Breakdown

[Jim40Cal]

I have a son in Special Olympics and he's a long ways from being retarded.

 

[Festus_Hagen]

That's a big IF

I don't go to the other parts of the board, I'm from Mo., so I come straight here. I'm not sure if it's the "norm" for the site, or just the Mo. section. I've only been a member of this site for a short time, but have seen the rudeness and threatening manner in which some posters seem to carry themselves, and like I said, I wouldn't want to be around some of them if they had a gun. I think they are too volatile and explosive, even confrontational. Maybe we need to give mental exams to anyone before they can purchase a weapon and have them evaluated every so often to keep them. I am a gun-guy, so imagine what the anti-gunners who would read this stuff would turn it around to be?

After being here a short time, I can truly see why some people are against others carrying a gun in any manner. I know about my rights, the Constitution, yadda-yadda, but things like this are why they make laws to keep folks from exercising those rights. We live in a different society than we did 30 years ago. Violence is rampant and there are laws being put on the books to keep up with the times, and gun laws are no different. I want to be able to protect myself from these thugs and the like these days, but I see so much stuff being twisted around to suit people when it's convenient, then do a 180 when it's about something else that suits them. On top of that, the violent nature in general of the postings is something to be concerned about IMO.

I carry everyday. I don't get in internet fights with others, nor even real fights anymore, I'm too old for that ****, and frankly, I'm just not as big an internet commando as alot of you all seem to be. Some seem to thrive on "beating down" someone on a gun forum. I don't. I'm a peaceful guy most of the time.

I think people just need to think before they post, and not think they are gonna cyber-beat someone and people will respect them because they did. You look like idiots. Idiots that should not own guns. (This is not directed towards anyone in particular, just my opinion from what I have been reading).

Carry on with the smackdown .

 

[Jaysann22]

Maybe we need to give mental exams to anyone before they can purchase a weapon and have them evaluated every so often to keep them.

VERY BAD IDEA. then you would have State appointed doctors denying people their rights on mere suspicion of a mental disorder. I've read articles where the Fed's idea of a mental disorder is quite broad. Its no different than Rahms crazy bill Denying Dangerous Terrorist Firearms and explosives Act. Just cuz your on the terror list means no rights for you and its all based on suspicion. No appeals process whatsoever.

I think I agree with most of your statement, some people here are very confrontational, self entitled, and rude. But most of everyone is very polite and respectful and have enjoyed my interactions with them. People here are very knowledgeable and quite friendly. So dont let the bad apples ruin the experience of the forum.

 

[Festus_Hagen]

VERY BAD IDEA. then you would have State appointed doctors denying people their rights on mere suspicion of a mental disorder.

That's my point Jay.

I was being sarcastic, but I think you know what I'm getting at. Anti-gunners see people acting like this and they think we need more laws to keep them safe from extremists. We've seen laws made for really stupid crap, so you know it can happen . If people wanna keep their rights, they need to act like they can handle having them.

 

[LMTD]

Passionate people get involved.
When they do and to not have a reason, they express themselves to drive points.
When opposed they often times consider the way it is said over what is said and respond in a similar manner.

Life goes on and I stir the pot more than most.

I am about done with bothering to try at all as it has become almost crystal clear that other than complaining about what has been and what needs to be done is about the only thing that happens, its just not worth the effort anymore, nothing is going to change.

 

[wrightme]

Passionate people get involved.
When they do and to not have a reason, they express themselves to drive points.
When opposed they often times consider the way it is said over what is said and respond in a similar manner.

Life goes on and I stir the pot more than most.

I am about done with bothering to try at all as it has become almost crystal clear that other than complaining about what has been and what needs to be done is about the only thing that happens, its just not worth the effort anymore, nothing is going to change.

You admit to over-reacting when someone disagrees with you. If everyone acts as you do, we would end up all shouting at each other and not get any good discussions completed. AND as mentioned already, the anti-gunners will have wet tingly legs, and point out to how unsafe all the rabid gun-nuts are.

You can disagree with others without acting rude about it, and you can ease rudeness in others by not reacting in kind. As a result, some fruitful discussion might actually happen.

Your opinion is not the only valid one.

 

[Festus_Hagen]

You admit to over-reacting when someone disagrees with you. If everyone acts as you do, we would end up all shouting at each other and not get any good discussions completed. AND as mentioned already, the anti-gunners will have wet tingly legs, and point out to how unsafe all the rabid gun-nuts are.

You can disagree with others without acting rude about it, and you can ease rudeness in others by not reacting in kind. As a result, some fruitful discussion might actually happen.

Your opinion is not the only valid one.

Again, that's my point. Thanks Wright.

 

[wrightme]

Again, that's my point. Thanks Wright.

Yep. It appeared to need repeating.

 

[LMTD]

You admit to over-reacting when someone disagrees with you. If everyone acts as you do, we would end up all shouting at each other and not get any good discussions completed. AND as mentioned already, the anti-gunners will have wet tingly legs, and point out to how unsafe all the rabid gun-nuts are.

You can disagree with others without acting rude about it, and you can ease rudeness in others by not reacting in kind. As a result, some fruitful discussion might actually happen.

Your opinion is not the only valid one.

I acted like a jackass on this thread because I felt like others were being a jackass so I opted to be the bigger jackass, I participated in behavior I am neither proud of or condone, I really am fairly neutral on it being honest which bothers some still yet.

There is more behind my motivations than meets the eye, but that does not excuse it.

I have no warm and fuzzy side and despite opinions in contrast, I do not get mad, I really do not have much of an emotional connection at all. I am judgmental and if in my judgment the response is aggressive instead of assertive, I respond aggressively instead of assertively and vice versa.

By no means does this mean I am right or wrong, it is a simple explanation of a complex thought process that is filled with pitfalls and errors perhaps as often as not.

Debates are interesting types of discussions in that there are several ways to drive ones point. One of the best ways to do so is to manipulate the behavior of others. You can only do that through eliciting an emotional response as one can not change the facts. Making another angry in a subversive way shifts the focus, if I feel there is such an attempt, I fight fire with fire that is bigger.

A strategy I should indeed reserve for those whom truly oppose us instead of among us, in fact all of us should.

Such was not the case on this thread and I have tweaked a few chains, admittedly on purpose, however since I typically do not hold such things serious to myself and my opinions of the other persons involved, I forget that this does indeed have a significant impact on those who are more in tune with the emotional side of things.

In other words, I am not mad, unhappy, disappointed or any other descriptor one can use to describe how one feels about anyone involved in this discussion, I will however pretty much remember all of it. I won't carry it beyond this thread because it will never be of importance, it has only been evaluated for its merit, not how it makes one feel.

Some will never get it and will always be mad, disappointed, or other descriptor and I will never understand that either, such is the hazard of an INTJ personality type.

While my words may have impact on whether you like / dislike me, I do not share that response with you, it simply does not have impact on my decisions and I forget that it does not work the same for others. If I seriously offended anyone I do not understand why, but I will say at times I did fully intend on angering hence controlling the discussion and it has nothing to do with liking or disliking you, i do not even know you so it never enters the realm of reality for me.

Again, I am sorry if I seriously offended anyone on this thread. Not unlike the not fully understanding it, to me it is the past and is over and I do not have time or space to carry grudges, its over and it is what it is instead of it is what it was.

Peace

 

[wrightme]

Good post LMTD. Much of what you said is what I was attempting to point out. As noted, you speak of controlling a debate. IMHO, these threads should be for discussion, moreso than debate. I try to communicate with others here, as that is how information gets shared.

 

[LMTD]

I was not alone in manipulation from my point of view, though I could be wrong.

You pointed at the age thing in the beginning, that was always a moot point, it never had anything to do with anything it was a simple observation I made and it was not calling anyone out for anything, you really tried hard to make that into some sort of issue.

You also are far from stupid and are quite active in firearms rights work as well as surfing around this sight enough to know the difference. Your position that the officer was not a stand up guy based upon the technical fundamental topic of knowing the law was flawed from the beginning. It is not beyond your capacity to believe that that officer did indeed fully well believe with all his core that there was an ordinance against OC and he went to his book to find the number, you have also seen more than one instance when the officer said tough potato's instead of saying they were sorry for the mistake.

While technically 100% correct, you know as well as anyone that no officer on the face of the planet has 100% of the ordinances memorized and they all reference the book at times to get the number before writing a citation after making a stop and they in fact sometimes write the wrong number down and this does not make them bad officers, it makes them humans.

I believe this to be accurate and you employed the same tactics at a lower level only to drive your point based upon a technical point of law and my comments of the officer being a stand up guy are subjective in nature and you capitalized on that, I just raised the bar significantly more, I could be 100% wrong but I just do not think you support your position that this is a truly bad police officer especially when compared to the many other far more abusive examples that exist on OCDO. If I did, I would not have bothered arguing.

 

[wrightme]

You pointed at the age thing in the beginning, that was always a moot point, it never had anything to do with anything it was a simple observation I made and it was not calling anyone out for anything, you really tried hard to make that into some sort of issue.

As I mentioned earlier, if it was a "moot point" or a non-issue, it served no purpose in your post, did it.

Ok, now I have noticed another part of the problem that developed between you and I, that 22 on your nick name likely indicates an age as it has become kind of clear you may well be young.

The wording you used does indicate that you noted something that let you know that he "may well be young." If it is moot or a non-issue, it was irrelevant to the discussion; so why even mention it here?

 

[wrightme]

You also are far from stupid and are quite active in firearms rights work as well as surfing around this sight enough to know the difference. Your position that the officer was not a stand up guy based upon the technical fundamental topic of knowing the law was flawed from the beginning. It is not beyond your capacity to believe that that officer did indeed fully well believe with all his core that there was an ordinance against OC and he went to his book to find the number, you have also seen more than one instance when the officer said tough potato's instead of saying they were sorry for the mistake.

You just added another example of where you have an opinion, and disallow an opinion that does not match your own.
In this case, it is one thing to know a law, but not recall the specific number of a statute. Yet here, he did not know the law. THAT is different than a simple "can't recall the specific number."

In my eyes (unlike what you seem to describe), LE are not good OR bad. It is not a specific "that cop was bad," vs "that cop was a stand-up guy." He is somewhere in the middle. Your point seems to rest upon him either being bad, or stand-up.

He was wrong, and should not have been. It was decent that he admitted it and apologized. You seem to feel that this exonerates him from the action that let up to the apology, and IMHO, the fact of the video scrutiny (which did alter his behavior once he noted it) very likely affected the outcome, and very likely affected the cops demeanor; to the point of apology.

His act of apologizing may have been the act of a "stand-up guy," but given the sequence of events, his motive may not have been that of a "stand-up guy." I do not give him a "pass" simply because he apologized.

As mentioned before, he may be the stand-up guy you view, or he may be the less upstanding one. Given the demeanor at the beginning prior to video scrutiny was noted, I cannot in good conscience agree that his apology is one that indicates "stand-up guy." I am of the opinion that if there was NOT a video camera, the contact would have remained more adversarial, and the end result would not have included an apology.

That is not to say that I believe all LE are bad. That simply is not the case. Neither are all LE good. I am judging this one on the entirety of evidence presented here. You appear to judge him only upon his apology, which ignores the possible outside influences that may be driving his decision to apologize.

 

[LMTD]

In my eyes (unlike what you seem to describe), LE are not good OR bad. It is not a specific "that cop was bad," vs "that cop was a stand-up guy." He is somewhere in the middle. Your point seems to rest upon him either being bad, or stand-up.

This is quite likely the entire problem in a nut shell.

I do not really evaluate status in the same manner and offer my actions tend to reflect this across all aspects of life. It is on or off, no middle ground, hence why I have made it clear I am not a good front man at all.

I put significant merit in honesty and as long as a path one follows does not clearly indicate dishonesty I am all good, when it shifts to the dishonest side, I dismiss all merit and have no use for the person what so ever.

 

[Gunslinger]

All in all, I thought the cops were decent and friendly in the situation--albeit wrongly informed. The OP was right, it was shown to the cops and they apologized. For 20 minutes of his and his friends' time, a worthwhile outcome that hopefully will save other legal OCers being stopped. The rest of the discussion is irrelevant to the point we all, supposedly, want to make to the legal community.

 

[cshoff]

All in all, I thought the cops were decent and friendly in the situation--albeit wrongly informed. The OP was right, it was shown to the cops and they apologized. For 20 minutes of his and his friends' time, a worthwhile outcome that hopefully will save other legal OCers being stopped. The rest of the discussion is irrelevant to the point we all, supposedly, want to make to the legal community.

This is pretty much my take on it as well. IMO, Doc and his friends conducted themselves with the utmost professionalism (not that I would expect anything less from Doc and the others involved). Verbally, Doc made it very clear that he did not consent to being disarmed, but he never tried to physically resist, thus giving no provocation for the officers to escalate their use of force. Doc asserted his rights, cited local ordinance and state law regarding open carry, and even showed the officer where to find his CCW endorsement on his DL.

In return, the LEO admitted early in the conversation that, while he thought St. Charles had an ordinance restricting open carry, he would have to "check the book" and that if he was wrong, he would issue a formal apology. At no time did I sense that the officer was trying to make something up (which he could have easily attempted to do if we was really trying to be malicious), and he backed off the lecturing pretty quick when Doc calmly stood his ground and continued to assert his rights.

In the end, I think we ended up with two better-educated St. Charles Police Officers, and at least 3 better educated people who OC who will be better prepared to handle this type of situation in the future if it ever happens again. I, personally, did not get the sense that this LEO was going out of his way to try be a jerk here. Yes, when he first started to lecture, he seemed a bit out of sorts, but he quickly regained his composure early in the interaction. When the one person said to the officer, "You better check with your supervisor before you make any more mistakes", I think this LEO showed his true colors by maintaining his composure and keeping a high level of professionalism. Many LEO's would have completely lost their cool after being confronted with a statement like that. This guy let it roll right off of his back, which is exactly what he should have done.

The reality is, it doesn't really matter whether or not any of us here think the stop was initially justified. It happened and there is no "taking it back". What is important at this point is how the interaction ended, and frankly, the ending could have been a heck of a lot worse than this. I believe everyone involved, including the LEO's, did an above average job during this encounter.

 

[Festus_Hagen]

I agree with the 3 posts above.

 

[Jim40Cal]

I agree also.

 

[LMTD]

LMGDAO

Comical!

 

[wrightme]

I agree with a post in this thread.