First LEO encounter

[CenTex]

[FONT=&quot]The choice is: Do we cooperate with police who continually violate our inalienable rights, or do we stand up for our inalienable rights, which our founding Fathers recognized and secured in the Bill of Rights?
[/FONT]
rickc1962, it is my opinion that your attitude will only help to continue the abuse. Too many police are already abusive enough without giving them more excuses to keep abusing citizens.

Note: I am not anti-cop. I was scheduled to train for the Ft. Worth police Department when I was 25. However, after further thought, I decided to go another route.

 

[Gunslinger]

Being compliant with tyranny is not a choice I'm prepared to make. And when it comes to the rights I swore to uphold and defend, as an Air Force Officer and later as a civilian with the Air Force, I don't play to the audience. If a cop is violating my rights, he's violating the rights of the observer, as well. Educating the observer to this is also our duty. If we don't stop our 'small' freedoms from being lost, sooner or later all of our freedoms will be gone.

 

[rickc1962]

I see the slippery slope with our freedoms that all of you speak of, I just disagree. I have seen in my time going from police searching your car without a warrant, to just in the past 10 years 3 times in 3 different states me telling LE no, not without a warrant, and them not searching, I remember in the 80s` watching cops kicking a BG that was handcuffed, and when I spoke up I was told if I didn't leave the same thing would happen to me, those kind of cops go to jail today. Ive seen state after state get CC, Ive seen stand your ground become the law in many states, there was a time not long ago that if you shot a BG even in your house, you would probably go to jail. Ive seen " Freedom to Carry " pass in 2 states, and this year maybe at least 2 more, if not up to 4. Ive seen carry in Nathanil parks passed. Things are getting better! More can be done, and there are a lot of pro gun people working on it in most states, BEHIND THE SCEENS. I open carry in my bank, grocery store, city parks, restaurants, and never a problem, the police here now know me and trust me I always am polite, educate every where I go, and do my best to be a good Ambassador. You say you are standing up for others rights also, and I believe that, but the general public will watch you, and not say " hay that guy is standing up for my rights, " but instead say " hay that guy is a moron," and again for you military guys, you may win the war, but you lost the battle, in war some times you have to retreat, regroup and attack again.

 

[MT GUNNY]

I have to agree with both of you, So in other terms there are time when you educate and times when you stand your ground. Which one you do at any given time is up to your own sound judgment.

 

[rickc1962]

I have to agree with both of you, So in other terms there are time when you educate and times when you stand your ground. Which one you do at any given time is up to your own sound judgment.

That is all I'm trying to say, people watch us all the time, and we need to give gun owners a good light. There are times we need to stand our ground, even if we would suffer for it. Does anybody here know how many years our founders tried to work with the king before they said enough, HINT it has more then 10 years. Some LEOs know the law and just don't care, those ones we must stand up to! But most don't even know they are violating our 4th Amendment rights, they get up in the morning, go to work, think about the football game on Sunday, whats the wife cooking for dinner tonight, how his daughter's grades are, and where they are going for summer vacation, he wants to go home at night alive, and thinks about his safety all the time. We can help them learn, if we would befriend them, and teach them, and not fight with them. I like to work with people and teach them, not fight with them, until they give me a reason. Just my thoughts.

 

[Badger Johnson]

I ticket at 1mph over the speed limit!

I spoke with a former LEO (runs our gun/tac store here) and he told me something surprising. These are essentially quotes:

1. Cops will not ticket someone with a CC permit.
2. He will stop the occasional driver who is going 1mph over the speed limit.
3. NEVER tell the cop who stops you 'I HAS a GUN' (lol). Always just hand over your permit and Dr. License keep hands in sight on wheel and if they admonish you for not telling (he says 'rare', just say 'oh sorry' and that's it).

Discussion: I said 'oh, out of respect' (the no ticket). He said 'no, they're wary (he said afraid) that the person with the gun would get pissed off and shoot them'. No joke. I said 'c'mon, you're kidding - those guys with permits are law-abiding and are likely to back up a cop - surely that has to be the reason'. He said 'nope, it's what I said first'.

On the stopping for 1mph over he said he had to prove to prosecutors that he made such stops routinely so that if he made one and got a big score (illegal stuff) he could back it up as SOP.

On the not telling you have a gun, he says this immediately makes the cop think 'Oh really, and what are you going to do with said gun'. Otherwise it's all low key and can remain so. At most the cop might say 'where is it' and then go about his business.

Just one data point, this guy was from the Midwest and now runs the gun store. Oh, he also said that for new gun users 'baby steps' is ok, but eventually you carry safety off, one in the chamber at all times. If you have kids, teach them well from a young age - no touch and that breeds familiarity and calm.

$0.02

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

NavyLT, I would have the same opinion.

"... for you military guys, you may win the war, but you lost the battle, in war some times you have to retreat, regroup and attack again..."

Rick, as a former military guy, my view is a bit different; the Only thing that matters is who wins the war. You can lose every battle, time after time, but if your country is the last one with boots on that ground, you've Won. (Witness Russia's experience in Afghanistan or our experience in Vietnam.)

 

[Badger Johnson]

Gun Range owner

This is what he really said. I said 'durn, I'm a pretty mellow guy but if you stopped me for doing 1mph over the limit I'd be really mad. and think you were stalking or harassing me and I'd be calling your sergeant'. He said 'well we have to have a -reason- to stop you, we can't just say 'Hi, how's it going'.'

I mean sure a cop who thinks you're up to no good can FIND a reason to stop you. He mentioned 'crooked license plate' as one reason.

He seemed like a nice guy, invited us to carry loaded in his store because he wants legit customers to help if the store is robbed, etc., even though it says 'no loaded guns in the store'. I did not sense any 'wonkyness' about him. He was young (32-ish) and very nice and helpful otherwise.

Thanks for your opinions.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

If he's 32 years old and now he's a "former" then perhaps that speaks to the reason right there.

 

[rickc1962]

NavyLT, I would have the same opinion.





Rick, as a former military guy, my view is a bit different; the Only thing that matters is who wins the war. You can lose every battle, time after time, but if your country is the last one with boots on that ground, you've Won. (Witness Russia's experience in Afghanistan or our experience in Vietnam.)

I would have hatted to be under your command when I was in the Army, it sounds like I would have had little chance of coming home from war. As far as Nam is concerned, lots of good men died trying to win the war, while losing a number of battles, and ultimately the war, and as far as Afghanistan is concerned, Russia lost so many battles and their war, thousands of Russian troops where killed and they left like wiped dogs. As Patton said, its not about dieing for your country, its about making the other SOB die for his. Commanders with your kind of beliefs usually get shot by his one men.

 

[VW_Factor]

I guess it depends on the tone but I am not sure about no complying to the 'hands up'. While it may be an illegal order, not complying might escalate the issue.

Definately the 1st question should of been 'am I be detained', however.

I certainly wouldn't want to be shot by an itchy LEO over such a thing either. I will do as asked in that respect.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

I would have hatted to be under your command when I was in the Army, it sounds like I would have had little chance of coming home from war. As far as Nam is concerned, lots of good men died trying to win the war, while losing a number of battles, and ultimately the war, and as far as Afghanistan is concerned, Russia lost so many battles and their war, thousands of Russian troops where killed and they left like wiped dogs. As Patton said, its not about dieing for your country, its about making the other SOB die for his. Commanders with your kind of beliefs usually get shot by his one men.

The gentleman must be misunderstanding my post.
The Vietnamese lost every major engagement they engaged in as opposed to the 20-ish that U.S. forces are considered to have lost. They lost around one million men in contrast to our fifty-thousand. Ultimately, the Unites States withdrew and Vietnam celebrated victory in the war.

Let's turn that equation around and imagine that it was a foreign invader on US soil; would the gentleman say that losing one-million American lives was too high a cost to preserve the Union? There are Phyrric victories in battle, and there are battles that you must withdraw from, but as Gen. Douglas McArthur said, "In war there is no substitute for victory."

 

[Gunslinger]

The gentleman must be misunderstanding my post.
The Vietnamese lost every major engagement they engaged in as opposed to the 20-ish that U.S. forces are considered to have lost. They lost around one million men in contrast to our fifty-thousand. Ultimately, the Unites States withdrew and Vietnam celebrated victory in the war.

Let's turn that equation around and imagine that it was a foreign invader on US soil; would the gentleman say that losing one-million American lives was too high a cost to preserve the Union? There are Phyrric victories in battle, and there are battles that you must withdraw from, but as Gen. Douglas McArthur said, "In war there is no substitute for victory."

I don't know that we lost any major battles from Ia Drang to Tet. Skirmishes, yes, but major engagements: not one. And we were winning when I left.
'We' did not lose in Viet Nam. Gutless politicians and ass kissing flag officers forfeited.

 

[rickc1962]

I don't know that we lost any major battles from Ia Drang to Tet. Skirmishes, yes, but major engagements: not one. And we were winning when I left.
'We' did not lose in Viet Nam. Gutless politicians and ass kissing flag officers forfeited.

I agree completely, if not for the politicians we could have walked out of Nam as victors with our heads held high. As far as foreign invaders on U.S. soil, that is happening now on our southern border, and me living in Az. I see it way to much, and when we stood up to the invaders, we were sued by the Federal Government. We were attacked on 9/11, and yet we allow a mosque to be built on ground zero. I sadly think that if we were invaded by lets say China, or you put the country of your choice here, our Government would roll over like a dog wanting its belly rubbed. But this has nothing to do with the original thread though. I was only saying as I speak to police (and I do all the time) about asking for ID most think its OK, because they are taught its OK, so arguing on the side of road is a no win situation. We need to educate the non gun owning public, and even most gun owners about the Constitution, and primarily the 2nd Amendment. With numbers we can win this war, but if we can not first win the battle of public opinion, then we will loose. Just my opinion.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP I just don`t understand why their are so many here that chose to be confrontational with LE. instead of being polite.

Who exactly are the "so many" that chose to be confrontational with LE?

I might not be back to this thread for a while, so let me speak my mind now.

Too many of these accusations about being confrontational arise from assumptions on the part of the accusers. They conflate not giving in to the LEOs intrusions with being confrontational. Its rare anybody on this forum actually advocates being genuinely confrontational with a cop.

So, please point out a few of these "so many" who are actually confrontational.

Otherwise, please distinguish confrontational (hostile or antagonistic) speech from polite but firm exercise of rights.

 

[KBCraig]

I don't know that we lost any major battles from Ia Drang to Tet. Skirmishes, yes, but major engagements: not one. And we were winning when I left.
'We' did not lose in Viet Nam. Gutless politicians and ass kissing flag officers forfeited.

The determination of who wins or loses a war hinges on who controls the ground after the shooting stops.

Yes, we started losing Vietnam the moment we started pulling out, and the final defeat occurred within days after the last thing smoking departed. That isn't an indictment of our military, it's just reality.

Could we have continued to "win" Vietnam by staying there indefinitely? Possibly. Military, probably. But is it really a victory, politically, if we have to maintain a constant military presence to enforce it by propping up a government of our choosing? I don't think so.

I absolutely agree that the American fighting forces were screwed in Vietnam. The first way they were screwed was by sending them there in the first place. If we had a presence there at all, it should have been what Ho Chi Minh requested of Truman: help them kick out the French colonialists. Truman (and Eisenhower) had to choose between helping some little brown Asian people much like those we'd just defeated in WWII, or helping prop up a European ally who had almost nothing left except some rubber plantations in Southeast Asia. Sadly, they stood with commerce over liberty and sovereignty, and the result is history.

 

[Gunslinger]

The determination of who wins or loses a war hinges on who controls the ground after the shooting stops.

Yes, we started losing Vietnam the moment we started pulling out, and the final defeat occurred within days after the last thing smoking departed. That isn't an indictment of our military, it's just reality.

Could we have continued to "win" Vietnam by staying there indefinitely? Possibly. Military, probably. But is it really a victory, politically, if we have to maintain a constant military presence to enforce it by propping up a government of our choosing? I don't think so.

I absolutely agree that the American fighting forces were screwed in Vietnam. The first way they were screwed was by sending them there in the first place. If we had a presence there at all, it should have been what Ho Chi Minh requested of Truman: help them kick out the French colonialists. Truman (and Eisenhower) had to choose between helping some little brown Asian people much like those we'd just defeated in WWII, or helping prop up a European ally who had almost nothing left except some rubber plantations in Southeast Asia. Sadly, they stood with commerce over liberty and sovereignty, and the result is history.

"We,' those who served, did not lose Viet Nam. We lost no major battles and we had a 20 to 1 kill ratio over NVN forces. Those I mentioned forfeited it. I don't care whose boots were the last on the ground. We weren't in VN when it started and we weren't when it ended. We lost no territory and paid no reparations, and that is the ultimate definition of "losing" a war from the Revolution to SWA today. South Viet Nam was the 'loser'; North Viet Nam 'won' a pyrrhic victory and the cost to the Soviet Union eventually greatly contributed to their downfall. After the Killing Fields, even war protestor Joan Baez said our cause was just. The politicians--civilian and military, said nothing.Theirs is the crime and theirs is the shame. Those who served have neither. It may have taken 30 years, but the honor and respect due them is finally being recognized.

 

[28kfps]

I have read several of the postings. Great information to draw from. I believe the young man did a great Job. Having the recorder on and ready and informing them they are being recorded may have helped their intimidation level. I do like the idea of asking them up front why I am being detained. I believe we are public relations for open carry. I am of the opinion at first a respectful push back with a hint of compliance might set the tone for the rest of the confrontation. If the cop decided to follow his made up rules time to put on the constructional armor.

 

[KBCraig]

"We,' those who served, did not lose Viet Nam. We lost no major battles and we had a 20 to 1 kill ratio over NVN forces. Those I mentioned forfeited it.

Just so we're clear: you and I agree about this. Battles are fought by warriors, while wars are waged by politicians. Only warriors can win or lose battles, and only politicians can win or lose wars.

The fighting forces in Vietnam won the battles. The politicians lost the war.

As I said earlier, the first "loss" was sending the fighting forces to Vietnam in the first place. It set the battle-winning forces up for the "loss" of a war that could not be won politically.

 

[Gunslinger]

Just so we're clear: you and I agree about this. Battles are fought by warriors, while wars are waged by politicians. Only warriors can win or lose battles, and only politicians can win or lose wars.

The fighting forces in Vietnam won the battles. The politicians lost the war.

As I said earlier, the first "loss" was sending the fighting forces to Vietnam in the first place. It set the battle-winning forces up for the "loss" of a war that could not be won politically.

Agreed.