Cheesecake Factory

[NavyLCDR]

Officers booted from Cheesecake Factory for carrying firearms | KIRO-TV

Only LEO welcome with their firearms. You know, because their lives are so much more valuable than everyone else.

 

[foxytwo]

I carry to that restaurant chain, but it is concealed.

 

[snowman45]

Officers booted from Cheesecake Factory for carrying firearms | KIRO-TV

Only LEO welcome with their firearms. You know, because their lives are so much more valuable than everyone else.

While I agree with Constitutional Carry for all; yeah, there is a reason why law enforcement carry firearms where others are not allowed. If you can't figure that out, you need to watch the news. LEO's are targets; whether on-duty or off, in uniform or out. Our lives are no ore valuable than your's, but we will be targeted because we are LEO. You won't. As foxytwo said below, carry concealed.

 

[corneileous]

I think I blew a funny fuse reading that article...lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kasper]

While I agree with Constitutional Carry for all; yeah, there is a reason why law enforcement carry firearms where others are not allowed. If you can't figure that out, you need to watch the news. LEO's are targets; whether on-duty or off, in uniform or out. Our lives are no ore valuable than your's, but we will be targeted because we are LEO. You won't. As foxytwo said below, carry concealed.

That is a choice they made by taking the job so I do not agree with special rules for police officers, One set of rules for everyone. Why is it as a citizen I can not carry my firearm with me into a bar, but an off duty police office can? What magical abilities does being a LEO give them that alcohol doesn't affect them? And why does everyone think that LEO's get more training then citizens on how to use a gun? If they did have more training they would hit their target instead of hitting innocent bystanders but since they know they can not be charged with a crime they do not seem to care about it.

What makes your fear of being targeted any different then my fear of being targeted?

 

[NavyLCDR]

While I agree with Constitutional Carry for all; yeah, there is a reason why law enforcement carry firearms where others are not allowed. If you can't figure that out, you need to watch the news. LEO's are targets; whether on-duty or off, in uniform or out. Our lives are no ore valuable than your's, but we will be targeted because we are LEO. You won't. As foxytwo said below, carry concealed.

Your answer is 100% bulls**t and I will explain to you why it is. Who targets you as LEO to attack you because you are LEO? What, maybe 1/2 of 1% of all criminals? And why is that? Because when a LEO is attacked by a criminal what happens? Every law enforcement agency for miles around starts looking for the specific criminal and when (not if, but when) they hunt the criminal down they will be itching for any excuse they can find to just kill them on the spot.

You as a LEO only have that fraction of the criminals out there willing to pay the price to target you. But I have the other 99.5% of criminals who won't think twice about attacking because I don't have the special protection that you have. So tell me why it is you should be afforded special privileges to carry a firearm because you are such a big target when you only have a select few criminals willing to target you? Thousands of ordinary citizens every day are victims of violent crime in this country. How many police officers every day are victims of violent of crime because they were targeted specifically because they are LEO? Statistically, I am many times more likely to be attacked by a criminal that any LEO is only because they are a LEO.

 

[sdprof]

^^^ what he said!


When it comes to carrying, there should not be any distinction between LEO and John Q Public.

When it comes to what firearms a person may posses, there should not be any distinction between LEO and John Q Public.

 

[RonM0710]

Officers booted from Cheesecake Factory for carrying firearms | KIRO-TV

Only LEO welcome with their firearms. You know, because their lives are so much more valuable than everyone else.

Why is it that civilian gun carriers that claim they have no duty to protect the public think they should be allowed to carry anywhere a police officer can? I realize that tacticly it is safer to retreat at an active shooter event, but police officers are trained to run toward the gunfire. If you were in the Cheese Factory and a shooting started what are you going to do? ...Yea, that is what I thought.

 

[Kasper]

Why is it that civilian gun carriers that claim they have no duty to protect the public think they should be allowed to carry anywhere a police officer can? I realize that tacticly it is safer to retreat at an active shooter event, but police officers are trained to run toward the gunfire. If you were in the Cheese Factory and a shooting started what are you going to do? ...Yea, that is what I thought.

Ron as I pointed out in my post us citizens will be charged with a crime if we hit or injury any bystanders. The Police officers have the government blessing to shot without worry of being charged with a crime if the hit, injure or even kill a bystander. Us citizens do not get that privilege.And where do you get of thinking the police have a duty to protect you? It has been proven time and time again that they have no duty to protect you or anyone else.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Why is it that civilian gun carriers that claim they have no duty to protect the public think they should be allowed to carry anywhere a police officer can? I realize that tacticly it is safer to retreat at an active shooter event, but police officers are trained to run toward the gunfire. If you were in the Cheese Factory and a shooting started what are you going to do? ...Yea, that is what I thought.

I will tell you exactly what I am going to do. I am going to do what it takes to protect my wife and my daughter that are more than likely going to be with me. That means taking cover and retreating to the nearest exit and if it is necessary to provide protective fire for us to retreat than that is what I am going to do - but I can't do that if I left my gun somewhere else other than in my holster on my belt, now can I? It's not about USING the gun in every situation....it's about have thing gun in case the situation NECESSITATES using it.

And in case you haven't heard, the US Supreme Court has ruled that police officers have NO duty to protect me or my family, therefore LEO only permitted to carry is about one thing and one thing only - putting LEO's lives above everyone else and keeping them upon their special citizen status pedestals.

 

[RonM0710]

And in case you haven't heard, the US Supreme Court has ruled that police officers have NO duty to protect me or my family, therefore LEO only permitted to carry is about one thing and one thing only - putting LEO's lives above everyone else and keeping them upon their special citizen status pedestals.

The "Duty to Protect" and the "Duty to Act" are two very different things. Police Officers are required to act. That does not mean retreat out the door with your tail between your legs. It means attempt to stop the threat, or limit casualities to the public. Get over yourself.

 

[BluesStringer]

The "Duty to Protect" and the "Duty to Act" are two very different things. Police Officers are required to act. That does not mean retreat out the door with your tail between your legs. It means attempt to stop the threat, or limit casualities to the public. Get over yourself.

Unless you can provide a bit of reliably-sourced legal analysis concerning these two concepts, I'm gonna go with my years of court-watching and say that Navy is right and you are legally mistaken. Perhaps there's some "duty to act" talked about amongst and between officers at any given time, but there's no legal duty to act that specifically contemplates an LEO's duty to protect individuals from any kind of harm, including harm from the LEOs themselves.

I think it is you who should get over himself, unless you provide the documentation I asked for, at which time I will humbly retract what I said here and admit to my mistake.

Blues

 

[NavyLCDR]

Why is it that civilian gun carriers that claim they have no duty to protect the public think they should be allowed to carry anywhere a police officer can? I realize that tacticly it is safer to retreat at an active shooter event, but police officers are trained to run toward the gunfire. If you were in the Cheese Factory and a shooting started what are you going to do? ...Yea, that is what I thought.

The "Duty to Protect" and the "Duty to Act" are two very different things. Police Officers are required to act. That does not mean retreat out the door with your tail between your legs. It means attempt to stop the threat, or limit casualities to the public. Get over yourself.

Maybe I should answer your question, "Why is it that civilian gun carriers that claim they have no duty to protect the public think they should be allowed to carry anywhere a police officer can?" like this:

Cascade Mall shooting at a glance: the victims, the community, the suspect | The Seattle Times

On Friday night, five people were shot dead in a Burlington mall.
The victims are believed to be:

Sarai Lara, 16, a Mount Vernon High School sophomore who had survived cancer as a young girl
Belinda Galde, 64, a probation officer based in Arlington for Snohomish County District Court
Beatrice Dotson, 95, who was Galde’s mother
Chuck Eagan, a longtime Boeing maintenance worker from Lake Stevens who was helping his wife when he was shot, according to a relative
Shayla Martin, 52, of Mount Vernon, who worked at Macy’s as a makeup artist

That mall is 16 miles, 21 minutes from my house and a "gun free except for LEO" zone by company policy. So tell me, Mr. "police officers are special because they have 'a duty to act'" where the police were when this happened? And that, RonM0710 is EXACTLY why the special treatment of allowing police officers to carry guns where citizens cannot - absent very tight security screening - needs to end.

And tell me this, RonM0710...where was this police officer's "duty to act" at that very shooting where five victims died:
Link Removed
"Sheriff reveals he was in Macy's during Cascade Mall shooting"

Victims of the Marysville Pilchuck High School shootings | HeraldNet.com

The Marysville Pilchuck High School shooting occurred in Marysville, Washington, on October 24, 2014, when 15-year-old freshman student Jaylen Fryberg shot five other students at Marysville Pilchuck High School, fatally wounding four, before fatally shooting himself.
Victims of the Oct. 24, 2014, shootings at Marysville Pilchuck High School:
The sole survivor was Nate Hatch, then 14, who was shot in the jaw.
Shaylee “Shay” Chuckulnaskit, 14.
Andrew Fryberg, 15.
Zoe Galasso, 14.
Gia Soriano, 14.

Tell me, RonM0710, where were the police and their "duty to act" in this LEO carry only gun free zone?

The Luby's Cafeteria Massacre of 1991 Crime Magazine

23 killed and 20 wounded in a LEO carry only gun free zone. Where were the police and their "duty to act"? At least something positive came from this one: "In a great twist of Texas-style irony, the mass murder at Luby's Cafeteria in 1991, where 23 were shot to death and 20 wounded, led not to calls for gun-control but to the passage of legislation signed by Gov. George W. Bush that eased the way for citizens to obtain concealed-carry licenses."

I am looking forward to your reply, RonM0710. Why is it we should just "get over ourselves" and be OK with LEO carry only gun free zones because they are so "special" because they have this "duty to act"? When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Except at Cascade Mall - there was a Sheriff at the scene when the shooting started but he left his "duty to act" in the parking lot that day.

 

[bofh]

The "Duty to Protect" and the "Duty to Act" are two very different things. Police Officers are required to act. That does not mean retreat out the door with your tail between your legs. It means attempt to stop the threat, or limit casualities to the public. Get over yourself.

Pure BS.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2005/06/2...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

 

[snowman45]

Your answer is 100% bulls**t and I will explain to you why it is. Who targets you as LEO to attack you because you are LEO? What, maybe 1/2 of 1% of all criminals? And why is that? Because when a LEO is attacked by a criminal what happens? Every law enforcement agency for miles around starts looking for the specific criminal and when (not if, but when) they hunt the criminal down they will be itching for any excuse they can find to just kill them on the spot.

You as a LEO only have that fraction of the criminals out there willing to pay the price to target you. But I have the other 99.5% of criminals who won't think twice about attacking because I don't have the special protection that you have. So tell me why it is you should be afforded special privileges to carry a firearm because you are such a big target when you only have a select few criminals willing to target you? Thousands of ordinary citizens every day are victims of violent crime in this country. How many police officers every day are victims of violent of crime because they were targeted specifically because they are LEO? Statistically, I am many times more likely to be attacked by a criminal that any LEO is only because they are a LEO.

********? Keep up with the news much? As I said, I agree that we should ALL have Constitutional Carry, but your assertion that you are a bigger target than a LEO is ********. So, according to you, a cop is targeted, and every other cop for miles around will search for and ultimately kill the suspect. What good does that do the cop who's already been attacked? If you don't like LEO's just be honest and say so. Using this excuse ain't cutting it.

 

[snowman45]

Really? So in taking this career, one I did for 37 years, we have no right to defend ourselves because we "knew the risk". I agree, we should all have the right to carry, but your faulty logic when it comes to Leo's is pure crap. Secondly, most departments, if not laws in the states in which they exist, have policies against carrying a firearm when drinking. Further, LEOs do face the potential for civil liability or criminal charges if they hit innocent people while violating law or department policy. So, again, if you've got a problem with law enforcement, just be honest and say so. Then we can discuss things on that level.

 

[BluesStringer]

Really? So in taking this career, one I did for 37 years, we have no right to defend ourselves because we "knew the risk". I agree, we should all have the right to carry, but your faulty logic when it comes to Leo's is pure crap. Secondly, most departments, if not laws in the states in which they exist, have policies against carrying a firearm when drinking. Further, LEOs do face the potential for civil liability or criminal charges if they hit innocent people while violating law or department policy. So, again, if you've got a problem with law enforcement, just be honest and say so. Then we can discuss things on that level.

I've got a huge problem with law enforcement, and no amount of discussion will ever change it. The only thing that will change it would be circumstances throughout the country changing. Prosecutors have to change every bit as much as law enforcement. Courts have to see our rights as being as, if not more important to maintain than officer safety, which would mean that your rights as an LEO would be just as protected as our rights as non-sworn citizens. I'd never call a cop for help. I am self-reliant and self-responsible, as well as being aware that since you have no legal duty to protect my interests even if I did call, odds are that you simply won't. Your brothers and sisters certainly never have. Most "need" for a cop on-scene comes after the danger has already happened and it was either effectively dealt with or there's an injured or dead victim that needs a report taken to make government feel good about "doing something to protect the public." Pffft.

I understand that it's difficult not to take it personally when your chosen avocation is routinely criticized, insulted and even under attack from fringe quarters, but it's not personal and the fringe will never disappear no matter how many tyrannical policies your leaders, prosecutors, politicians and courts either put in place or allow to stand after being put in place, or if all those bogus laws were wiped clean off the books and We, The People had only our Constitution left fully intact to protect our rights and interests. The violent and hate-filled fringe will always be the violent and hate-filled fringe no matter what societal circumstances exist, so that "under attack" stuff doesn't apply to the overwhelming majority of the citizenry, which means passing more laws restricting our liberties is a totally invalid strategy under the Constitution. But if we "discuss" it, your come-back will always be "I'm going home to my family no matter what." It's that "no matter what" that is our concern, because all too often the "what" is more loss of freedom to the individual, their (supposedly) sovereign state, and the wider society in general. When you take on that job, you put your safety above The People's liberties. Since that ain't gonna change, and my demand that constitutional rights and adherence to the limitations of government that the Constitution was written to impose be the two top priorities of government, my position ain't gonna change either. There's no "discussion" to be had. Government either passes or fails. If you choose to be part of government, you fail right alongside the rest of 'em every time a citizen's rights are viewed as less important than the all-encompassing, anything-goes meme of "officer safety."

Blues

 

[corneileous]

Only LEO welcome with their firearms. You know, because their lives are so much more valuable than everyone else.

Really?? Lol. Where in that article did it say the only reason cops can carry and we can't is because their lives are more valuable than yours and mine?

Cops carry firearms. It's what they do. It's part of what they carry, along with handcuffs, radio, etc, ect. Bad guys ain't gonna hold still for a taser, billy club or even commanded to without being held at gun point. Besides, you don't have to worry about a cop coming in to rob you...lol. Well, unless it's already been tried where some dude dressed as a cop as easy way to pull off a robbery.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NavyLCDR]

Really? So in taking this career, one I did for 37 years, we have no right to defend ourselves because we "knew the risk". I agree, we should all have the right to carry, but your faulty logic when it comes to Leo's is pure crap. Secondly, most departments, if not laws in the states in which they exist, have policies against carrying a firearm when drinking. Further, LEOs do face the potential for civil liability or criminal charges if they hit innocent people while violating law or department policy. So, again, if you've got a problem with law enforcement, just be honest and say so. Then we can discuss things on that level.

Would you care to point out where I stated what is in bold? What I said was that you should have NO MORE RIGHT to defend yourself because you are a cop than any other person's right to defend themselves. I don't have a problem with law enforcement officers. I have a problem with the pedestal that is provided for them to stand on and law enforcement officers who feel like they have special rights to stand on it.

 

[Reba]

Not everyone can be self-reliant and self-responsible at all times. Some people, through no fault of their own, aren't physically capable of full independence.

Our societies include daily interactions with human beings of all sorts so there's always going to be conflicts, and some of those conflicts result in violence. We will always have evil present among us, so we will always need ways to deal with them in a civilized manner. In America, those ways are enumerated in the Constitution.

Until the hearts of all people are changed for good and not evil, there will be a need for outside forces (forces outside the individual) to keep the evil at bay.

American law enforcement organizations need to improve the selection, training and discipline of their members. For some, this might mean a clean sweep, for others not such drastic measures. This also means taxpayers need to be willing to pay for the changes if they want quality people in law enforcement.

A LEO's life isn't more valuable than any other person's life. Yes, the risk they accept is voluntary, and it should be respected by their communities. It used to be a sign of appreciation for LEO's sacrifices and dedication to duty to have them visibly in your place of business. It had nothing to do with the value of one life over another.

Years ago, when I worked in a small city movie theater, the manager there always gave out free passes to the local beat police officers. When the cop on the beat stopped by the theater on their daily rounds they were offered free orange drink and popcorn. The manager felt safer with the police around. Each night when we made our bank deposit, an officer would escort one of us on the two-block round-trip walk to the bank night deposit. We knew their names and faces, and they knew us. Cops were not enemies of the people.

I know, times have changed, and not all situations are the same. That's why I believe we can't lump all LEO's together into one group, good or bad.