|
Post by northsider on Aug 17, 2013 19:15:14 GMT -6
The cop had every right to stop this man. The sergeant said that a citizen was alarmed i.e. threatened by this man so the cop was there to investigate. I'm sure most cops, when responding to a call such as this, are interested in disarming the individual immediately. This appears to be what the original cop was saying. He didn't know anything about this man except that a citizen called in about him.. If the veteran had simply dropped the attitude from the beginning and shown some respect to this officer, which by the way is something the Boy Scouts are taught, he probably would have been on his way in no time. Maybe next time he will exercise his right to remain silent with as much zeal as his right to bear arms and he might not end up in the back of a squad car.
|
|
|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Aug 18, 2013 11:37:58 GMT -6
The cop had every right to stop this man. The sergeant said that a citizen was alarmed i.e. threatened by this man so the cop was there to investigate. I'm sure most cops, when responding to a call such as this, are interested in disarming the individual immediately. This appears to be what the original cop was saying. He didn't know anything about this man except that a citizen called in about him.. If the veteran had simply dropped the attitude from the beginning and shown some respect to this officer, which by the way is something the Boy Scouts are taught, he probably would have been on his way in no time. Maybe next time he will exercise his right to remain silent with as much zeal as his right to bear arms and he might not end up in the back of a squad car. RURAL TEXAS. Jesus Northsider, you are gullible. The original Cop is covering his tail, AFTER he violated a citizens Constitutional rights. Like I said, if this had been downtown Chicago, the dynamics would be very different. The man will win in court.
|
|
|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Aug 18, 2013 11:39:50 GMT -6
We are supposed to comply with law enforcements orders. No, you are only legally obligated to comply with CONSTITUTIONAL orders. The mindset that a Cop can order you to do anything is a large reason so many of them believe they are God.
|
|
|
Post by northsider on Aug 18, 2013 11:56:27 GMT -6
I may be gullible but you seem to be either dense or blind. The original cop didn't mention the person who called in with the complaint, the sergeant did. This guy overreacted and blew the situation way out of proportion and got arrested for it. Had he simply been respectful to the police officer he probably would have been on his way in no time. He also would have taught his son a lesson in respecting people in a position of authority. Just curious though, by responding to a callers complaint about this guy, how exactly did the police officer violate any of this guys constitutional rights?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2013 12:28:18 GMT -6
This guy is a friggin' idiot and if any of you out there thinks his behavior is okay, let alone "constitutional" - try it. If you don't think you have to comply with a reasonable request from a LEO - try it. The guy had a weapon and he was acting and shouting in a disturbed manner...and there are some people out there who really think that the police don't have a right to secure that weapon before trying to ascertain what's going on with the guy?
Okay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2013 12:47:42 GMT -6
Relax snipe, I was just agreeing with you for once. No, actually you made a snide remark about the Veteran, not the cop. Th e Veteran had a perfect right to be doing what he was, the Cop had no reason, nor right to harass him. No one is arguing that...he didn't have the right to relate to the police officers the way he did...got it? One of the officers even said something to the effect that "Once we see there's no issue, you can be on your way." To the nutcase: "Way to spoil the day for you and your son...idiot."
|
|
|
Post by chevypower on Aug 18, 2013 16:10:22 GMT -6
However................. bottom line, the cop admitted that He was exempt from the law! What's that tell you? The cop could give a rats azz about the guy's rights and you know it.
|
|
|
Post by greekgod on Aug 18, 2013 16:19:30 GMT -6
However................. bottom line, the cop admitted that He was exempt from the law! What's that tell you? The cop could give a rats azz about the guy's rights and you know it. cp, Wow, you nailed it! g
|
|
|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Aug 18, 2013 16:38:18 GMT -6
However................. bottom line, the cop admitted that He was exempt from the law! What's that tell you? The cop could give a rats azz about the guy's rights and you know it. No, sadly bootlickers miss it.
|
|
|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Aug 18, 2013 16:41:12 GMT -6
No, actually you made a snide remark about the Veteran, not the cop. Th e Veteran had a perfect right to be doing what he was, the Cop had no reason, nor right to harass him. No one is arguing that...he didn't have the right to relate to the police officers the way he did...got it? Since we do not have the full video, we do not know how the initial encounter went, but the Veteran had every right to do what he did. Sadly, you seem to think people must be polite to those who violate their rights.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2013 16:54:20 GMT -6
No one is arguing that...he didn't have the right to relate to the police officers the way he did...got it? Since we do not have the full video, we do not know how the initial encounter went, but the Veteran had every right to do what he did. Sadly, you seem to think people must be polite to those who violate their rights. What rights were violated? You've got an adult male walking along a rural road with a teenager...complete with boonie hat and semi-auto strapped across his chest like he was on patrol. I think that particular visual is startling enough to merit some cautionary tactics by cops. His little hike could have included a .38 concealed inside a waistband holster with his shirt pulled over it instead of the rifle. His choice was to make a statement and when called on it, he went ballistic. I've looked at the accompanying videos and statements made by him and others. Like the anti-Zimmerman crowd did concerning Trayvon...the police officers side of the matter is glossed over or not mentioned at all. The man was carrying a provocative weapon in a provocative manner during his little hike. The cops did well to question him. The idiot's mouth got him the free ride in the black and white and whatever charges they settled on.
|
|
|
Post by greekgod on Aug 18, 2013 17:02:10 GMT -6
However................. bottom line, the cop admitted that He was exempt from the law! What's that tell you? The cop could give a rats azz about the guy's rights and you know it. No, sadly bootlickers miss it. Outlaw, Who are the "bootlickers"? g
|
|
|
Post by dog on Aug 18, 2013 17:12:38 GMT -6
I think that particular visual is startling enough to merit some cautionary tactics by cops. Maybe on the streets of Streator that would appear startling, but in rural Texas, not so much.The man was carrying a provocative weapon in a provocative manner during his little hike. The man was wearing a backpack, making it awful hard to sling it over his shoulder. Hanging in front of him is hardly provocative.The cops did well to question him. The idiot's mouth got him the free ride in the black and white and whatever charges they settled on. What crime was he finally charged with and found guilty of?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2013 17:15:48 GMT -6
I think that particular visual is startling enough to merit some cautionary tactics by cops. Maybe on the streets of Streator that would appear startling, but in rural Texas, not so much.The man was carrying a provocative weapon in a provocative manner during his little hike. The man was wearing a backpack, making it awful hard to sling it over his shoulder. Hanging in front of him is hardly provocative.The cops did well to question him. The idiot's mouth got him the free ride in the black and white and whatever charges they settled on. What crime was he finally charged with and found guilty of?I guess we just disagree. Go to youtube and click on the idiot's webpage link for your info.
|
|
|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Aug 19, 2013 7:21:54 GMT -6
I have to disagree with Sniper here. I think you do have to follow the police's orders. There are all kinds of codes that are the law of the land besides our Constitution. OK, then a Cop rushes up to you, a private citizen doing NOTHING wrong,you are just walking to the grocery store ( no gun on you ) and orders you to the ground. Do you do it? This is the point, he CLEARLY was violating no "codes", just a rouge cops sensibility. At what point do we give up all Sovereignty?
|
|