Question on being disarmed...

[Orion0317]

Curmudgeon, 'fraid I have to spread the love around.

You gave me a good chuckle though!

[jahwarrior72]

First you said this...



...And now you say this:




It is apparent, good sir, that it is you who should be concerned about senility/dementia.

But relax. At least you get to hide your own Easter eggs.

LMAO, maximum ownage achieved. you win 138 internets. all his post are belong to you.

[jahwarrior72]

Why are you here again?

he's here, because Frodo destroyed the Ring, and there's no place else for trolls to hide, but on the interwebz.

[Orion0317]

he's here, because Frodo destroyed the Ring, and there's no place else for trolls to hide, but on the interwebz.

[JCWohlschlag]

Also sorry I wasn't stopped for OC'ing I should have said I was stopped because they had gotten a MWAG call.

Just so you know gumbys1up (when and if you come back), the stopped for open carry versus stopped for man-with-a-gun report is largely semantic. The issue of man-with-a-gun reports is specifically addressed in the 2009 Municipal Police Officers’ Education & Training Commission (MPOETC) Mandatory In-Service Training.

Officers should be aware that citizens may become alarmed or concerned when they witness persons engaged in open carry. This may be due in part to individual sensibilities regarding firearms and the fact that persons engaged in open carry are infrequently encountered in Pennsylvania. However, a citizen’s alarm or concern does not alone negatively impact the rights of a person engaging in the lawful open carrying of a firearm. Officers receiving citizen reports of a “man with a gun” would be prudent to respond to determine the nature of the report. However, the rights of any person engaged in the lawful open carrying of a firearm must be carefully considered when interacting with such person. Persons engaged in the lawful open carrying of a firearm are not subject to seizure of their person or property based solely on the fact that they are engaging in open carry, nor may they be required to produce identification or other documents. A person who is engaging in open carry in Philadelphia or in an area of declared emergency may be required to produce a valid and lawfully issued license to carry a firearm or establish an exemption. Of course, a person engaged in the open carrying of a firearm may engage in violations of other laws or handle the firearm in an inappropriate manner which could constitute offenses such as: disorderly conduct, reckless endangerment, simple assault by physical menace, etc. However, merely engaging in the open carrying of a firearm would not necessarily constitute such an offense.

As for the larger picture of your position, you might want to actually do what you ask others to do and take some time to consider the viewpoint of the opposition. While choosing to submit to an officer’s unfounded demands/requests may or may not affect you immediately, it very well may effect others. The world does not revolve solely around you. It is equally possible that the officer you encountered now thinks, “Hey that’s Jonesy over there. He ain’t doing nothing wrong; we know he OCs; he wasn’t a dick about it like some so we’ll leave him alone,” (as you stated) as it is that your willingness to submit to his requests/demands prompts him to now or continue to think, “This guy handed over whatever I asked him to, so everyone else will, too.” Is the next open carrier this police officer encounters going to make veiled threats against the open carrier like this Whitehall officer did?

Expanding upon the notion that the world does not revolve around you is the concept that the officer is simply breaking protocol in how you were stopped. Why should Whitehall taxpayers have to pay for this police officer’s time in harassing people who are following the law when his training specifically tells him not to? Why should Whitehall taxpayers have to pay for the litigation and settlement costs when the police are sued because of their breaches of procedure and resulting civil rights violations? Why should Whitehall taxpayers have to pay for the litigation costs when this officer arrests someone who was committing a crime, but the criminal gets acquitted simply because this officer was too inept to follow proper Fourth Amendment seizure protocols? Why should all of Pennsylvania’s taxpayers have to pay the court costs when such cases are raised to appellate court levels in order to try and get around this officer’s breach of procedure? Why should Pennsylvania taxpayers and PAFOA members just accept that their input of time, effort, and money in order to improve the MPOETC training on issues of open carry has had the effective result of squat in this particular officer’s instance?

You may feel that any particular circumstance does not substantiate the effort you will have to put forth in order to defend your civil rights, but those of us who recognize that the world does not revolve around us alone also recognize that we are standing up for everyone’s civil rights, not just our own, when we put forth such effort. The government largely only gets away with what we, as a group, let it get away with. The power of “we the people” is yours to choose how and when to weild, but recognize that to say that the effort wouldn’t matter in your case is basically the same as saying the effort wouldn’t matter for everyone as a whole.

You can choose to handle any situation in any way you please. I will not attack you for your choices. However, I will also recognize pretty much every “reason” you have given so far as to why you will not fight as the simple excuses for which they are.

For the time being, have a nice day. I hope you are never seriously (as in more serious than the encounter you detailed) persecuted without cause in the future, but I will continue to be interested in how and if your viewpoint changes if such persecution does happen.

[Wiley-X]

It is apparent, good sir, that it is you who should be concerned about senility/dementia.

You must be a Democrat to be so practiced at taking things out of context. One situation would be a criminal case in which the lawyer wants all his money up front. The other would be a civil case in which the lawyer would be paid a share of the proceeds.

But relax. At least you get to hide your own Easter eggs.

Why would I want to hide my eggs, I wouldn't be able to find them and they'd go bad. You make less and less sense as time goes by.