Starbucks' CEO makes a "respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms."

[NavyLCDR]

As I posted on another thread, I fully support the right to OC even though I personally choose to CC. Still, photos like this one probably had more than a little to do with his decision. These guys don't exactly help our cause. This photo was posted on bearingarms.com.

HAHA! ROFLMAO! I love it! Here's the background on that photo:

"That pic is of me [not me, NavyLCDR, but the guy in the photo], on an Army base in Kuwait. It was the closest Starbucks to the base the Navy had us on back in 2005. In order to leave base, you needed four things:
1) Signed permission from your Commanding Officer
2) A Cell Phone
3) At least one buddy
and lastly
4) Weapons

We could not leave base without weapons of our own, or an armed escort!

So we drove from Camp Patriot to the inland Army base for things like Starbucks and pizza! It was a little taste of home!

It became a mantra.."Grab your guns, were going to Starbucks!"

We took those pictures at the Starbucks on base where we all were carrying, to send home to friends and show them how "bad" we had it! My comment at the time was "And you think the line at your starbucks is bad!"

Some of the comments regarding your story bothered me, until I sat back and realized that people will believe what they want, regardless of the facts.....especially if they don't have them!"

 

[NavyLCDR]

My first amendment rights don't walk into a coffe shop with a shotgun in their hands

It would if that Starbucks was in the middle of the dessert in Kuwait like the photo you are referring to was. The photo you are referring to was a lighthearted attempt at bringing some humor to the situations that deployed US Soldiers and Sailors face everyday while serving half way around the world from their families.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Sir; I believe on the 2nd page was a specific comment about being hasseled by ignorant law enforcement for open and possibly concealed carry. It relates to Starbucks as the above comment of ignorant LE was made in this thread in how individuals choose to display firearms. There are specific reasons on how to approach an unknown individual with a firearm and I attempted to point it out. And that many LE are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment. To paint LE with that broad of a statement only helps the gun banners.

You are probably referring to this post?

I completely support the right to open carry, but I personally prefer to carry 'concealed' because I don't want to experience the hassle's of dealing with ignorant LEO's on a daily basis.

I personally have had the joyous experience of being hassled by an ignorant LEO for doing nothing more than eating dinner in a restaurant at dinner time with a handgun in a holster on my belt. My personal opinion is that "on a daily basis" is a bit of an exaggeration, but the fact is that there is, what I feel to be a very small minority, of police officers who do hassle law abiding citizens either out of ignorance or on a power trip. Is it fair to judge all LEOs the same? NO! Just as much as it is not fair to judge all open carriers by the actions of a few.

Want a fine example of the ignorant LEO that The_Outlaw is talking about? Read this:
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/wash...28-traveling-into-wa-question-open-carry.html
The cop, if he really is what he claims to be, in that thread is saying that if you don't want a LEO to screw his gun into your ear than you better keep you gun unloaded and in the trunk and tell them about your unloaded gun locked in the trunk if you are stopped.

Unfortunately people do tend to judge entire groups by the actions of the "way out there" minority portions of those groups, regardless of which side they are on. And, heck, the opposite is true as well. Sometimes we are way to quick to defend the actions of those "way out there" just because they do happen to be a "member" of our side or group.

 

[whodat2710]

Unfortunately people do tend to judge entire groups by the actions of the "way out there" minority portions of those groups, regardless of which side they are on. And, heck, the opposite is true as well. Sometimes we are way to quick to defend the actions of those "way out there" just because they do happen to be a "member" of our side or group.

As a matter of fact, in EVERY group of people there are some "way out there" people. Unfortunately it is the nail that sticks up that gets noticed, and eventually pounded down. Also unfortunately, our country has drifted away from personal rights and accountability and tends to judge and attempt to legislate the many based on the actions of the few.

 

[AndeyHall]

You are probably referring to this post?



I personally have had the joyous experience of being hassled by an ignorant LEO for doing nothing more than eating dinner in a restaurant at dinner time with a handgun in a holster on my belt. My personal opinion is that "on a daily basis" is a bit of an exaggeration, but the fact is that there is, what I feel to be a very small minority, of police officers who do hassle law abiding citizens either out of ignorance or on a power trip. Is it fair to judge all LEOs the same? NO! Just as much as it is not fair to judge all open carriers by the actions of a few.

Want a fine example of the ignorant LEO that The_Outlaw is talking about? Read this:
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/wash...28-traveling-into-wa-question-open-carry.html
The cop, if he really is what he claims to be, in that thread is saying that if you don't want a LEO to screw his gun into your ear than you better keep you gun unloaded and in the trunk and tell them about your unloaded gun locked in the trunk if you are stopped.

Unfortunately people do tend to judge entire groups by the actions of the "way out there" minority portions of those groups, regardless of which side they are on. And, heck, the opposite is true as well. Sometimes we are way to quick to defend the actions of those "way out there" just because they do happen to be a "member" of our side or group.

I definitely agree. And I brought up some of these minority situations to one if my professors who is a Lieutenant at a local Sheriff's department and he brought up something that no one ever thinks about. Any time you find YouTube videos of all these negative LEO experiences, you generally find someone who was LOOKING for that encounter to happen. He said he fully supports the most liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment, but what he does not have any respect for is people who go out looking for these situations just for the sole purpose of giving all LEOs a bad name.

What you have to realize is that the reason you see "so many" of these cases is because their the only ones anyone takes the time to post. Google image search a disease...you won't find any of the mild, 99%-of-the-time cases. What you'll find are the 1% rare cases where is the worst possible scenario. Is the same case. People, especially the news, love to sensationalize bad situations.

 

[bootsdeal]

If a person carries concealed, what difference does it make. Open carry is simply too controversial to too many people and organizations. I will always say that open carry is just asking for problems - problems from the anti-gun person, potential problems from some crazy guy just looking for trouble, problems even personally feeling like you're indestructible, problems from business owners, problems from LEO's, and on and on. Just carry concealed and be happy, not to mention having the element of surprise.

 

[BluesStringer]

I definitely agree. And I brought up some of these minority situations to one if my professors who is a Lieutenant at a local Sheriff's department and he brought up something that no one ever thinks about. Any time you find YouTube videos of all these negative LEO experiences, you generally find someone who was LOOKING for that encounter to happen. He said he fully supports the most liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment, but what he does not have any respect for is people who go out looking for these situations just for the sole purpose of giving all LEOs a bad name.

What you have to realize is that the reason you see "so many" of these cases is because their the only ones anyone takes the time to post. Google image search a disease...you won't find any of the mild, 99%-of-the-time cases. What you'll find are the 1% rare cases where is the worst possible scenario. Is the same case. People, especially the news, love to sensationalize bad situations.

Your professor is full of

.

Which agency keeps stats on how many "good cop" vs. how many "bad cop" encounters happen in this country? None that I am aware of. The only possible data that they could even base such percentages on would be complaints filed by citizens compared against the resolution of those complaints. Most citizens don't record their encounters, and if they have a negative contact, most don't go to the trouble of filing a complaint. And there are some pretty horrendous videos available that show what can happen when they do go to the trouble of filing one too.

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that the percentages might even be "better" for cops than what you say your professor "cited," but that's hardly the point is it? If a cop is caught on video treating citizens with respect while being careful not to step on their rights, here's the headline:

EXTRA: OFFICER FRIENDLY DID HIS JOB!
​

No cop supporter should be trying to minimize either the percentages or the significance of the hundreds of examples available on video that unequivocally show cop abuse, whether it be physical abuse or abuse of their authorities. If you support cops, you should join everyone whom you perceive doesn't in fighting to have bad cops held accountable for their abuses, no matter how small their percentages might be.

Unless your professor had that as part of his lesson after "citing" phony "statistics," then I'll stick with him being full of

.

Blues

ETA: And another thing - Nobody goes "looking" for a cop to abuse them, they go out prepared to record the abuse if/when it happens. They go out prepared to cite the laws that the cops are responsible for abiding by and helping the citizen as long as s/he is in compliance with.

The denial and/or minimization of abuse under color of authority is sickening in this so-called "free" country. I will never understand why the people who take the most legitimate advantage of the 2nd Amendment, gun owners, CC'ers and OC'ers, seem so reticent to criticize cops who are WAY out of line when they question their rights under that amendment, or illegally use citizens' exercise of it to justify abusing their authority. If there were only one example of a cop doing that per year, it should be criticized just as roundly as if it happened every single day of the year. And guess what? Unfortunately, it does.

 

[AndeyHall]

Your professor is full of

.

Which agency keeps stats on how many "good cop" vs. how many "bad cop" encounters happen in this country? None that I am aware of. The only possible data that they could even base such percentages on would be complaints filed by citizens compared against the resolution of those complaints. Most citizens don't record their encounters, and if they have a negative contact, most don't go to the trouble of filing a complaint. And there are some pretty horrendous videos available that show what can happen when they do go to the trouble of filing one too.

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that the percentages might even be "better" for cops than what you say your professor "cited," but that's hardly the point is it? If a cop is caught on video treating citizens with respect while being careful not to step on their rights, here's the headline:

EXTRA: OFFICER FRIENDLY DID HIS JOB!
​

No cop supporter should be trying to minimize either the percentages or the significance of the hundreds of examples available on video that unequivocally show cop abuse, whether it be physical abuse or abuse of their authorities. If you support cops, you should join everyone whom you perceive doesn't in fighting to have bad cops held accountable for their abuses, no matter how small their percentages might be.

Unless your professor had that as part of his lesson after "citing" phony "statistics," then I'll stick with him being full of

.

Blues

ETA: And another thing - Nobody goes "looking" for a cop to abuse them, they go out prepared to record the abuse if/when it happens. They go out prepared to cite the laws that the cops are responsible for abiding by and helping the citizen as long as s/he is in compliance with.

The denial and/or minimization of abuse under color of authority is sickening in this so-called "free" country. I will never understand why the people who take the most legitimate advantage of the 2nd Amendment, gun owners, CC'ers and OC'ers, seem so reticent to criticize cops who are WAY out of line when they question their rights under that amendment, or illegally use citizens' exercise of it to justify abusing their authority. If there were only one example of a cop doing that per year, it should be criticized just as roundly as if it happened every single day of the year. And guess what? Unfortunately, it does.

Blues I use to hold a lot of respect for the comments you make, but here lately I have seen several examples that prove that you have bad opinions just like everyone else. Based on this comment, you also showed that you can jump to conclusions based on nothing. Nowhere did I say that the percentage I posted was either backed up by data, nor did I say that he said it. In fact, I put it in a separate paragraph that was based on MY thoughts. On top of that, the percentage I posted was not even referencing LEOs, I was giving an exaggerated statistic based on a google image search saying that if you searched a disease, almost all the pictures you find will be based off of the 1% rare extreme cases of that disease, and hardly any of them will show you what the 99% of the time normal cases look like. So the next time you look to jump to conclusions like that, read it over once more.

And secondly, you know nothing about this guy to say what he is full of or not, and you sure didn't have enough info out of what I posted to make that type of comment. I call him a "professor" because he teaches the class. He really isn't. He's a Lieutenant who's been on the force for over 30 years, and he's probably the most down to earth nicest cops you'll ever meet. His current job at the Sheriff's department is hiring. He often talks to us about what he looks for in officers with people skills vs hot heads, and I would say he knows what he's talking about, because since he became the HR Lt. at this agency, they have become one of the top CALEA agencies in the country.

But the point he was making to me and that I was making to you about the open carry issue was that yes, people may have every right to carry the guns they do openly in public. But there are tons of people out there who only do it to get a rise out of people. As the old saying goes, intentions pave the road to hell, and I firmly believe that laws do not make criminals, but rather their intentions. So it is their intentions that he is calling into question. Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you should do it for spite to the other side. That's not how you get your message across. Cops have every right to get an attitude with you and get in your face when they wanna ask you questions. But how effective is that cop going to be compared to the one that tries to come across rationally and calmly? If you wanna carry an AR15 on your back through downtown and you are simply doing it because you legitimately want it for your protection, then that's one thing. But doing it for the sole purpose of getting a rise out of people so that you can get in their face and argue your opinion, that's what I have an issue with.

And no one is denying that there aren't lots of bad apples out there. But what is going to motivate a cop to treat you with any respect when they have the impression that no one has any respect for them? You seem to be the type that goes into a situation with a determined mindset of what the other person is going to be like. And it's like this teacher of mine also tells us...you have to develop many types of tools to be able to deal with many different types of people. If the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, then everything is going to look like a nail.

 

[NavyLCDR]

What you have to realize is that the reason you see "so many" of these cases is because their the only ones anyone takes the time to post. Google image search a disease...you won't find any of the mild, 99%-of-the-time cases. What you'll find are the 1% rare cases where is the worst possible scenario. Is the same case. People, especially the news, love to sensationalize bad situations.

The bold part is absolutely not true on this forum. I swear we need a separate subforum for all the posts about, "I got stopped and showed the officer my CPL and told him about my gun and he left me off with a warning."

I will always say that open carry is just asking for problems - problems from the anti-gun person, potential problems from some crazy guy just looking for trouble, problems even personally feeling like you're indestructible, problems from business owners, problems from LEO's, and on and on. Just carry concealed and be happy, not to mention having the element of surprise.

Potential problems that those of us who open carry in routine day-to-day life almost never encounter. For me the element of surprise isn't worth much more than Obama's hope and change, just my personal opinion.

 

[sbubrick]

I respect Mr. Schultz decision, in his letter above. He is asking not not to make his company a political front! I respect that! I think all the publicty the open carry people want is more publicity! I think the open carry folks pushed there agenda a little to far. I have never open carryed nor do I desire to do so. I do carry concealed daily. His letter is not for or against, just a request to stay neutral, and to keep his company from becoming a political target. I might add that it has been well over 5 years since I have had anything from one of his stores. I will not boycott Starbucks for wanting to remain neutral, I just wont go because I don't like spending $5.00 for coffee that I don't like!

 

[AndeyHall]

The bold part is absolutely not true on this forum. I swear we need a separate subforum for all the posts about, "I got stopped and showed the officer my CPL and told him about my gun and he left me off with a warning."



Potential problems that those of us who open carry in routine day-to-day life almost never encounter. For me the element of surprise isn't worth much more than Obama's hope and change, just my personal opinion.

When you take what I said and apply it to the context of this forum I agree. But I was responding to people who say "go to YouTube and you'll find tons of examples of cops over reaching their authority." That's because nobody posts a video of a cop doing his job right.

Listen I've been there myself. I spent a night in jail, went to court the next morning in an orange jump suit, handcuffs on my wrists and shackles on my ankles all because a cop didn't know the law. I was 19 and had a pistol in the center console and he insisted it was 21. I encouraged him to reference the law before he went forward with his arrest. He told me he didn't have to do anything and that he had more than enough authority to arrest me. And so there I went. But I can tell you this...for that 1 bad seed, I've meet probably over 100 different officers since then that are great guys. I had the same attitude towards all cops for a long time after that. I viewed all cops as a bunch of no good pricks. It took me actually getting involved in law enforcement and actually getting to know a lot of these guys to realize that that kind of behavior really is more rare than you think. And when it's all said and done, even when they do go wrong in some way, they're just human like you and I. Lots of good people make bad mistakes. Take it for what it is and let it make you a better person, not a bitter person. That's my life lesson.

 

[Patch Delta]

I have read the request and I respectfully decline his request. Is anyone at Starbucks going to protect me if shots are fired and I can't defend myself? What happens if I were to become injured? Will Starbucks pay my medical bills? Support my family? After all you are requesting I give up my Second Amendment Rights. Are you serious?

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2

 

[BluesStringer]

This is gonna be long, so get comfy....

Blues I use to hold a lot of respect for the comments you make, but here lately I have seen several examples that prove that you have bad opinions just like everyone else.

"Just like everyone else?" Guess that makes me exactly....umm....normal then, huh? I'll have to work on that.

Based on this comment, you also showed that you can jump to conclusions based on nothing.

Well, nothing except what you wrote.

Nowhere did I say that the percentage I posted was either backed up by data, nor did I say that he said it. In fact, I put it in a separate paragraph that was based on MY thoughts.

Ahh, I see. I was somewhat distracted when I replied, so I see now that you're right. So instead of your "professor" (whom you reveal below is no professor at all) pulling stats out of his backside, you pulled them out of yours. Sorry, I addressed my comments to the wrong subject. Consider them correctly-directed now.

On top of that, the percentage I posted was not even referencing LEOs, I was giving an exaggerated statistic based on a google image search saying that if you searched a disease, almost all the pictures you find will be based off of the 1% rare extreme cases of that disease, and hardly any of them will show you what the 99% of the time normal cases look like. So the next time you look to jump to conclusions like that, read it over once more.

So those pulled-out-of-your-backside "exaggerated" statistics had nothing to do with LEOs? How am I misreading your second paragraph then? You said:

What you have to realize is that the reason you see "so many" of these cases is because their the only ones anyone takes the time to post. Google image search a disease...you won't find any of the mild, 99%-of-the-time cases. What you'll find are the 1% rare cases where is the worst possible scenario. Is the same case. People, especially the news, love to sensationalize bad situations.

Is the same case as what? Same case as the "exaggerated" stats as they apply to LE, right? If not, what other topic was implicit in that entire post? You were comparing your perception that media exaggerates disease photos (why anyone is Googling disease photos is a whole 'nother kettle of worms) vs. the supposed "exaggerated" numbers of abuses by cops, right? If I'm wrong, please do set me straight, because you've had two shots at it so far and you have obviously failed to make me understand.

And secondly, you know nothing about this guy to say what he is full of or not, and you sure didn't have enough info out of what I posted to make that type of comment. I call him a "professor" because he teaches the class. He really isn't.

Umm....

And I brought up some of these minority situations to one if my professors....

You didn't say you were "calling" him your professor, or that he wasn't really a professor, you stated unequivocally that he is "one of your professors." If I took anything for granted, it was that you could be trusted to say what you really mean. Oops.

He's a Lieutenant who's been on the force for over 30 years...

Did *I* get that "wrong" too? I don't think I mentioned his status as a LEO at all, just what you said about being your "professor."

....and he's probably the most down to earth nicest cops you'll ever meet.

This is what you said *he* brought up saying that "no one ever thinks about:"

Any time you find YouTube videos of all these negative LEO experiences, you generally find someone who was LOOKING for that encounter to happen.

And that's what I say is utter bullcrap, and I addressed it in my "ETA" at the bottom of my post. This "nicest cop you'll ever meet" is prepping you to view people who know their rights, videotape for their own protection and can and do cite the laws that the cop should be following without it having to be explained to them by a lowly citizen as deserving of their illegal imposition of authority over them. If you can't see that just in the way you phrased what your "professor" told you, then he (and likely others) have already served their function well.

His current job at the Sheriff's department is hiring. He often talks to us about what he looks for in officers with people skills vs hot heads, and I would say he knows what he's talking about, because since he became the HR Lt. at this agency, they have become one of the top CALEA agencies in the country.

If that's true, then likely his officers from his agency aren't in any of all these negative LEO experiences where citizens are generally LOOKING for the negativity to happen, because citizens who are prepared to videotape and tell cops that they're out of line because the law is on the citizens' side, would never be hassled by your non-professor professor or his subordinates because like the headline says, they're doing their jobs. If all that is true, good for him, but I remain skeptical that it's all true because of his jaded and cynical knee-jerk reaction to "all" these negative LEO encounters as described in your post by you.

....yes, people may have every right to carry the guns they do openly in public. But there are tons of people out there who only do it to get a rise out of people.

More bullcrap pulled directly out of either your or your non-professor professor's butt. The very fact that cops don't like when people exercise their rights the way they see fit, and ignore the wishes and/or illegal demands of authoritarians with a gun, badge and monkey-suit, is proof that a "rise" will be gotten no matter when, where, how or why an OC'er OC's. If it's in a jurisdiction where it is protected by law, then the only correct way to even talk to an OC'er is to announce that they are not being detained and that any discussion with the cop is completely voluntary. If they ask for ID and are turned down, tough beans, that is not a reason for them to escalate either their tone or the nature of the contact from voluntary to detained, or sometimes arrested, and sometimes beaten, tased, ASP'ed or batoned, and sometimes even freakin' killed. There are multiple videos of all of those things happening way more than they should, because if cops around the country could be trusted to do their jobs within the law, there would be exactly zero of those videos to show the abuses of any cops.

If your non-professor professor isn't giving you this information to balance against the jaded and cynical view of citizens you have already described him as holding, then he's not giving you proper instruction.

So it is their intentions that he is calling into question. Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you should do it for spite to the other side.

Whoops! There it is! *We* are the other side to either or both you and your non-professor professor. Exactly the attitude that would make me walk away rather than having a calm, give-and-take discussion voluntarily with a cop. And you're proving by posting this stuff that it is taught as a matter of course in cop-school! You're giving up trade secrets here, Andey. They're not going to be very happy with you!

That's not how you get your message across. Cops have every right to get an attitude with you and get in your face when they wanna ask you questions.

????

Exactly where in the 5th Amendment does it say that????

Just more

Andey, only much deeper than before.

But how effective is that cop going to be compared to the one that tries to come across rationally and calmly? If you wanna carry an AR15 on your back through downtown and you are simply doing it because you legitimately want it for your protection, then that's one thing. But doing it for the sole purpose of getting a rise out of people so that you can get in their face and argue your opinion, that's what I have an issue with.

Screw your "issues" dude. Once you get sworn in, you work for us, we are not subservient to you. If I want to hand out leaflets in front of a courthouse telling potential jurors about jury nullification, who the Hell are you to tell me where and to whom I can offer information? If I want to carry an AR or any other highly-visible weapon hoping that strangers will ask me why I'm doing it, who the Hell are you to have "issues" with how I go about educating the public? Unless your opinions of me or my methods of activism are backed up by law giving you the legal authority to contact me about it, then butt the Hell out. It's between me and my fellow citizens. If I want to talk to a cop when I'm doing absolutely nothing illegal, I'll start the conversation. Otherwise, leave me alone.

And no one is denying that there aren't lots of bad apples out there. But what is going to motivate a cop to treat you with any respect when they have the impression that no one has any respect for them?

In the real world (as in, anywhere but the cop-shop or cop-school apparently), respect is earned. If I'm conducting myself perfectly legally, then I should be presumed by cops to be worthy of their respect, and any contact that they initiate with me should be demonstrative of that attitude by them. Any contact that they initiate that fails to demonstrate their respect towards me, their employer, will earn them the same level of disrespect in return.

And any cop who doesn't understand and live by that fact of life is one of those bad apples in my book.

You seem to be the type that goes into a situation with a determined mindset of what the other person is going to be like.

I give what I get, that's all.

And it's like this teacher of mine also tells us...you have to develop many types of tools to be able to deal with many different types of people. If the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, then everything is going to look like a nail.

Well, if when you're at my door or my car window or we just cross paths while walking down the street, and I perceive you constantly checking the contents in your "toolbox" to figure out the best way to freakin' play me into doing/saying/acting/thinking/accepting what you demand of me when I have done absolutely nothing to warrant your contact with me, that's my first clue that you are not someone I want to interact with. The problem is, many cops' attitudes freakin' scream that's what's goin' on in their heads from the very first second of contact with them. The ones who don't project that attitude with me will find me "the most down to earth nicest" free citizen who will welcome the remainder of the contact with no challenging or negative attitude projecting from me at all.

You should show your non-professor professor these exchanges. It sounds like he could learn a thing or two, and hopefully, he'll sternly correct your absolutely disgusting and wrong assertion that, "Cops have every right to get an attitude with you and get in your face when they wanna ask you questions." Hopefully he hasn't allowed himself to be so thoroughly brainwashed into thinking that's what being a "good cop" is all about, and he will take whatever steps to cleanse your head of whatever he put in there that made you think there was anything accurate in that statement.

Blues

 

[mappow]

Haven't read the posts, just saying.......Starbucks in my town has NO sign or statement declaring or asking a "Gun Free ZONE". Maybe this is just a left coast thing.......

 

[whodat2710]

Haven't read the posts, just saying.......Starbucks in my town has NO sign or statement declaring or asking a "Gun Free ZONE". Maybe this is just a left coast thing.......

I have to revise my opinion on the CEO. I saw a video interview he did, and he is anti-gun. He is just also a smart businessman that has up until now chosen to abide by local law and not make an issue of it. He has been drawn into voicing his opinion, by those on the pro- and anti- gun side. At least he has not, as yet, availed himself of the legal opportunities offered in some states to make his stores "officially" gun free.
-
Their coffee still sucks, and the only time I have ever had it is when stuck in an airport on a delay when there were no other options.

 

[kennyredhill]

I have tio say, i don't think open carry is wise but I have a lot more respect for those who have the balls to strap up and actually do it than for the posers that say "Oh I support your rights, but I don't have the stones myself"

 

[AndeyHall]

This is gonna be long, so get comfy....



"Just like everyone else?" Guess that makes me exactly....umm....normal then, huh? I'll have to work on that.



Well, nothing except what you wrote.



Ahh, I see. I was somewhat distracted when I replied, so I see now that you're right. So instead of your "professor" (whom you reveal below is no professor at all) pulling stats out of his backside, you pulled them out of yours. Sorry, I addressed my comments to the wrong subject. Consider them correctly-directed now.



So those pulled-out-of-your-backside "exaggerated" statistics had nothing to do with LEOs? How am I misreading your second paragraph then? You said:



Is the same case as what? Same case as the "exaggerated" stats as they apply to LE, right? If not, what other topic was implicit in that entire post? You were comparing your perception that media exaggerates disease photos (why anyone is Googling disease photos is a whole 'nother kettle of worms) vs. the supposed "exaggerated" numbers of abuses by cops, right? If I'm wrong, please do set me straight, because you've had two shots at it so far and you have obviously failed to make me understand.



Umm....



You didn't say you were "calling" him your professor, or that he wasn't really a professor, you stated unequivocally that he is "one of your professors." If I took anything for granted, it was that you could be trusted to say what you really mean. Oops.



Did *I* get that "wrong" too? I don't think I mentioned his status as a LEO at all, just what you said about being your "professor."



This is what you said *he* brought up saying that "no one ever thinks about:"



And that's what I say is utter bullcrap, and I addressed it in my "ETA" at the bottom of my post. This "nicest cop you'll ever meet" is prepping you to view people who know their rights, videotape for their own protection and can and do cite the laws that the cop should be following without it having to be explained to them by a lowly citizen as deserving of their illegal imposition of authority over them. If you can't see that just in the way you phrased what your "professor" told you, then he (and likely others) have already served their function well.



If that's true, then likely his officers from his agency aren't in any of all these negative LEO experiences where citizens are generally LOOKING for the negativity to happen, because citizens who are prepared to videotape and tell cops that they're out of line because the law is on the citizens' side, would never be hassled by your non-professor professor or his subordinates because like the headline says, they're doing their jobs. If all that is true, good for him, but I remain skeptical that it's all true because of his jaded and cynical knee-jerk reaction to "all" these negative LEO encounters as described in your post by you.



More bullcrap pulled directly out of either your or your non-professor professor's butt. The very fact that cops don't like when people exercise their rights the way they see fit, and ignore the wishes and/or illegal demands of authoritarians with a gun, badge and monkey-suit, is proof that a "rise" will be gotten no matter when, where, how or why an OC'er OC's. If it's in a jurisdiction where it is protected by law, then the only correct way to even talk to an OC'er is to announce that they are not being detained and that any discussion with the cop is completely voluntary. If they ask for ID and are turned down, tough beans, that is not a reason for them to escalate either their tone or the nature of the contact from voluntary to detained, or sometimes arrested, and sometimes beaten, tased, ASP'ed or batoned, and sometimes even freakin' killed. There are multiple videos of all of those things happening way more than they should, because if cops around the country could be trusted to do their jobs within the law, there would be exactly zero of those videos to show the abuses of any cops.

If your non-professor professor isn't giving you this information to balance against the jaded and cynical view of citizens you have already described him as holding, then he's not giving you proper instruction.



Whoops! There it is! *We* are the other side to either or both you and your non-professor professor. Exactly the attitude that would make me walk away rather than having a calm, give-and-take discussion voluntarily with a cop. And you're proving by posting this stuff that it is taught as a matter of course in cop-school! You're giving up trade secrets here, Andey. They're not going to be very happy with you!

????

Exactly where in the 5th Amendment does it say that????

Just more

Andey, only much deeper than before.



Screw your "issues" dude. Once you get sworn in, you work for us, we are not subservient to you. If I want to hand out leaflets in front of a courthouse telling potential jurors about jury nullification, who the Hell are you to tell me where and to whom I can offer information? If I want to carry an AR or any other highly-visible weapon hoping that strangers will ask me why I'm doing it, who the Hell are you to have "issues" with how I go about educating the public? Unless your opinions of me or my methods of activism are backed up by law giving you the legal authority to contact me about it, then butt the Hell out. It's between me and my fellow citizens. If I want to talk to a cop when I'm doing absolutely nothing illegal, I'll start the conversation. Otherwise, leave me alone.



In the real world (as in, anywhere but the cop-shop or cop-school apparently), respect is earned. If I'm conducting myself perfectly legally, then I should be presumed by cops to be worthy of their respect, and any contact that they initiate with me should be demonstrative of that attitude by them. Any contact that they initiate that fails to demonstrate their respect towards me, their employer, will earn them the same level of disrespect in return.

And any cop who doesn't understand and live by that fact of life is one of those bad apples in my book.



I give what I get, that's all.



Well, if when you're at my door or my car window or we just cross paths while walking down the street, and I perceive you constantly checking the contents in your "toolbox" to figure out the best way to freakin' play me into doing/saying/acting/thinking/accepting what you demand of me when I have done absolutely nothing to warrant your contact with me, that's my first clue that you are not someone I want to interact with. The problem is, many cops' attitudes freakin' scream that's what's goin' on in their heads from the very first second of contact with them. The ones who don't project that attitude with me will find me "the most down to earth nicest" free citizen who will welcome the remainder of the contact with no challenging or negative attitude projecting from me at all.

You should show your non-professor professor these exchanges. It sounds like he could learn a thing or two, and hopefully, he'll sternly correct your absolutely disgusting and wrong assertion that, "Cops have every right to get an attitude with you and get in your face when they wanna ask you questions." Hopefully he hasn't allowed himself to be so thoroughly brainwashed into thinking that's what being a "good cop" is all about, and he will take whatever steps to cleanse your head of whatever he put in there that made you think there was anything accurate in that statement.

Blues

Blues, all I can say is we're going to have to agree to disagree. Although I doubt either sides of our argument are anymore right than the other, I will admit that in the eyes of other members that read our exchanges, you will have come out on top. You are simply better at articulating your words than I am, and although I try and pick my words carefully and not just shoot my mouth off before thinking about what I say, you have definitely surpassed me in that skill.

Forget any statistics that may or may not be true. Forget about a professor or may or may not be a professor and who may or may not have said this or that. This was all I was ever trying to say...We are no different in the anti-gunners eyes than they are in our eyes. So to an outsider looking in, if I'm trying to choose a side, what characteristics sway me to one side or the other? Is it aggressiveness and violence (I know open carry isn't violent, but we all know that's what it gets portrayed as)? Or is it by being able to relate to people and actually acting like you care? I know the anti-gunners are a bunch of wolves, but to the general public they sure know how to play the part of a sheep. And that generally the side that comes across as the most relatable. Everybody loves the underdog.

I can only base my views on the world from what I have experienced. You can only base your views on the world from what you have experienced. In my time on earth, I have experience far more good cops than bad. Your experiences have obviously been to some degree different than mine. I'm not really sure who originally coined the "respect is earned" phrase, but I'm generally not a follower of that school. I am respectful to all people until they give me a reason not to be. Or house does our legal system phrase it..."innocent until proven guilty?"

 

[Itstjs]

Ive never been to a starbucks, Ive got one down the road from me, but just choose not to go. I do respect his request, and I may choose to honor it, however, I feel, and I apologize if I offend anyone, but I feel that some of the "Extreme Open Carriers" draw a lot of unwanted attention to their stores. OCing AR's, Shotguns, Bazookas [kidding] and every other kind of weapon are unneeded at the stores, I feel if theyre going to hold their "meetings" they should rent a hall, or conduct it in their own yard, instead of drawing negative publicity to stores that honor OC and CC alike. I believe in fighting for rights, but not at the expense of everyone else. OC your heart out, I do it sometimes too, just dont ruin the image of another store or make the rest of us look like loons, like the image I have below. Link Removed

 

[AndeyHall]

Ive never been to a starbucks, Ive got one down the road from me, but just choose not to go. I do respect his request, and I may choose to honor it, however, I feel, and I apologize if I offend anyone, but I feel that some of the "Extreme Open Carriers" draw a lot of unwanted attention to their stores. OCing AR's, Shotguns, Bazookas [kidding] and every other kind of weapon are unneeded at the stores, I feel if theyre going to hold their "meetings" they should rent a hall, or conduct it in their own yard, instead of drawing negative publicity to stores that honor OC and CC alike. I believe in fighting for rights, but not at the expense of everyone else. OC your heart out, I do it sometimes too, just dont ruin the image of another store or make the rest of us look like loons, like the image I have below. Link Removed

I think OCing an AR-15 is ruining the image of legitimate OCers. It's a childish way to prove a point. People like that are fighting the other side's battle for them.

 

[whodat2710]

I think OCing an AR-15 is ruining the image of legitimate OCers. It's a childish way to prove a point. People like that are fighting the other side's battle for them.

OK, I think I figured out what bugs me about this whole thing. I'll bet this guy doesn't walk around all day every day with his AR. If he did he would probably drop $20 on a sling. OC or CC is a way of life, not an right occasionally practiced to prove a point. It should be no big deal, but these people are making it a big deal. Maybe it is a big deal for them. That in and of itself is the problem. When you go "overt" on occasion to draw attention to yourself, that is all people remember. If they see you going about your daily business armed and unconcerned (and not taking pictures of yourself like a tourist) they are more likely to be at ease with people walking around armed.
-
Is the goal to make people feel bad or scared because they are not carrying? Is the goal to rub peoples noses in our rights? IMHO the goal is to be allowed to exercise our God given human rights and be left alone in the process.