the option of the business to make a profit.

No one here wants to limit anyone's rights. We only want a person to be conscious in what way they express them. It is your option to express your rights in any way you choose, but a little understanding of "there's a time and a place for everything," is the hallmark of a respectful person.

 

[bobzilla]

I see your point about civility & social responsibility. I understand what you are saying there & I agree.

What I think you may be misunderstanding is the difference between "Rights" (those the government can't infringe on) & prerogatives (that many call "rights").

It is my Right to say whatever I want while in my own home, on the public street, park, government building, etc. That's protected by the First Amendment.

I have the ABILITY to say whatever I want in someone else's home or on their property but I don't have the Right to do it. That is not protected speech AT ALL. If they don't want you to say it then they have the power to tell you to stop & then tell you to leave if you don't.

I have the Right to keep & bear arms on my own property or on public property. That Right is protected by the Second Amendment. I have no right to carry on someone else's property. It is NOT a protected right AT ALL.

Now, to what you are referring to, there are times when you should compromise. That's what makes us civil & allows society to function. If I WANT to compromise to realize a benefit that I wouldn't otherwise get, then that is my choice. There shouldn't be a law that MAKES me compromise...at least without very extenuating circumstances.

But there are times you shouldn't, also. Like when THE GOVERNMENT tries to infringe on a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT. I will not accept a law that bans profanity in public. I will not accept a law that bans guns or the display thereof in public. I will not accept a law that promotes one religion over another.

On the third hand I am under no impression that those Rights are not violated on a regular basis. It is just irritating when people are so easily willing to give up our Rights in the name of...civility, compromise, security, ethno-centricity, religious insecurity, or whatever else the reason is that makes someone forget completely our supposed "American Values". It's those people who are the problem & caused/allowed those Rights to be infringed in the first place.

So, bottom line: Compromise all YOU want but don't make it a LAW that OTHERS have to compromise along with you. If you don't like my speech in a public place, leave. If you don't like the OC of a gun in a public place, leave.

It's pretty simple, really.

ETA: The "you" I'm referring to isn't necessarily YOU.

That is what I believe octalman was saying in his post. I agree with both. THere should never be a LAW telling people what to do. People should make that choice on their own.

 

[bobzilla]

I'd like to articulate that you have indicated that you would be offended/troubled by a protected form of free speech. And because of the individual's "colorful language" you suggest that you had the right to leave (which, I'm assuming most people with children, in that instance, would). Now, had the person, using "colorful language," exercised another option in trying to get his point across, it is doubtful that you would have suggested leaving. Assuming this is place of business, then that business has possibly lost revenue from a potential customer. If the offender had compromised and used different verbage he still would have been able to get his point across, you wouldn't have been offended, and the business still has the opportunity to sale you something.
However, basing my reasoning on other poster's comments. The offender shouldn't care that he has another option, which may be less offensive or possibly less troubling, to a third party. He has a legally protected right and he can express it in any way he sees fit.
I agree...... he does have a legally protected right.....he can express it in any way he deems, however, it is devoid of the extension, to others, of common courtesy. The type of courtesy that allows the offender to still "have his say," the parent not having his child exposed to profanity, and the option of the business to make a profit.

No one here wants to limit anyone's rights. We only want a person to be conscious in what way they express them. It is your option to express your rights in any way you choose, but a little understanding of "there's a time and a place for everything," is the hallmark of a respectful person.

Very well said! +1 to you fine sir.

 

[Beau]

The difference is "doing" vs "being" .... something you "do" can be be changed or modified (ie CC as an alternative to OC). Some you "are," you're very "being" cannot... one cannot change being of a different race, creed, age group, or sex. If a person is offended by something which is innate, something which can never be changed, then they have issues. If a person has a holster surgically attached to his head, then what can I say if he shows up at my "destroy all firearms" rally? Nothing

I am offended by homosexuality, pre marital sex, fat people that dress like they are skinny, pants that hang below the butt, profanity, people who think they have a Right to not be offended, women who don't dress modestly, parents that cuss at their children, etc. etc..

Millions of other people feel the same way. All the above are done by choice. I guess we need to start passing laws.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Some you "are," you're very "being" cannot... one cannot change being of a different race, creed, age group, or sex.

Ummm, yes, one can change his creed. Let's stay with creed, say Judaism.

It is your option to express your rights in any way you choose, but a little understanding of "there's a time and a place for everything," is the hallmark of a respectful person.

If a Jew is in the Circle Center mall and someone objects because they think it just isn't polite for Jews to be out in public where little kids and women can see them, should Jews just stay home even though they are legally in public? When is it a time and place to be Jewish in public, or to open carry? Should it matter what others think of one's Judaism, or of one open carrying?

 

[Roadie]

I swear to god I have never met such a group of thin skinned pansies. Someone with a different opinion than your own and you get your panties so wadded up, and so much sand up the vaginal crease that you can't think straight.

Damn people, it's the internet. Lighten up.

Dear Bob,

So again you take the moral high ground, and hurl more insults?

Signed,
Dick Swinging Pansie

 

[VUPDblue]

That's enough. Watch the language, insults etc... Any more bad behavior in this thread will result in a 48 hour ban.

 

[Benny]

This thread has been quite entertaining.

 

[Roadie]

Ummm, yes, one can change his creed. Let's stay with creed, say Judaism.



If a Jew is in the Circle Center mall and someone objects because they think it just isn't polite for Jews to be out in public where little kids and women can see them, should Jews just stay home even though they are legally in public? When is it a time and place to be Jewish in public, or to open carry? Should it matter what others think of one's Judaism, or of one open carrying?

Don't go the race route, as a comparison. I already got flamed on INGO for making that analogy.. lol

 

[Rookie]

I'd like to articulate that you have indicated that you would be offended/troubled by a protected form of free speech. And because of the individual's "colorful language" you suggest that you had the right to leave (which, I'm assuming most people with children, in that instance, would). Now, had the person, using "colorful language," exercised another option in trying to get his point across, it is doubtful that you would have suggested leaving. Assuming this is place of business, then that business has possibly lost revenue from a potential customer. If the offender had compromised and used different verbage he still would have been able to get his point across, you wouldn't have been offended, and the business still has the opportunity to sell you something.
However, basing my reasoning on other poster's comments. The offender shouldn't care that he has another option, which may be less offensive or possibly less troubling, to a third party. He has a legally protected right and he can express it in any way he sees fit.
I agree...... he does have a legally protected right.....he can express it in any way he deems, however, it is devoid of the extension, to others, of common courtesy. The type of courtesy that allows the offender to still "have his say," the parent not having his child exposed to profanity, and the option of the business to make a profit.

No one here wants to limit anyone's rights. We only want a person to be conscious in what way they express them. It is your option to express your rights in any way you choose, but a little understanding of "there's a time and a place for everything," is the hallmark of a respectful person.

I'm going to put you on the spot. Please name a time and place that you think a non LEO OC would be reasonable in public.

 

[T.Lex]

At a shooting range?

 

[bobzilla]

Dear Bob,

So again you take the moral high ground, and hurl more insults?

Signed,
Dick Swinging Pansie

Wow, y'all suck at comprehension don't you? My "taking the moral high ground" was in relation to not OC'ing and making small concessions to ease things for my fellow man in the hopes that they will in turn do the same. It has nothing to do with the internets. Y'all need to get over yourselves.... really.

 

[$mooth]

 

[thompal]

Interesting how some think a particular right is absolute. This thread contains several posts promoting OC as an absolute right that cannot ever be inappropriate. Some people think freedom of speech is an absolute right to include profanity anytime, anyplace, any situation. Do those that promote their absolute right to OC anytime, anyplace, and any situation also support others right to absolute free speech? All types of speech anytime, anyplace, and any situation? Do you want your children exposed to profanity in McDonalds?

I see your point, but I think the premise is flawed by equating OC to dropping F bombs in public. Maybe if you'd have instead used a different example, like wearing a t shirt with a religious message. Instead of covering your child's eyes if you saw someone wearing a shirt with a religious message, you could take the time to explain how it is their right, and what the message means.

 

[rmabrey]

That's enough. Watch the language, insults etc... Any more bad behavior in this thread will result in a 48 hour ban.

Dang, I guess this means I have to read back.........I had given up on this thread

 

[thompal]

The difference is "doing" vs "being" .... something you "do" can be be changed or modified (ie CC as an alternative to OC). Some you "are," you're very "being" cannot... one cannot change being of a different race, creed, age group, or sex. If a person is offended by something which is innate, something which can never be changed, then they have issues. If a person has a holster surgically attached to his head, then what can I say if he shows up at my "destroy all firearms" rally? Nothing

Let's change the example to that of religion. It's not obvious from outward appearances; it's a choice. If you were, say Jewish, would you refrain from wearing a Star of David around your neck simply because you didn't want to "offend" anyone?