The only real reason anyone carries concealed.

[Blueshell]

No, I did not.


Why should I? That's the opposite of what I've been saying. I've posted that the mode of carry is not what determines the character of the shot (posts #97 and 124).

In case I'm not clear enough, I'll rephrase my statement.

I believe there is no appreciable link between carry style and crime.

I stand corrected.

 

[Blueshell]

Blushell has admitted that he is OCD in this thread. "Clinically diagnosed" even. He said he "knows how to use it" in the context of arguing legal questions ad nauseum even in the face of incontrovertible evidence of him being dead wrong on the legal questions being bandied about in that thread. You will never get a concession from him about CC not being offensive under the law, or that drawing from concealment is somehow necessarily a retaliatory act. Apparently, if I read his post about OCD correctly, he's pre-wired to stubbornly and irrationally refuse admitting to being wrong.

You may want to Google what OCD is.

OCD doesn't mean I'm suborn, OCD means my underwear is perfectly folded and in a laser straight line in my drawer.

Why does my underwear intimidate you so?

 

[mikestone967]

You may want to Google what OCD is.

OCD doesn't mean I'm suborn, OCD means my underwear is perfectly folded and in a laser straight line in my drawer.

Why does my underwear intimidate you so?

Link Removed



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Blueshell]

Link Removed



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In case you didn't know, your sock account was deactivated.

 

[mikestone967]

Incase you didn't know, your sock account was deactovated.

What is the English translation for this post, please?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Blueshell]

The Geneva Convention covers international relations. Within each sovereign nation, different classifications are used. In America, this is the usual classification:

"civilian

NOUN

1A person not in the armed services or the police force.

1.1 informal A person who is not a member of a particular profession or group, as viewed by a member of that group."

civilian: definition of civilian in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter1_rule5

If we were to delve into it, some states have officially organised their militia into law enforcement in addition to the National Guard. In those states, it can be argued that the police are not civilians.

However, @nmpops has already admitted that police are civilians. Also, UCMJ does not apply to police, the police chain of command are all civil authorities, police are not necessarily armed or uniformed.

In any case, civilians cannot use lethal force offensively, even if police are civilians, even if police are not civilians, so the argument in toto is mute.

 

[Blueshell]

What is the English translation for this post, please?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No need to be mad.

 

[BluesStringer]

....so the argument in toto is mute.

One can only hope that will soon be a true statement.

 

[Blueshell]

One can only hope that will soon be a true statement.

Indeed. It's unclear why police we're brought up in the first place.

 

[Reba]

I stand corrected.

OK.

 

[Reba]

https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter1_rule5

If we were to delve into it, some states have officially organised their militia into law enforcement in addition to the National Guard. In those states, it can be argued that the police are not civilians.

However, @nmpops has already admitted that police are civilians. Also, UCMJ does not apply to police, the police chain of command are all civil authorities, police are not necessarily armed or uniformed.

In any case, civilians cannot use lethal force offensively, even if police are civilians, even if police are not civilians, so the argument in toto is mute.

According to the definition, police are not civilians. They have a chain of command separate from the military. It varies state by state. It also differs from municipal police to county sheriffs to state bureaus.

Ultimately, the top of the US military chain of command is also civilian (a Constitutional protection).

 

[Blueshell]

According to the definition, police are not civilians. They have a chain of command separate from the military. It varies state by state. It also differs from municipal police to county sheriffs to state bureaus.

Ultimately, the top of the US military chain of command is also civilian (a Constitutional protection).

And since civilians cannot use lethal force offencivly even if police are not civilians....what's your point?

 

[mikestone967]

No need to be mad.

Not mad at all.
With your poor grammar and syntax, I honestly did not understand your post.
Once more, if you please.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Reba]

And since civilians cannot use lethal force offencivly even if police are not civilians....what's your point?

Just sayin'.

 

[BluesStringer]

...so the argument in toto is mute.

One can only hope that will soon be a true statement.

Indeed. It's unclear why police we're brought up in the first place.

 

[Reba]

 

[nmpops]

You argued such right here:

You hear what you want to hear, read what you want to read. I did not say or argue that retaliation was legal. What I said was I have never seen or heard of anyone being charged with a crime of any kind just because he or she drew a gun from concealment.

Lack of prosecution makes nothing legal. There are many reasons a crime will go un-prosecuted, but they are still crimes. Your example of people lying when filling out the 4473 in Colorado after smoking Marijuana is a good one. 1. The 4473 never leaves the Dealer, ATF reviews them whenever they inspect. If a buyer check that "NO" he has not smoked when in fact he has, how would the ATF agent know that he had lied? 2. If he doesn't know, how does he refer this for prosecution? 3. ATF would have to run a Criminal History on each 4473. That's just not practical? This still does not make lying on the 4473 legal, but it shows there is a problem.

 

[nmpops]

You've already provided your years of experience as a cop to clear up whether or not cops are civilians. Now you're backpedaling by using Webster's or Oxford to contradict what your years of experience already taught you? You're arguing with yourself on this point.

"Referring" to non-cops as civilians doesn't make it "just the way it is," and thinking of cops as something akin to military doesn't make it "just the way it is" either. Is you is, or is you ain't a civilian as a cop? It's a constitutional question, which I do know makes it inexplicably difficult for cops to accept the realities of across a host of subjects, but here's a hint - you already answered correctly in one of the quotes above. You're not a "special" citizen or civilian just because you were a cop, you're just another retired citizen/civilian. That's just the way it is.

Blushell has admitted that he is OCD in this thread. "Clinically diagnosed" even. He said he "knows how to use it" in the context of arguing legal questions ad nauseum even in the face of incontrovertible evidence of him being dead wrong on the legal questions being bandied about in that thread. You will never get a concession from him about CC not being offensive under the law, or that drawing from concealment is somehow necessarily a retaliatory act. Apparently, if I read his post about OCD correctly, he's pre-wired to stubbornly and irrationally refuse admitting to being wrong.

Anyway, this is amusing as all get-out watching y'all argue over a wholly made-up premise that has no basis in fact or law. It's hard to know who to root for - the guy who open carries even though he argues absurdities as his rationale for doing so, or the retired cop who, like most cops, thinks "that's just the way it is" is a valid substitute for a constitutional argument based in legal realities.

I've been recuperating for the last three days from a ~2,500 mile round-trip motorcycle ride o D.C. for Rolling Thunder. I planned on posting some pics and my impressions of the event(s) somewhere around here, and might still do that, but watching dumb arguments like this one as a spectator was so mind-numbing I couldn't get my act together to put up a post about it. I think I'll sleep for another three days and see how things are going then before I decide.

Blues

Maybe I should have been more clear, it a long thread. This thread made me look up the actual dictionary definition of Civilian. When I was in the Army, we considered and were told that anyone who was not active duty military was a civilian. As a cop we referred to non-cops as civilians. We were often told by veterans that this was wrong but we did it anyway as a simple way to separate us even though we also thought the distinction was wrong. Not until I looked it up the other day did I see we were right. I was not arguing with myself.

Second, most cops do not think of themselves as military, they think of themselves as Public Servants. I also don't think it's a Constitutional issue as I don't recall the word Civilian being used in it. Also Police Departments as such did not exist when it was written.

 

[jmohme]

I've been a way from this thread for about a week and Wow! I can't believe this thing is up to 16 pages!
I would have thought that after all of the replies from people that, unlike BlueShell, actually know what they are talking about, this would be a dead thread.
At least it seems to be an entertaining one.

No need to be mad.

Not mad at all.
With your poor grammar and syntax, I honestly did not understand your post.
Once more, if you please.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I doubt that spelling errors are making anyone mad, but response, filled with misspellings, do tend to make some not take a poster as seriously as a well composed, error free response would.
BlueShell would do himself a service by cleaning up his responses.

Blaming the device or a spell check program does fly either.
I usually try not to rely on spellcheck, but instead make every effort to spell correctly in the first place. Either way, a few seconds of proof reading goes a long way.
Yes, I do miss things sometimes, but I don't usually let a document get out with multiple mistakes.

Do yourself a favor BlueShell, and clean up your typing. People might just take your posts more seriously.

 

[Blueshell]

I've been a way from this thread for about a week and Wow! I can't believe this thing is up to 16 pages!
I would have thought that after all of the replies from people that, unlike BlueShell, actually know what they are talking about, this would be a dead thread.
At least it seems to be an entertaining one.





I doubt that spelling errors are making anyone mad, but response, filled with misspellings, do tend to make some not take a poster as seriously as a well composed, error free response would.
BlueShell would do himself a service by cleaning up his responses.

Blaming the device or a spell check program does fly either.
I usually try not to rely on spellcheck, but instead make every effort to spell correctly in the first place. Either way, a few seconds of proof reading goes a long way.
Yes, I do miss things sometimes, but I don't usually let a document get out with multiple mistakes.

Do yourself a favor BlueShell, and clean up your typing. People might just take your posts more seriously.

See I knew you weren't 'don with [my] nonsense '