Whenever a thread based on a video of some gun issue comes up around here, we all ostensibly try to view the scenario through our own eyes and discuss it from that perspective. If I believe the guy's rights in the video were violated, which I think is beyond question that they were, I will respond as though they were my rights being violated, because in the bigger scheme of things, they are, or they at least have that much more potential to be when cops get away with violating rights anywhere in this country.
With that in mind, let me be perfectly clear: I don't give one good hemorrhoid-bustin' crap that someone else thinks I'm being "stupidly anal" when arguing in defense of my rights. That's not to say that you intentionally directed that line at me personally, but since Firefighterchen and I have argued this thread from exactly the same perspective right on down the line, I'm taking it as such. I find the assertion that Firefighterchen was being any kind of anal when talking about asserting constitutional rights, or talking about cops' obligation to uphold and adhere to them, to be pretty stupid in and of itself. You simply must know by now that I don't think you're stupid, but in the context of this discussion, and directed at who you directed it at for the innocuous banter he offered in rebuttal to a post of yours, was a stupid thing to say. Sheesh, indeed.
And the hits just keep on comin'.....You've got it backwards. The state passes a law making open carry fully, 100% legal for all who have no felony or mental health restrictions preventing them from legally owning/carrying. The state is the one who passed down the policy to the local cops. Any Chief, Mayor or whoever that issues edicts counter to that law, such as stop and demand papers on anyone reported open carrying, is issuing orders above his pay grade, or more to the point, above his authority. It has nothing to do with not offending anyone, or protecting his LEOs from being seen as JBTs, it has to do with upholding his oath of office to faithfully enforce the laws of both the United States and his own state/local jurisdiction.
This is just surreal, fstroupe. "Flashing around" a weapon has absolutely nothing to do with the video we're discussing, and I'll bet my next paycheck that in the State of Oregon there are myriad laws that cops would be 100% justified in investigating the violation of if that had been the case. But it wasn't.
**Edited out reply to this quote after review because I misread it the first time around. Sorry about that if you already saw it fstroupe.
If it was my wife, she'd have taken the sicko out. No, I mean the guy in your hyperbolic, unrealistic analogy, not Irritating Guy in the video. Link Removed
Firefighterchen hates law enforcement, or was this intended for me? He has expressed support for LE several times in this thread. I have not. I could live without 'em just fine, but even at that, I don't hate them, I only hate when I see them abusing their authority, or more accurately, when I see them imposing dictates on law-abiding citizens under the false color of authority, and that's what was happening here.
But even if I did hate LEOs in some personal sense, are you saying that just because of that character flaw of mine that they will always be in the right when dealing with me? You're not making any sense here fstroupe.
You couldn't prove it by this post.
Why? So you could be a Dudley Do-Right too?
We don't have open carry in Bama either, but there is a movement to git 'r done. I myself prefer concealed carry, but if I can ever help the guys who want to carry openly, I'll be there for them because their rights are my rights are your rights are everybody's rights, and they should always be supported even when you have no intention of exercising them yourself.
So are we still talking about your imaginary Goober in your hyperbolic, unrealistic analogy, or the Goober in the subject-video? Because with all the wishes for the guy's death, the name-calling and the derision for deigning to stand up for his rights, I'm having a hard time following what this post of yours has to do with anything if not the OP video?
Ah, OK, we're talking imaginary Goobers. Because absolutely nothing like what you describe here happened in the 15-minute video of a guy legally open-carrying his weapon, holstered, not bothering a soul, when no less than four cops started hassling him and within 15 seconds, after only one sentence uttered by the video-Goober, was determined to be one of those who wanted "to make things difficult."
Why hasn't it occurred to any of you anti-Goober types that the guy in the video expected the cops to do their jobs and leave him the heck alone since he wasn't doing anything illegal? It seems everyone who has criticisms to offer of the activist has said he went looking for a confrontation with the cops. How do any of you come to that conclusion? Because he had a phone that takes crappy, grainy video? Who doesn't have one of those these days? Because he knows the law and deigned to cite it to the cops who were harassing him? The nerve, huh?? I mean, the nerve of that gun rights activist to know his own place and to have the audacity to recite the cops' place to them! Well, he might've actually recited their place to them if one of 'em hadn't ordered him to "stop talking." Link Removed
I carry two video cams with me everywhere I go. One dedicated cam, and a better'n fair one that does HD recording in my phone. I take videos of everything from butterflies and bees outside my back door, to performance tests of my knives and guns, to extreme weather, to concerts, to truly idiotic stuff of me and my wife just laughing and having fun together. I drive more than 1,000 miles per week between personal and work, week in, and week out, and as such, if I wasn't such a danged good driver, I'm more likely than most to have encounters with cops, and you can bet your bottom dollar that if/when I ever do, it'll be videotaped. If they go from simple curiosity about why I'm carrying into actually illegally detaining me because they don't like my attitude or my irritating voice or whatever, I hope I'll do a better job than Irritating Goober-Guy did in the video of asserting his rights, but regardless, assert mine I will, and they'll either get the message and leave me alone forthwith, or their Chief of Police and/or Sheriff, the County Commission and/or the Mayor, the State Bureau of Investigations, the District Attorney and the State Attorney General will all get a copy of the video along with every YouTube viewer I can direct to my channel, and I'll do everything I can to call attention to their false detainment under color of authority. Stupidly anal is, as stupidly anal does, and that clearly defines the cops in the OP video much better than it defines Irritating Goober-Guy or anyone standing for his rights in this thread as far as I'm concerned.
"Being there" and detaining the guy are completely separate issues. They very easily could've been there without saying a word to the guy, and they had absolutely no legal justification for "investigating" through direct contact why he was engaging in a perfectly legal activity. They initiated the "debate." They initiated having to suffer through hearing his irritating voice. They initiated the illegal detainment. Goober-Guy did absolutely nothing wrong throughout the video.
Blues
