Ask a Cop.

[badkarma]

Has anyone seen this?
[video=youtube;o8f4KbmcQ0M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8f4KbmcQ0M&feature=player_embedded[/video]

 

[Vitaeus]

Can anyone remember Troyer EVER making a completely accurate and factual public statement? He fails on calling "us" anything but lawful citizens. He fails on the requirement for RAS to demand ID, only part he got right was that it is not illegal to open carry in Washington.

 

[Difdi]

Bets on whether the educated and professional officer in the video gets punished somehow for his knowledge of the law?

 

[BigDave]

Not to bad of a video and I believe it is better today then a few years ago.

 

[MAC702]

That wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. (and that's not an excuse for wrong statements)

I didn't like that he implies that open carriers only carry openly as a statement, and not because we prefer it for other reasons.

 

[BigDave]

That wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. (and that's not an excuse for wrong statements)

I didn't like that he implies that open carriers only carry openly as a statement, and not because we prefer it for other reasons.

I went back and listened to the video again, maybe you should also. I did not find him saying open carriers only carry openly as a statement, or that he actually said anything that could be considered a wrong statement.

 

[MAC702]

Start at :40.

He says open carry is legal, and that there are "right to carry groups" doing it, as if there would be no other reason to do it except to make a statement as a member of a "right to carry group."

Do you know the meaning of the word "imply?"

 

[BigDave]

Start at :40.

He says open carry is legal, and that there are "right to carry groups" doing it, as if there would be no other reason to do it except to make a statement as a member of a "right to carry group."

Do you know the meaning of the word "imply?"

You mean Right to Carry Groups are not open carrying? Oh wait, does this forum support Right To Carry, mystifying.....

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You mean Right to Carry Groups are not open carrying? Oh wait, does this forum support Right To Carry, mystifying.....

+1

Although it would be shaky legal ground for a police officer to ask for a cpl based off of a call saying the wind blew someone's coat open, I doubt an officer would even respond to one such call unless something else was reported to dispatch.

But he did get it right in saying that open carry was legal with no CPL (remember the asst AGO who tried to insist otherwise) and then mentioned that people actively do it. That may not be a strong endorsement but it certainly acknowledges to the public that such activity is legal.

 

[ScottE]

That wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. (and that's not an excuse for wrong statements)

I didn't like that he implies that open carriers only carry openly as a statement, and not because we prefer it for other reasons.

With so many people thinking that those that open carry are doing it to make a political and social statement, don't you think there must be some truth behind it? It's the primary reason I see constantly on this forum, youtube, etc. I don't know what to think of it.

 

[sharkey]

With so many people thinking that those that open carry are doing it to make a political and social statement, don't you think there must be some truth behind it? It's the primary reason I see constantly on this forum, youtube, etc. I don't know what to think of it.

There's actually a website devoted to furthering the open carry movement.

They even post things on the front page of their website from groups like ceasefire.

“There’s even an organization whose raison d’etre is promotion of open carry
. . . OpenCarry.org. These are the shock troops of the gun lobby. And, they are not going away.”
Ceasefire NJ Director Brian Miller, NJ.com, August 20, 2009
​

 

[MAC702]

You mean Right to Carry Groups are not open carrying? Oh wait, does this forum support Right To Carry, mystifying.....

I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. How did I say anything like that, or criticize open carrying in any way? Quite the opposite.

 

[MAC702]

With so many people thinking that those that open carry are doing it to make a political and social statement, don't you think there must be some truth behind it? It's the primary reason I see constantly on this forum, youtube, etc. I don't know what to think of it.

Those who open carry for education are going to predominately be the ones supporting forums like this and posting their encounters with law enforcement on the Internet. It's sad that you only form your opinions from such sources.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

http://kafe.com/Pierce-Sheriff-s-Spokesman-s-Son-Arrested-For-Rape/12971182

OLYMPIA, Wash. (Metro) -- A son of Pierce County Sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer has been charged with third-degree child rape and third-degree child molestation for allegedly having sex with a 14-year-old girl.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/04/26/2122236/son-of-pierce-county-sheriffs.html

It is illegal in Washington for someone 18 or older to have sexual contact with a person between 14 and 16, if the adult is at least four years older than the alleged victim..... “Zach currently lives on his own. I would expect him to be treated the same as other 19-year-olds facing similar allegations of consensual sexual activity, and I’m confident the truth will come out.”

'Consensual' child rape? Really Ed.

 

[Cubex DE]

'Consensual' child rape? Really Ed.

Is this on-topic at all?

 

[sharkey]

http://kafe.com/Pierce-Sheriff-s-Spokesman-s-Son-Arrested-For-Rape/12971182


http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/04/26/2122236/son-of-pierce-county-sheriffs.html


'Consensual' child rape? Really Ed.

I fail to see the relevance to this thread.

 

[Cubex DE]

I fail to see the relevance to this thread.

+1

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Is this on-topic at all?

It gives context to the trustworthiness of the LEO spokesman featured in the OP's video link.

If he isn't right on child rape (seemingly based on blatant personal bias), then I am personally skeptical he can get other points of law correct -- especially where he might also be personally biased (such as OC).

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It gives context to the trustworthiness of the LEO spokesman featured in the OP's video link.

If he isn't right on child rape (seemingly based on blatant personal bias), then I am personally skeptical he can get other points of law correct -- especially where he might also be personally biased (such as OC).

1. His trustworthiness is not in question, Ed is not being investigated for abusing a minor
2. you have no evidence of his personal position on OC
3. I would expect one to be biased in favor of their child
4. your skepticism is unwarranted.

This is about the dumbest cop bash I have ever seen anywhere on the internet.

 

[sharkey]

1. His trustworthiness is not in question, Ed is not being investigated for abusing a minor
2. you have no evidence of his personal position on OC
3. I would expect one to be biased in favor of their child
4. your skepticism is unwarranted.

This is about the dumbest cop bash I have ever seen anywhere on the internet.

+1

It's horrible when you make me agree with the apologist Dave_pro2a but that's a desperate way to attack someone's credibility. We all understood your angle perfectly, we're just smart enough to reject it. It seems you weren't smart enough to understand why we were distancing ourselves from you.

ETA. I don't agree with # 2. I do the rest. The worst I saw was him bringing up his foster child's abusive past as if to make a plea for understanding.