Perhaps if no law enforcement agents violated people's rights, then rehearsing verbal reaction drills and recording encounters with them would be unneeded.
I can agree with this, but we do tend to rehearse nonetheless because of an expectation of confrontation.
We know that to OC means to create an environment for reaction by public and LE.
As much (not really all that much) negative publicity as OC has received lately, LE surely must know where OC is prohibited and not prohibited. In the case of Washington Missouri, we all know at a minimum that the Washington police chief knows OC is not prohibited, in Washington. Yet there LE is, on video, using the MWAG canard to harass a citizen.
Baiting? Really?
I'm not so convinced LE necessarily "knows" where and where not OC is prohibited or legal. I've heard some outrageous interpretations of Law and ordinances by LEOs. I agree that Washington, MO knows without doubt and that what they are engaging in is illegal and amounts to harassment.
The very act of OC is provocative. I think that we have to admit that. Now, Whether or not the reaction to that provocation is from a base of ignorance on the part of the public and LE, or from what is perceived to be an open invitation for harassment by unprofessional LEOs is a question to be considered at each encounter.
Knowing OC is provocative before you set out to do so is, in a sense, "baiting." Much like attending a lawful protest, exercising your 1st amendment right, can be a provocative act with similar results as OC...but you "know" that what you are doing may very well be the bait which causing the opponents to react.
What I am "not" saying is that in every OC outing, the "intent" is to bait...I think it is a natural byproduct.
Wow, I had no idea the 9/11 hijackers were openly carrying properly-holstered handguns.
Your comment makes little sense.
What I meant was that the public has been steered, since 9/11, to report "what they perceive to be"
suspicious activity. Since OC is not necessarily an "acceptable act" in most of our society, a person openly carrying a firearm can be considered suspicious and will prompt a call to LE. There are tons of videos that support this..."we got a call about a suspicious person walking around with a gun. That is why we are detaining you." I'm pointing out the obvious reality of this.
Do you even OC? Considering the possibility, even the likelihood, of an encounter cannot be baiting.
What I do, or don't do, is irrelevant to this conversation.
I am asserting that the very act of OC is, in a sense, baiting. As I just said above, it isn't necessarily the intent (but in many, many cases it darn well is) but it is a byproduct of the act. That is reality.
So, your argument is that any OC done outside of one's own home, when one is carrying a recording device, is baiting.
Again, it may not be the intent, but it is a reality. Yes.
In the case of this Steak n' Shake, the manager allegedly says he is pro 2a and had no issue and that the problem was solely with LEO's. But "someone" called it in. Why? Of course we know that ignorance of the legality of OC is at the forefront, but the very "act" of OC was the bait that prompted someone to report a group of folks with firearms.
If you were to conceal carry or not carry at all, there would have been no report of folks with firearms.
Don't misunderstand, I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't OC. I believe we all have the liberty to do so and there should be no State or local Law replacing, or amending, our Constitutional right to bear arms.
I simply used concealed, or no, carry as an example.
Because someone has a difference of opinion, they are a troll?
Grow up.
