Over reaction or right thing to do?

[sudden valley gunner]

Predictable, Wind you up and let him go!! Spinning like a top...

GD right! I am ever vigilant against tyranny, why aren't you?

The word "demeanor" does not appear anywhere in .270 it outlaws warranting alarm, carrying a firearm IN HAND is plenty PC to make an arrest.

It doesn't matter that he didn't really have a rifle or ski mask, unfortunately due to budget cuts the police department has had to cut clairvoyance out of the training curriculum. without that they won't be able to know if the complaint was false or not until locating the guy.

No it's not part of the RCW's it was part of the Spencer case you brought up. Follow the discussion a little better.

It does matter, what if they never found him?

No body arguing they didn't need to investigate, its all the other bullshite that was the overreaction.

 

[DamonK]

EMN, you are yet again baseing you assumptions on your lack of experience. When law enforcement locks down a community, dons military equipment and chases people with helicopters, that is martial law. Pull your head out man, there is bad stuff going on and you are play apologist to the enemy right now. Frankly, your lack of experience in life should give you reason to pause and consider what you are being told. However, you don't converse with others to learn, you only listen long enough to try to interject your ignorant point of view. Stop, listen, learn, or you are doomed to fail and not even know why.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[BigDave]

It's offical now! We have been infiltrated by conspiracy theorists, the sky is falling fruits and they are sellingtheir tin hats.
The drones are coming the drones are coming...y
Some of you are really funny!

 

[Jeff Hayes]

EMN, you are yet again baseing you assumptions on your lack of experience. When law enforcement locks down a community, dons military equipment and chases people with helicopters, that is martial law. Pull your head out man, there is bad stuff going on and you are play apologist to the enemy right now. Frankly, your lack of experience in life should give you reason to pause and consider what you are being told. However, you don't converse with others to learn, you only listen long enough to try to interject your ignorant point of view. Stop, listen, learn, or you are doomed to fail and not even know why.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

Well said Sir, well said.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

EMN, you are yet again baseing you assumptions on your lack of experience. When law enforcement locks down a community, dons military equipment and chases people with helicopters, that is martial law. Pull your head out man, there is bad stuff going on and you are play apologist to the enemy right now. Frankly, your lack of experience in life should give you reason to pause and consider what you are being told. However, you don't converse with others to learn, you only listen long enough to try to interject your ignorant point of view. Stop, listen, learn, or you are doomed to fail and not even know why.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

+1

 

[sudden valley gunner]

It's offical now! We have been infiltrated by conspiracy theorists, the sky is falling fruits and they are sellingtheir tin hats.
The drones are coming the drones are coming...y
Some of you are really funny!

What "conspiracy theory", we are talking actual events here?

So your opinion is its perfectly okay to have unconstitutional proactive police, locking down schools, keeping parents from kids, stopping everybody's freedom, wasting huge amounts of money stolen from tax payers, even identifying there is no threat but still sending out a team to approach the suspect?

So where does the money for your pension and your benefits come from?

 

[BigDave]

What "conspiracy theory", we are talking actual events here?

So your opinion is its perfectly okay to have unconstitutional proactive police, locking down schools, keeping parents from kids, stopping everybody's freedom, wasting huge amounts of money stolen from tax payers, even identifying there is no threat but still sending out a team to approach the suspect?

So where does the money for your pension and your benefits come from?

SVG you can dress that Duck anyway you want, bells and whistles to dressing in drag :lol: and at the end of they it is still a Duck!

Officers were responding to what information that was reported and collecting more as they progressed and yes I would rather have what appears to be over reacting then not to react at all. As I have said before in this thread, we cannot be everywhere all the time to protect our loved ones but apparently you prefer not to care as long as you stick by your little ideal.

 

[DamonK]

SVG you can dress that Duck anyway you want, bells and whistles to dressing in drag :lol: and at the end of they it is still a Duck!

Officers were responding to what information that was reported and collecting more as they progressed and yes I would rather have what appears to be over reacting then not to react at all. As I have said before in this thread, we cannot be everywhere all the time to protect our loved ones but apparently you prefer not to care as long as you stick by your little ideal.

The point that you're missing is that they had already confirmed that there was no threat and yet continued to play Army and pestered someone that they already knew was no threat at all. Stop and regurgitating apologist crap and read and analize the whole story. They followed him home with a helicopter. They knew damned well what he was wearing and carrying and yet they continued the scharade. The only thing that I am suspecting without the article saying it outright is whether or not it actually was a teenage kid that called it in. Evrything else is right there in the article that you chose to skim instead of actually reading.

 

[BigDave]

The point that you're missing is that they had already confirmed that there was no threat and yet continued to play Army and pestered someone that they already knew was no threat at all. Stop and regurgitating apologist crap and read and analize the whole story. They followed him home with a helicopter. They knew damned well what he was wearing and carrying and yet they continued the scharade. The only thing that I am suspecting without the article saying it outright is whether or not it actually was a teenage kid that called it in. Evrything else is right there in the article that you chose to skim instead of actually reading.

Yes and there is more of the "Quack Quack Quack" !!! :lol:

 

[Difdi]

The umbrella I would wish to have while being followed by helo, considering free speech and all.

That's awesome.

I have a copy of the Bill of Rights in PDF form...in Arabic. Do you know anywhere I could get it printed on a t-shirt around here?

 

[gogodawgs]

Yes and there is more of the "Quack Quack Quack" !!! :lol:

^
symptom of a lost argument...

 

[BigDave]

^
symptom of a lost argument...

^^^^

Typical response from someone with nothing to say or worth reading !

 

[Sparky508]

All over somebody that wasn’t doing anything unlawful, regardless of whether or not it was an umbrella, an EBR, or Dave’s cross gender duck…….

 

[rapgood]

The word "demeanor" does not appear anywhere in .270 it outlaws warranting alarm, carrying a firearm IN HAND is plenty PC to make an arrest.

"If a weapon is displayed in a manner, under circumstances and at a time and place so that it poses a threat to another person, such a display would warrant alarm for the safety of another. Thus, narrowly construing the phrase to apply to only conduct that poses a threat to others gives the phrase a narrow and definite focus and saves it from vagueness.” State v. Maciolek, 101 Wn.2d 259, 268 (1984). The Maciolek court was facing an "unconstitutional on its face" challenge to RCW 9.41.270(1) and, in order to save the statute (which a court must do if it can), it interpreted the statute to require "conduct that poses a threat" for culpability to exist.

"The display, alone, of a gun cannot support the inference that a defendant had the specific intent to create fear in an alleged victim." State v. Callahan, 87 Wn.App. 925, 930 (1997).

Probable cause must be supported by specific conduct giving rise to a violation of the law. As the Maciolek court educates us, merely "carrying a firearm IN HAND" doesn't rise to that level. (This was also the basis for the holding in Casad, as I recall).

I believe I have explained this at length before. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?109313-Rcw-9-41-270&highlight=maciolek

 

[rapgood]

Wearing a mask while armed is presumably for the purpose of intimidating people or obscuring your identity while committing a crime.

Really?

 

[jt59]

Really?

I OC while riding my Harley....the decorative wind mask is often optional but necessary.....is this intimidating?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

SVG you can dress that Duck anyway you want, bells and whistles to dressing in drag :lol: and at the end of they it is still a Duck!

Officers were responding to what information that was reported and collecting more as they progressed and yes I would rather have what appears to be over reacting then not to react at all. As I have said before in this thread, we cannot be everywhere all the time to protect our loved ones but apparently you prefer not to care as long as you stick by your little ideal.

Can you ever not argue anything without red herring and strawman or ad hominem attacks?

First no one said not to react at all. But even if they didn't no one would have been harmed, and to continue your logical disconnect, you would be okay with them gunning down this man because , over reaction is better than not reacting?

We cannot be everywhere all the time, there are even less cops, they would not have prevented anything, and I don't sacrifice liberty for safety. The ideal is let free people be armed and encourage them to do so.

And then hinting I "prefer not to care" is simply a demagogic tactic used by those "liberals" you hate, you have way more in common with them than free people. E.g. "Gun control is for the kids" hinting that their provisions are for our children protection and that if we are against them we are against children. Because I realize that overzealous policing has done little for our safety and has done a lot to destroy fundamental rights.

We need more people in the productive side of society and a lot less making their living off of stolen money.

 

[BigDave]

Can you ever not argue anything without red herring and strawman or ad hominem attacks?

All while accusing others of this tactic you employ so often!

 

[Flopsweat]

Can someone start a "Mine's bigger" thread so these guys can hang out there all day? This is really getting old.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

All while accusing others of this tactic you employ so often!

Still no counter points?