Please critique behavior of open carrier stop by police VIDEO

[slowfiveoh]

imported post


Blackburn wrote:

It's a troll, brah.

Indeed. No further responses mandated or necessary.

 

[Dontchaknow?]

imported post

Blackburn wrote:

slowfiveoh wrote:

Dontchaknow? wrote:

That's a lot of wasted breath to not actually address anything I actually said. If you want to address what I said, and not what you inferred from it - erroneously I might add - I'll be here waiting.

A 4 year old with a "Dick and Jane" book could draw the correlation.

Apparently you are simply, and completely, too stupid to see the connection.

It doesn't take any significant level of conversational comprehension to see the tie-ins.

Maybe read it as many times as necessary until it sinks in? Or ignore it. That way you could pretend my rebuttals never existed.

It's a troll, brah.

Blackburn has spoken. So it is written...

 

[Blackburn]

imported post

Dontchaknow? wrote:

Blackburn wrote:

slowfiveoh wrote:

Dontchaknow? wrote:

That's a lot of wasted breath to not actually address anything I actually said. If you want to address what I said, and not what you inferred from it - erroneously I might add - I'll be here waiting.

A 4 year old with a "Dick and Jane" book could draw the correlation.

Apparently you are simply, and completely, too stupid to see the connection.

It doesn't take any significant level of conversational comprehension to see the tie-ins.

Maybe read it as many times as necessary until it sinks in? Or ignore it. That way you could pretend my rebuttals never existed.

It's a troll, brah.

Blackburn has spoken. So it is written...

Even trolls agree with me. :dude:

 

[Festus_Hagen]

imported post

Blackburn wrote:
GTFO troll.
[/quote]

If you say so. You seem to be the boss here.

 

[shad0wfax]

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

I think I handled the situation well. What should I change the next time I'm confronted?

SGT Jensen wrote:

NavyLT wrote:

Actually, he was wearing a reflective vest because that is also required BY ORDINANCE in Beale Meade.

Classic comment my the female officer... "Aww... he's wearin' a vest, I can't write him a ticket."

kwikrnu, I say good job. A little too much talking, but overall not too bad.

I keyed in on the reflective vest ticket comment too. I find it interesting that the female jogger cruised right through the middle of a police stop without wearing ordinance required retro-reflective clothing and the LEOs didn't bat an eye. This situation may be a bit more confrontational than some people are able to swallow, but you followed all of the laws and some of the passers-by did not. You may have also forced a change to an obviously silly and outdated law that will then get a restrictive law pre-empted. That's a positive change even if the way you accomplished it was very unusual.

The only thing I can think of is that you answered far too many questions and engaged in far too much discussion with the officers. You were treading on very dangerous ground when the female officer started asking you about the firearm posing a danger or a threat. That's not something I would have answered at all the way you did. What I think would have been a better answer would be to say "I posed no threat while handling it" and then to say "It's up to you to decide if your fellow officer's method of handling it poses a threat; a discharge would be prima facie evidence that he posed a threat." That way, you're placing all of the responsibility on the person handling the firearm and none of the responsibility on yourself or the firearm itself. She was fishing for a violation there, I think and by answering her the way you did you may have incriminated yourself on tape. That was thin ice...

I think I would have kept it to the absolute bare minimum and remained silent unless required by law to answer. Perhaps cite the specific laws and then say "I'll be going about my lawful business now." Sure, it will lead to an arrest, but if you're as confident about the letter of these laws as you seem to be, a motion to dismiss should be easy enough to get granted.

As for the complaints, I didn't listen to them because the host site is odd. You could just post them as still-image youtube videos to make them more accessible. I did read the copies you posted in this thread and the one complaint the woman made about her terrified children was ridiculous. If her children were so terrified I would expect you could hear their shrill, blood-curdling screams on the police audio from the dash-cam and also your own personal audio device. Lacking these screams, cries, or sobs of bone-numbing terror, I can only conclude that the woman was making an exaggerated, grossly exaggerated or possibly completely false police report to an officer. In many states that's a crime.

 

[Dontchaknow?]

imported post

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize if I offended anyone by casting Kwik's actions in a negative light. I was unaware that the feelings of folks here for Kwik went beyond mere admiration of his actions and in fact border on and outright man-crush. When you guys get off your knees and come up for air, maybe you'll look at your arguments in a different light. I doubt it though.

I mean you have countered with such rock-solid arguments as "it's his right" and "it's his right" and then there's the ever-popular "it's his right." Of course it's his right. Nobody said it wasn't. It's also your right to walk around and scream "Go F!@# yourself" at everyone you come across. The First Amendment guarantees it. Therefore it must be the absolute smartest thing you can do, right? There's no way that kind of action could come back to haunt you. There is only right and wrong. There is no gray area. There is no room to think about how your actions might be used by those who are against your cause. None. So why should he do anything other than be completely confrontational?

One final thought to leave you with. There's an interesting article in America's First Freedom about how permit have won the hearts and minds of America through their actions. Or rather inaction if you want to talk about the extremely low crime rate among permit holders. Folks like Kwik, while technically right, are not viewed favorably by those that are totally against us. Of course, none of us are, so those people are irrelevant, and nothing we do or don't do will change that. However, there are plenty of folks that just aren't sure about the whole thing. These fence riders can be swayed one way or the other rather easily. You might think they don't matter, until they are the deciding vote on legislation that strips you of your rights and turns you into a walking felon overnight. And when you support loons like Kwik, you are only making the whole of us look bad.

"And that's all I have to say about that."

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

Dontchaknow? wrote:

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize if I offended anyone by casting Kwik's actions in a negative light. I was unaware that the feelings of folks here for Kwik went beyond mere admiration of his actions and in fact border on and outright man-crush. When you guys get off your knees and come up for air, maybe you'll look at your arguments in a different light. I doubt it though.

snip

Hey, try it this way, "I was unaware that the feelings of some/a few folks here..."

See, that way you only flame the people you are disagreeing with and not the entire forum. I'm not making a judgment call on the flaming itself, just pointing out that if you flame 360° and light up everything around you, you are usually going to get lit on fire yourself.

 

[Pace]

imported post

1) You apologize, then you become a complete ass. It's easy to do this anonymously.
2) Many people agree with you that just because its right, doesn't mean its smart.

I disagree with the way Kwik did this, as did many other people. I think its exceedingly stupid and is a good way to get himself shot. Frankly, if I saw someone approaching my front door holding a firearm in the way he was, with a reflector, I'd probably put him on the ground, handcuff him and then call EMS to get him checked for mental instability.

That being said, it is not the job of "the people" to act smart, sane, or even correct. It is our job to follow the law, and the job of the police, the professionals who enforce the law to know the law, act in a professional manner and be smart & sane. Most police officers actually act this way, and most of them are amazing individuals who risk their lives daily. In this case, most of the officers behaved amazing, and only one of them argued and acted a bit like a jackass.

Your argument has unfortunately been used by many people against all civil rights visionaries. People used to tell women to stay at home, tend to the babies, not march for the right to vote, because they "might get hurt." Blacks were told to not rock the boat, sit on the back of the bus. Protecting our civil rights sometimes is a dangerous job, and Kwiky's methods were a bit insane, but sometimes that is necessary.

I would have recommended however that he do this with other people around him, a Camera crew and altered the police to his presence for his own safety. I'm allowed to disagree and agree with him, and still be sane myself.


Dontchaknow? wrote:

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize if I offended anyone by casting Kwik's actions in a negative light. I was unaware that the feelings of folks here for Kwik went beyond mere admiration of his actions and in fact border on and outright man-crush. When you guys get off your knees and come up for air, maybe you'll look at your arguments in a different light. I doubt it though.

I mean you have countered with such rock-solid arguments as "it's his right" and "it's his right" and then there's the ever-popular "it's his right." Of course it's his right. Nobody said it wasn't. It's also your right to walk around and scream "Go F!@# yourself" at everyone you come across. The First Amendment guarantees it. Therefore it must be the absolute smartest thing you can do, right? There's no way that kind of action could come back to haunt you. There is only right and wrong. There is no gray area. There is no room to think about how your actions might be used by those who are against your cause. None. So why should he do anything other than be completely confrontational?

One final thought to leave you with. There's an interesting article in America's First Freedom about how permit have won the hearts and minds of America through their actions. Or rather inaction if you want to talk about the extremely low crime rate among permit holders. Folks like Kwik, while technically right, are not viewed favorably by those that are totally against us. Of course, none of us are, so those people are irrelevant, and nothing we do or don't do will change that. However, there are plenty of folks that just aren't sure about the whole thing. These fence riders can be swayed one way or the other rather easily. You might think they don't matter, until they are the deciding vote on legislation that strips you of your rights and turns you into a walking felon overnight. And when you support loons like Kwik, you are only making the whole of us look bad.

"And that's all I have to say about that."

 

[Dontchaknow?]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

Dontchaknow? wrote:

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize if I offended anyone by casting Kwik's actions in a negative light. I was unaware that the feelings of folks here for Kwik went beyond mere admiration of his actions and in fact border on and outright man-crush. When you guys get off your knees and come up for air, maybe you'll look at your arguments in a different light. I doubt it though.

snip

Hey, try it this way, "I was unaware that the feelings of some/a few folks here..."

See, that way you only flame the people you are disagreeing with and not the entire forum. I'm not making a judgment call on the flaming itself, just pointing out that if you flame 360° and light up everything around you, you are usually going to get lit on fire yourself.

If that's the way it came across, which I can see, I actually DO apologize. I was referring to those few.

 

[diesel556]

imported post

Dontchaknow? wrote:

It's also your right to walk around and scream "Go F!@# yourself" at everyone you come across.

What you describe might be an example of disorderly conduct in some states, and is of course illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorderly_conduct

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

Dontchaknow? wrote:

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize if I offended anyone by casting Kwik's actions in a negative light. I was unaware that the feelings of folks here for Kwik went beyond mere admiration of his actions and in fact border on and outright man-crush. When you guys get off your knees and come up for air, maybe you'll look at your arguments in a different light. I doubt it though.

When your argument sucks, refer to people as possibly gay. Gotcha....

Iron clad argument is iron-clad.

 

[Pace]

imported post

Oooh Oooh.. Can I register GayOpenCarry.com?

slowfiveoh wrote:

Dontchaknow? wrote:

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize if I offended anyone by casting Kwik's actions in a negative light. I was unaware that the feelings of folks here for Kwik went beyond mere admiration of his actions and in fact border on and outright man-crush. When you guys get off your knees and come up for air, maybe you'll look at your arguments in a different light. I doubt it though.

When your argument sucks, refer to people as possibly gay. Gotcha....

Iron clad argument is iron-clad.

 

[Festus_Hagen]

imported post

Oh boy ....:what:

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

I find it hilarious that homosexuals, who have been blatantly discriminated against in the past, see the true equality and right to self-defense as inferred by the 2nd Amendment, and many of them as such, have embraced it.

Yet the new troll here, tries to bring derogatory connotations of a homosexual nature into this conversation for lack of a meaningful argument.

Classic, overwhelming, conversational failure.

 

[Festus_Hagen]

imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:

I find it hilarious that homosexuals, who have been blatantly discriminated against in the past, see the true equality and right to self-defense as inferred by the 2nd Amendment, and many of them as such, have embraced it.

Yet the new troll here, tries to bring derogatory connotations of a homosexual nature into this conversation for lack of a meaningful argument.

Classic, overwhelming, conversational failure.

I'm pretty sure your the one with that on your mind. He never mentioned it, yet you can't stop....lol.

I don't care that your gay, and yes, you have a right to defend yourself and I have no problems with that.

Have a fabulous day.

 

[Pace]

imported post

I dont know why it's hilarious, it make perfect sense.

I need to look this up, I have the stats here in some of my paperwork, but most minorities support RKBA, as do most americans. Obviously how far they take what the right is, varies, but the basic idea is that most people believe that the average american, anywhere should have a right to buy and bear a firearm for their personal protection. Unfortunately, many of those have bought into the BS from certain anti-gun campaigns that if this is allowed, not only they will have guns, but that suddenly ever criminal out there will be armed with sub-machine guns and walking down the street every five minutes.




slowfiveoh wrote:

I find it hilarious that homosexuals, who have been blatantly discriminated against in the past, see the true equality and right to self-defense as inferred by the 2nd Amendment, and many of them as such, have embraced it.

Yet the new troll here, tries to bring derogatory connotations of a homosexual nature into this conversation for lack of a meaningful argument.

Classic, overwhelming, conversational failure.

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

Festus_Hagen wrote:

I'm pretty sure your the one with that on your mind. He never mentioned it, yet you can't stop....lol.

I don't care that your gay, and yes, you have a right to defend yourself and I have no problems with that.

Have a fabulous day.

I am not homosexual. I simply acknowledge that all people, are simply that. People.

Using homosexuality to negatively emphasize another persons actions you do not agree with, could possibly be damaging to the cause, that's all.

Also, I never said you did guy. I was referring to your counterpart.

Here is the statement, since memory fails you:

Dontchaknow? wrote:

...I was unaware that the feelings of folks here for Kwik went beyond mere admiration of his actions and in fact border on and outright man-crush. When you guys get off your knees and come up for air, maybe you'll look at your arguments in a different light. I doubt it though...

The statement is meant to imply that you must be "homosexual" to agree with, or otherwise support kwikrnu's actions. The inference of "getting off of ones knees" implies more negative homosexual connotation.

The statement in its entirety is meant to imply that, for one to agree with kwik, we must be homosexual.


For reference, it's the absolute lowest his arguments could go. Incapable of comprehensive, rational, or pertinent argumentation, he resorts to trying to bring everyone down to his troll level by making petty accusations and resorting to name calling.

It's the bottom of the conversational food chain, and he has been there since the beginning.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:

Dontchaknow? wrote:

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize if I offended anyone by casting Kwik's actions in a negative light. I was unaware that the feelings of folks here for Kwik went beyond mere admiration of his actions and in fact border on and outright man-crush. When you guys get off your knees and come up for air, maybe you'll look at your arguments in a different light. I doubt it though.

When your argument sucks, refer to people as possibly gay. Gotcha....

Iron clad argument is iron-clad.

I must be getting old. I didn't even see that as a homosexual reference but rather took it as a bowing/scraping Wayne's World type "we're not worthy" sort of reference.:?

 

[diesel556]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

slowfiveoh wrote:

Dontchaknow? wrote:

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize if I offended anyone by casting Kwik's actions in a negative light. I was unaware that the feelings of folks here for Kwik went beyond mere admiration of his actions and in fact border on and outright man-crush. When you guys get off your knees and come up for air, maybe you'll look at your arguments in a different light. I doubt it though.

When your argument sucks, refer to people as possibly gay. Gotcha....

Iron clad argument is iron-clad.

I must be getting old.  I didn't even see that as a homosexual reference but rather took it as a bowing/scraping Wayne's World type "we're not worthy" sort of reference.:?

Critical analysis has nothing to do with age. His statement "come up for air" in the context of being on ones knees obviously precludes your example of Wayne's World-esque fanatacism.

 

[Festus_Hagen]

imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:

I am not homosexual.

Dude, it's OK. I'm not judging you. :arrow: