LEO responds positively to OC

[Titanium_Frost]

Point of clarification: Sarcasm=Sarcasm as was the case of my post that you quoted.

I thought it was VidGuy! Sheesh! This thread is moving faster than I can keep up while I'm arguing on facebook, on two other threads here AND trying to pretend like I'm working

 

[VidGuy]

If he is picking his targets he would be carrying a handgun so he could conceal his intentions, not only from his target but from people likely to try to stop him from completing his goal...

That or he is retarded, quickly surmised by a friendly greeting returned by "Dur da Dur"

But wait... If he is legally allowed to do this (since, you know, it's perfectly normal), and shouldn't be stopped, why would he need to conceal his intentions?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

But wait... If he is legally allowed to do this (since, you know, it's perfectly normal), and shouldn't be stopped, why would he need to conceal his intentions?

He shouldn't (can't) be stopped unless he commits or is suspected of committing a crime...

Criminals typically conceal their intentions either as a way to not be caught or to complete their task with no interference... Look at the CO shooter. He didn't exactly wear his weapons and "armor" in when he first sat down did he?

 

[KG1]

I thought it was VidGuy! Sheesh! This thread is moving faster than I can keep up while I'm arguing on facebook, on two other threads here AND trying to pretend like I'm working

Something has to give. I think you need to quit working.

 

[VidGuy]

So it's out of bounds for a cop to even talk to him, just to get an idea of what's going on with this guy?

I get that it's not legal to "stop" him, but I'm talking about plain common sense.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

So it's out of bounds for a cop to even talk to him, just to get an idea of what's going on with this guy?

I get that it's not legal to "stop" him, but I'm talking about plain common sense.

Freedom of speech

They can chat it up all they want, that is called consensual contact or something like that. If a cop wants to talk to me about a legal activity I have no problem with that at all, if I do not have the time or inclination to continue the conversation I will terminate it politely and continue on my way.

There would be no RAS for detainment.

 

[Birds Away]

Do you think it's something a "normal" person would do, however you define normal?

Well, if you define normal as what "most" i.e. the majority of people would do/think then based upon polls/election results etc;

- "normal people" think Barry Soetero would make a fine Prez.

- "normal people" believe the phrase "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution.

- "normal people" think killing unborn babies is cool.

- "normal people" think the MSM is unbiased.

based upon those and others, I really couldn't give 2 s what a normal person thinks.

 

[VidGuy]

Well, if you define normal as what "most" i.e. the majority of people would do/think then based upon polls/election results etc;

- "normal people" think Barry Soetero would make a fine Prez.

- "normal people" believe the phrase "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution.

- "normal people" think killing unborn babies is cool.

- "normal people" think the MSM is unbiased.

based upon those and others, I really couldn't give 2 s what a normal person thinks.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[findingZzero]

Beware the zealots
​

Ideology vs. common sense.
​

Hey vid guy, you can hide at my place. But, wait, disaster always follows where I've been....

 

[findingZzero]

yikes!

 

[Birds Away]

You didn't answer the question.

I don't worry about guns I can see...

 

[VidGuy]

Beware the zealots

Ideology vs. common sense.
Hey vid guy, you can hide at my place. But, wait, disaster always follows where I've been....

Actually, I appreciate that people are so passionate about their Constitutional rights. I just believe there has to be some balance in what's appropriate to display in public, to avoid confusion and panic.

I would never dress like I described (for one thing, I'm not a fan of ARs... give me a Henry lever-action any day... but that's a different topic!) because:

A - I don't feel any need to
B - I don't want any hassles from the police
C - I don't want anyone to fear for their safety. (An OC sidearm though, is fine with me, because it falls under personal protection)

 

[VidGuy]

I don't worry about guns I can see...

Ha! Good point!

Side note: I see you're retired USN. Just wanted to say thank you for helping to keep the freedom for us to have this discussion.

Carry on!

 

[Birds Away]

I don't believe someone doing something I personally would not do is necessarily a bad thing.

 

[MTC]

If I saw someone as I described, I would have no reservations about calling the cops to check him out, nor would I be concerned about how it impacts his constitutional right to carry.

Why?

Because a normal person doesn't walk around in fatigues, full body armor, mags strapped, and an AR slung over his shoulder. Anyone doing this is either mentally unstable, up to something, or just plain stupid. All good reasons to check him out.


Any time you stray from societal norms, you'll draw attention to yourself.

The part about straying from "societal norms" is true enough, at least as far as visual notice or attention. It's gone way beyond that, however, especially regarding the carrying of a firearm - any firearm, including a basic handgun or sidearm, whether openly or concealed, and even when the person's appearance and demeanor does not stray from "societal norms".

Within the context of the ownership and carrying of arms by the population at large, at one point during the '90s someone asked, "When did this entire country suddenly become Gladys Kravitz from [the '60s sitcom] Bewitched?"

Many will use the police, not where a crime was or is being committed, but to have someone rousted, harrassed, or "checked out" to satisfy the whims and diktats of what the busybody would (in many cases) prefer to be prohibited.

In talking to such people privately, it becomes obvious that much revolves around the instrumentality or utility of the object itself, i.e. that "if he has a gun [any gun], he's going to use it" - for (presumably) criminal purposes or, at the very least, he must be "up to no good" and needs to be "checked out".

 

[Birds Away]

The part about straying from "societal norms" is true enough, at least as far as visual notice or attention. It's gone way beyond that, however, especially regarding the carrying of a firearm - any firearm, including a basic handgun or sidearm, whether openly or concealed, and even when the person's appearance and demeanor does not stray from "societal norms".

Within the context of the ownership and carrying of arms by the population at large, at one point during the '90s someone asked, "When did this entire country suddenly become Gladys Kravitz from [the '60s sitcom] Bewitched?"

Many will use the police, not where a crime was or is being committed, but to have someone rousted, harrassed, or "checked out" to satisfy the whims and diktats of what the busybody would (in many cases) prefer to be prohibited.

In talking to such people privately, it becomes obvious that much revolves around the instrumentality or utility of the object itself, i.e. that "if he has a gun [any gun], he's going to use it" - for (presumably) criminal purposes or, at the very least, he must be "up to no good" and needs to be "checked out".

+1

 

[Birds Away]

Ha! Good point!

Side note: I see you're retired USN. Just wanted to say thank you for helping to keep the freedom for us to have this discussion.

Carry on!

Thank you, Sir.

 

[VidGuy]

In talking to such people privately, it becomes obvious that much revolves around the instrumentality or utility of the object itself, i.e. that "if he has a gun [any gun], he's going to use it" - for (presumably) criminal purposes or, at the very least, he must be "up to no good" and needs to be "checked out".

I have no interest in seeing people OC'ing a 1911 (for example) "checked out" by the police. As long as they're not recklessly waving it around!

But you have to admit, if you saw the guy I described, wouldn't you be just a wee bit suspicious?

 

[MTC]

But you have to admit

I don't have to - anything. Then again, I don't go about my business thinking up ways to use the police to enforce my personal whims, and especially with regard to their appearance or carrying of their personal property.

 

[VidGuy]

I don't go about my business thinking up ways to use the police to enforce my personal whims...

Nor do I.

Don't try to make me out to be some kind of extremist looking to ban all guns.


Look, some of you disagree. I'm good with that. But some of you are being deliberately obtuse. Those I can dismiss. But don't misrepresent what I'm saying.

I never, ever call the cops on a "whim".