another dumb activist. his 15mins

[fstroupe]

The guy was there for one reason and one reason only, to draw attention to himself. He succeeded. That in and of itself is not illegal, just stupid, as the cops have to investigate once someone reports it, and they might have prevented jaywalking or some other real crime from happening in the 15 minutes they wasted here. Of course, that they wasted 15 minutes and not just 30 seconds was on them, not him.

In other words, the guy was a troll. I don't understand why Otis the troll didn't like him.

The cop didn't know the law, or either was trying to BS someone that did and did it poorly. I hope these guys were called on the carpet for unprofessionalism and poor performance once this video hit the 'net.

"Am I being detained?" "No." "So I'm free to go?" "No." What a moron. Guess he got his "law learnin' from watching reruns of Law and Order.

 

[Rhino]

What is that about a pot and a kettle?

Please show me where I have deliberately misrepresented anything you have said. What I have said here is being deliberately misinterpreted despite my explaining it numerous times. Nobody here has faulted the guy for sticking up for his rights, except maybe Otis, yet some here keep claiming that we have, and then base their criticism of us on that fantasy. The only fault anyone has found with the guy involved his attitude. There are differing opinions on his attitude, but hey, guess what? Different people sometimes have different opinions. But deliberately misrepresenting what others are saying is dishonest, and basing criticism on that misrepresentation is a pretty cheap tactic. Quite frankly I expected more from some of the members I've seen employing it here, based on the quality posts I've seen them make elsewhere. I don't mind people disagreeing with me. That's part of what discussion forums are for. It doesn't really bother me when people lie about what I've said because I've come to expect such things on internet forums, but I'm somewhat surprised at some of the people who are employing those tactics here.

 

[Rhino]

No excoriation going on here, is there Rhino?

Not for asserting his 2nd Amendment rights 100% lawfully, no. For his in your face attitude, yes.

And you're coming off just like them Rhino, only with a slightly less intensely-expressed disdain for the guy.

Only when you twist my words into something I wasn't saying, but I'm done trying to explain it to you. You've convinced me you aren't interested in arguing this honestly.

The anti-activist posts in this thread are really despicable, coming from a bunch of impotent wannabe tyrants.

You mean like somebody who twists the wording of the argument so they can always win? Yeah, those people are irritating, aren't they?

 

[Rhino]

What crime was reported? A man with a gun is completely legal in the United States.

Point taken. Okay, possible crime then. They still have to respond.

Sure they let him go, after wasting 15 minutes lecturing him about how their opinion should trump his right. I never said they couldn't investigate, I said they took it too far by harassing the OC'er and demanding ID. It's saddening to see so many Americans giving up their liberty for "safety."

I disagree with the surrender of ID on a fundamental level. That's why I disagreed with that court decision. To me it makes you seem guilty until proven innocent and smacks of a warrantless search. But unfortunately many courts have ruled otherwise and for the time being it's something we have to live with in many jurisdictions. I do agree with him stating that he was complying under duress, because as someone else stated that can be a factor in a court battle later.

My guess, he didn't want to give fuel to the brady campaign...you know, all they had to do is copy and past the first 10 pages of comments and they would have over 100 gun owners calling other gun owners childish names and wishing for the death of others.

Beats me. I just found it curious.

 

[Rhino]

I am advocating DEMANDING the cops obey the law just like I have to. And I'm advocating not sucking up to cops who are giving a lecture based on their opinions. All that is necessary is to ascertain if there is a crime involved and beyond that the cops have no reason to continue interacting with someone engaged in a legal activity.

You can demand all you want, but the cop on the street can't change things, so all you'll do is make things worse. I never said anything about sucking up. They continued to interact because the guy started a debate with them. The encounter undoubtedly would have been much quicker had he not.

You assume I want the respect of the police... but I do not desire the respect of the police. I don't give two farts in a windstorm what an officer thinks of me or what he/she thinks of open carry... all I want from an officer is for them to obey the law while enforcing the law. Nothing more but most assuredly nothing less.

And you think that doesn't entail respect? I'm not talking about personal respect. I'm talking about respect for your rights and respect for gun owners in general, not about respect for you personally. You are wanting respect from them, though not personally, yet you are espousing actions that would damage and possibly negate that respect.

I'm not picking any fight by engaging in a legal activity. It is the cops hassling me for engaging in a legal activity who are picking the fight. But because folks engaged in legal activities filed lawsuits against the police and/or municipalities that hassled them the changes wanted are happening. Had the cops left the legal open carriers alone no lawsuits would have been filed. After all.. it is legal to engage in a legal activity. So who picked the fight?

I wasn't talking about carrying and you know it. I'm not going to explain that again.

I stated the positive changes that occurred in Michigan (and I even gave links!) because of open carriers standing up and winning lawsuits against police and municipalities that hassled them and activists open carrying while getting illegal ordinances repealed in an earlier post and I mentioned how the media coverage of all that educated the population to the fact that open carry, even open carry without needing a permit! was legal. Ummm... that means some of the changes in the laws and public perception goals were already met in positive ways..... because of open carry activists. ☺☺☺☺

So why did you advocate not worrying about public opinion?

As an aside... I am not a cop hater. Quite the contrary. But I'm not a cop groupie either. I do expect the police to obey the law while enforcing the law... nothing more and nothing less. And if I am engaged in a legal activity I expect the cops to leave me alone... not give me a lecture.

I'm not branding you as a cop hater. You're just very passionate about your views and your principles. I may disagree with you on things, but there's nothing wrong with being passionate about what you believe in.

 

[Rhino]

Did you hear that 3rd cop? "When people become more concerned about rights than responsibility our country becomes a worse place to live".
Is he friggin high? How about when cops and politicians are concerned LESS about our rights and more concerned about their jobs!

Nice catch. I didn't hear that. I have a feeling he meant something else but didn't express himself very well. That was a pretty stupid remark.

 

[Rhino]

Here is my final take on this. I think it would have been better to have had a group OC Picnic or BBQ with families or at least both sexes and multiple ages. Just folks out having fun; An inarguable purpose for being there and the OC just incidental. If officers show up to check it out, you offer them a bite to eat and a cold beverage. No confrontation, just a good old American picnic. Film it if you like.

We do that in Ohio on a fairly regular basis.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post

Oh yeah! Let me know if someone actually does that. That would really piss me off too. So far, nobody has.

Some people seem to have a problem with reading comprehension though.

What is that about a pot and a kettle?

Please show me where I have deliberately misrepresented anything you have said. What I have said here is being deliberately misinterpreted despite my explaining it numerous times. Nobody here has faulted the guy for sticking up for his rights, except maybe Otis, yet some here keep claiming that we have, and then base their criticism of us on that fantasy. The only fault anyone has found with the guy involved his attitude. There are differing opinions on his attitude, but hey, guess what? Different people sometimes have different opinions. But deliberately misrepresenting what others are saying is dishonest, and basing criticism on that misrepresentation is a pretty cheap tactic. Quite frankly I expected more from some of the members I've seen employing it here, based on the quality posts I've seen them make elsewhere. I don't mind people disagreeing with me. That's part of what discussion forums are for. It doesn't really bother me when people lie about what I've said because I've come to expect such things on internet forums, but I'm somewhat surprised at some of the people who are employing those tactics here.

I commented on how you are saying some folks have a reading comprehension problem. I said before I understand your perspective. I get it that your problem with the guy is all about you don't like HOW he went about standing up for his rights while glossing over the fact that the cops had no reason (other than attempting to intimidate through implying how unwise it is to open carry) to keep talking to the guy once it was ascertained there was no crime happening or about to happen.

What you seem to be missing is other people are pointing out that regardless of what folks might think of the guy's reasons, attitude, demeanor, or even his voice, the plain fact is he committed NO crime and there was NO reason for the cops to lecture him about open carry.

Folks might form an opinion about the guy's behavior, his voice, his lack of speaking skills, or his reasons for doing what he is doing but the fact remains... the cops did not need to engage in all the rhetoric concerning open carry and how other people who aren't familiar with guns might "feel" about it in an attempt to intimidate the guy into not open carrying because obviously if he does he will get heat from the cops.

Just like you are taking issue with how the guy handled the cops.... I'm taking issue with how the cops handled the guy.

Both could have done a better job but... and this is an important BUT... the cops are supposed to be professionals who know the law and only enforce the law... not try to enforce their opinion of either the guy or open carry. So, in this case, it is the cops who carry the burden of being professional.

 

[Bikenut]

You can demand all you want, but the cop on the street can't change things, so all you'll do is make things worse. I never said anything about sucking up. They continued to interact because the guy started a debate with them. The encounter undoubtedly would have been much quicker had he not.

Of course the cop on the street doesn't make policy or laws. But they are, or should be, required to follow the law just like us common folk do. And if no one DEMANDS that they do... they won't.

It takes two to have a debate. The cops didn't have to respond to the guy. And had the cops not decided to offer their opinions about open carry the encounter would likely have been over more quickly.

And you think that doesn't entail respect? I'm not talking about personal respect. I'm talking about respect for your rights and respect for gun owners in general, not about respect for you personally. You are wanting respect from them, though not personally, yet you are espousing actions that would damage and possibly negate that respect.

Again you say I am wanting respect from the police.... I'm not interested in whether the police respect me or they respect rights. What I am interested in is cops can, and should, obey the law whether they respect rights or not. Respect, personal or for rights, isn't necessary... having the cops obey the law, and the laws concerning rights, IS.

I wasn't talking about carrying and you know it. I'm not going to explain that again.

Yes, I know what you have been talking about. You don't like how the guy handled the encounter. I get it.

So why did you advocate not worrying about public opinion?

Opinions, personal or public, should not have the power to restrict rights. If we worry about what someone might think and allow that to restrict how we exercise rights.......... we don't have any rights... all we have is fear of going against someone's opinion.

I'm not branding you as a cop hater. You're just very passionate about your views and your principles. I may disagree with you on things, but there's nothing wrong with being passionate about what you believe in.

I don't mind disagreeing. Makes for interesting discussions.

I made the comment about not being a cop hater so folks who read this discussion will understand I'm not against the cops... I just want the cops to obey the law.. not try to restrict the legal behavior of folks to what their opinions are using the influence their authority lends them.

 

[BluesStringer]

You mean like somebody who twists the wording of the argument so they can always win? Yeah, those people are irritating, aren't they?

I twisted not one damned thing. I quoted what I responded to verbatim, and didn't even quote you or include you in the most despicable examples of anti-liberty posts present in this thread.

You are now defending at least one poster who said the guy should freakin' die for exercising his rights. He called him a "constitutional pervert," and yet you still question whether they were excoriating him for exercising his rights? Are you being purposely obtuse, or does obfuscatory accusations of twisting others' words just come natural to you?

It took only 15 seconds for Cop #1 to say, "So you're going to be difficult" in response to Irritating Guy saying, "It's my legal right to," which was in response to the first question spoken by Cop #1, "So what's your purpose for carrying a sidearm?" 15 seconds!

Like it or not, the guy exercising his rights is the very core of what the cops used to "justify" their illegal stop and show-us-your-papers actions. They were in his face. He was the only one in that video who was justifiably defensive and unjustifiably having to put up with goons barking out orders to "stop talking" in his face.

You say you don't mind being disagreed with, but that's an obvious lie. You've been completely trounced here, and your only response is to whine about having your words twisted when they weren't at all. You say you're "done trying to explain it" to me. You didn't have to explain a damned thing to me, because you have explained quite clearly with your posts that you were done recognizing and accepting freedom when you see/hear it long before you ever entered this thread, and I can distinguish between a guy whose voice is irritating being illegally harassed, and wannabe-tyrant cops, without any input from you. You keep justifying the cops' illegal actions because the guy was irritating. My, how supportive of liberty is that, eh? I got it exactly right; you're a wannabe jack-booted-thug who wishes like Hell that he could reach out to that irritating little pipsqueak and tell him, "stop talking" and have him so intimidated by your awesomeness that he'll just shut up on the spot. As irritating as he may have been, and as irritating as you obviously think I have been by supposedly "twisting" your words, you ain't that awesome. I reject your attempt to deflect your own defective reasoning into me twisting anything. I haven't done anything of the sort. Maybe that makes me a "constitutional pervert" who should freakin' die for exercising my rights to say out loud that you're demonstrably not a supporter of freedom, eh?

Blues

 

[Firefighterchen]

That in and of itself is not illegal, just stupid, as the cops have to investigate once someone reports it, and they might have prevented jaywalking or some other real crime from happening in the 15 minutes they wasted here.

In the chance you weren't being completely sarcastic...

Do police have to respond to my call if I report a guy mowing his lawn? What about if I call about someone parked in a parking spot in front of a grocery store? What other legal activity can I report that they have to respond to? What if I report someone using the restroom at Wal Mart? I think the next time I see someone walk into a gun shop I'm going to report it, never know, possible crime right there......wouldn't that be a kick in the pants if Brady activist sat there all day calling in gun owners who walk into the gun store, after all police have to respond for the safety of the children.

The only stupidity I can see here definitely does not come from the lac.

Alright. Put this on the calender. It doesn't happen very ofter, but I have to agree with Otis. This guy may have is heart in the right frame of Libertarianism but he sure doesn't deliver very well.

So now poor delivery is good cause for cops to detain the guy illegally for 15 minutes? And what exactly does "Libertarianism" have to do with anything depicted in the video? He was exercising a right acknowledged by the Constitution as deriving from God Almighty, and buttressed by Oregon state law. The cops intruded on his pursuit of happiness, just enjoying a day in the park. It has nothing to do with party politics, Libertarian or otherwise. He was either within his rights, or he wasn't, and there's not an anti-activist poster in this thread who's been stupid enough to claim he wasn't. Instead, they ridicule a guy because of his irritating delivery and because he didn't bend over to lick the boots of cops who detained him and demanded his papers illegally.

You guys don't really believe in freedom. You criticize it when it's in your face, or more accurately, in the government's face, which is busy as bees in this video trying to suppress it illegally. You equate activism with being anti-cop, and the truth is, that meme in and of itself exposes your own anti-liberty, anti-Constitution frame of mind.

The above is irrefutably true without even getting into how anti-liberty one is exposed as being by agreeing with

Blues

Obama won because he could give a slick sounding speech despite the evil message...apparently it doesn't matter what purpose someone has in this country as long as they sound "sexy/manly/professionally" doing it.

 

[Rhino]

I commented on how you are saying some folks have a reading comprehension problem. I said before I understand your perspective. I get it that your problem with the guy is all about you don't like HOW he went about standing up for his rights while glossing over the fact that the cops had no reason (other than attempting to intimidate through implying how unwise it is to open carry) to keep talking to the guy once it was ascertained there was no crime happening or about to happen.

What you seem to be missing is other people are pointing out that regardless of what folks might think of the guy's reasons, attitude, demeanor, or even his voice, the plain fact is he committed NO crime and there was NO reason for the cops to lecture him about open carry.

And you keep missing that he wasn't charged with any crime and that he was the one that started the debate with the cop, so those complaints are moot. I've said that at least three times.

Folks might form an opinion about the guy's behavior, his voice, his lack of speaking skills, or his reasons for doing what he is doing but the fact remains... the cops did not need to engage in all the rhetoric concerning open carry and how other people who aren't familiar with guns might "feel" about it in an attempt to intimidate the guy into not open carrying because obviously if he does he will get heat from the cops.

Then I guess he shouldn't have started the debate then, huh? You're blaming the cops for a debate they didn't start, for the fourth? time.

Just like you are taking issue with how the guy handled the cops.... I'm taking issue with how the cops handled the guy.

You're blaming them for something they didn't do. Yes, I get that. I got it all along. That's why I've been telling you all along that they didn't start the debate that you've been complaining about all along. THE GUY WITH THE GUN STARTED THE DEBATE. He was looking for it. He hoped for it. He had his camera ready. It was his entire purpose for being there. It's what he does. He may even have been salivating in anticipation. And yet you still insist it was the cops who are to blame for the debate. Amazing!

Both could have done a better job but... and this is an important BUT... the cops are supposed to be professionals who know the law and only enforce the law... not try to enforce their opinion of either the guy or open carry. So, in this case, it is the cops who carry the burden of being professional.

They knew the law. They explained it in detail, though I think the interfering with park activities thing might have been a stretch. And for the umpteenth time, they didn't enforce anything, opinion or otherwise, because they didn't charge him or make him comply with anything.

 

[Rhino]

I twisted not one damned thing. I quoted what I responded to verbatim, and didn't even quote you or include you in the most despicable examples of anti-liberty posts present in this thread.

You are now defending at least one poster who said the guy should freakin' die for exercising his rights.

And yet another dramatic twist into something I never even remotely said. I won't bother with the rest of your post.

 

[Firefighterchen]

I commented on how you are saying some folks have a reading comprehension problem. I said before I understand your perspective. I get it that your problem with the guy is all about you don't like HOW he went about standing up for his rights while glossing over the fact that the cops had no reason (other than attempting to intimidate through implying how unwise it is to open carry) to keep talking to the guy once it was ascertained there was no crime happening or about to happen.

What you seem to be missing is other people are pointing out that regardless of what folks might think of the guy's reasons, attitude, demeanor, or even his voice, the plain fact is he committed NO crime and there was NO reason for the cops to lecture him about open carry.

And you keep missing that he wasn't charged with any crime and that he was the one that started the debate with the cop, so those complaints are moot. I've said that at least three times.

Folks might form an opinion about the guy's behavior, his voice, his lack of speaking skills, or his reasons for doing what he is doing but the fact remains... the cops did not need to engage in all the rhetoric concerning open carry and how other people who aren't familiar with guns might "feel" about it in an attempt to intimidate the guy into not open carrying because obviously if he does he will get heat from the cops.

Then I guess he shouldn't have started the debate then, huh? You're blaming the cops for a debate they didn't start, for the fourth? time.

Just like you are taking issue with how the guy handled the cops.... I'm taking issue with how the cops handled the guy.

You're blaming them for something they didn't do. Yes, I get that. I got it all along. That's why I've been telling you all along that they didn't start the debate that you've been complaining about all along. THE GUY WITH THE GUN STARTED THE DEBATE. He was looking for it. He hoped for it. He had his camera ready. It was his entire purpose for being there. It's what he does. He may even have been salivating in anticipation. And yet you still insist it was the cops who are to blame for the debate. Amazing!

Both could have done a better job but... and this is an important BUT... the cops are supposed to be professionals who know the law and only enforce the law... not try to enforce their opinion of either the guy or open carry. So, in this case, it is the cops who carry the burden of being professional.

They knew the law. They explained it in detail, though I think the interfering with park activities thing might have been a stretch. And for the umpteenth time, they didn't enforce anything, opinion or otherwise, because they didn't charge him or make him comply with anything.

So doing something completely legal is asking for a debate...saying "it's my legal right" is starting a debate...but the 10 minutes long lectures of our responsibilities being more important than our rights was not the police starting the debate? ...No it's those pesky rights that are starting debates...

I bet those officers all rushed to the scene code 3 at half mast when they heard they get to harass a lac. When they realized they could not intimidate him into complying they got disinterested and left.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

I think the most retarded line in the whole video was the third cop saying "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it"!
He then proceeds to explain "responsibility" to not scare the sheeple should be the main concern.

 

[~OtisM~]

I think the most retarded line in the whole video was the third cop saying "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it"!
He then proceeds to explain "responsibility" to not scare the sheeple should be the main concern.

That is actually the most sound logically reason that was said in the entire video. He is dead on.

 

[BluesStringer]

And yet another dramatic twist into something I never even remotely said. I won't bother with the rest of your post.

BULL. You said that no one had excoriated the guy for openly carrying! The same guy who said he should die also said he was a "constitutional pervert." Does the reference to the Constitution, and his supposed perversion of it, refer to his irritating affectations, or to his exercising his rights? Quit trying to umm....twist what you yourself said!

I wouldn't have questioned what you said if you had claimed that you hadn't excoriated him for exercising his rights instead of for his irritating mannerisms, but you said no one had, and further said you'd be pissed if they had. So where's your pissed off expressions towards those (yes, plural) who did? You can't even get over your disdain for a liberty activist long enough to condemn the wish for his death! That's not "dramatic" or "twisting" of any kind, it's the simple and obvious truth that anyone who cares about the truth can go back and read for themselves to verify.

Blues

 

[Rhino]

So doing something completely legal is asking for a debate...saying "it's my legal right" is starting a debate...but the 10 minutes long lectures of our responsibilities being more important than our rights was not the police starting the debate? ...No it's those pesky rights that are starting debates...

He said more than that, and he did want to debate the rights issue. He made that clear. That's why he was there. I already said the cop talked more than he did, but the guy with the gun wasn't exactly eloquent or effective. And he didn't really seem all that prepared, which is somewhat strange considering he was the one looking to provoke the debate and since he had done it numerous times before. You'd think he'd have the argument a little more polished by now. On the bright side though, maybe he's learning from this one.

I bet those officers all rushed to the scene code 3 at half mast when they heard they get to harass a lac. When they realized they could not intimidate him into complying they got disinterested and left.

I think it more likely they just got bored. They got what they wanted anyway. Both sides did really. The guy with the gun got the debate he wanted, his phantom girl he was supposedly meeting apparently ceased to exist and he left. Since he was leaving, the cops didn't have to worry about any more calls. And we got a video to discuss. Fun times to be had by all!

 

[gunnerbob]

I have enjoyed this thread! Thanks guys!

 

[Rhino]

I think the most retarded line in the whole video was the third cop saying "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it"!
He then proceeds to explain "responsibility" to not scare the sheeple should be the main concern.

That is actually the most sound logically reason that was said in the entire video. He is dead on.

You're right. That first sentence really IS the most sound, logical reason that was said in the entire video.