Youre from TN man, i doubt you know much about CA gun law.

I dont have rage against police, Ive interacted with cops a lot and I know a few personally. I get along with the ones that I know and I rarely get into trouble when I have encounters with cops in the street. I get along with cops on an individual basis, its their organization that i hate.

I hate the job that they do, and I hate that they are willing to do it, especially after taking an oath not to. Im a huge supporter of what America was intended to be and what was laid out for this could-be great country by the founding fathers. The idea of America has been trampled on to the point of feeling good about having your rights politely violated. We will now give up our rights to the point of allowing the government to employ TSA to molest our children and we will do nothing about it.



1st - - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_868719.html



2nd - - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This really doesnt need an explanation as to how it is being infringed, I think everyone knows that gun "rights" in CA and much of the US are a joke.


Heres an example of a right that hasnt been violated, lucky us!

3rd - - "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."



4th - - "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The OP had a great example of police violating this right. The person may have had a concerned citizen call, but he wasnt doing anything illegal, yet he and his property were searched, and his firearm was seized during his detention.

The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in a Kentucky case, says police officers who loudly knock on a door in search of illegal drugs and then hear sounds suggesting evidence is being destroyed may break down the door and enter without a search warrant.
http://investmentwatchblog.com/supre...earch-warrant/



5th - - "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The Obama administration is calling for a woman accused of a mortgage scam to be forced to reveal her computer password
http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-...ment-violation



as far as the post you quoted from me, i dont see what the problem is?
In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, held that: “… there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.” [Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, 686F.2d 616 (1982). See also Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 471 F.Supp. 1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in681416.shtml






heres a fun video -
http://www.myspace.com/video/boiling...erica/54162036



and a good site to look at -
http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/

 

I'm with you on all of that man 100%, I hate all of this shit. I think our country is being demolish right in front out of eyes slowly. But that still doesn't mean you can take things out of context. This cop did a great job, at doing his job. If you don't like his job to begin with, I get that... but don't go around persecuting every cop as being scoundrels. Take your rage out on the system and establishment; not the people working under said system. These people have no control to the organization of laws, and systems in place. As such this beat cop did a great job doing what beat cops are supposed to do.

If you think that the country would be a better place if every LEO just up and left their job, you're delusional. Focus your rage man on the system, not the innocents inside of it. This whole thread makes your beliefs look uncomposed; and if you aren't, how can you expect those above you to be. Pull your mind together if you want to make a change in what you speak of with such conviction, or don't and just complain from your living room. But really, if this thread is a small window into how you would approach this problem IRL, then you've got a long way to go to.

tl;dr: This cop did a great job at doing his job. If you want to make a change in his job; then get your mind straight. There's a difference between willing to cut anything and knowing what you're trying to cut with your blade; that's the difference between a madman and an assassin.

 

Being a huge gun and rights advocate I know plenty about CA gun laws and how terrible they are.


The cbs news story states she had a restraining order which is a civil order not a criminal order. She would have needed an order of protection to get something criminally done against her ex. Sad story though. They should have contacted Denver that falls on dispatch.

The largest gang in America video is sooo one sided I could not watch the whole thing. What about the millions of times police did good work and helped somebody in need. I did not see video of that. Rotten apple theory.


http://www.fletc.gov/training/progra...top-frisk.html

Officer was within his legal right to conduct a Terry Frisk for safety.


I know cops are not all good and do not all do great work. I am all for bringing wrong on both sides of the fence to justice.



I am also not from TN btw.

 

From reading that, it seems the officer would require reasonable suspicion that the man stopped who was open carrying was doing a criminal activity. Huh...I guess I was unaware that exercising your right to carry a firearm means you're instantly pegged as a criminal. Isn't that illegal profiling? Thank god we have the blue mafia to not give a shit about the laws that will put them in jail. And thank goodness that IA never seems to arrest these cops who are illegally detaining citizens.

 

Wow, some of you guys seem to just be looking to go out of your way to turn a decent situation into a chance to complain.

The cop in the video was doing his job, and doing it politely and respectfully.

Newsflash: Some people don't like guns. And cops have a responsibility to make sure that someone walking down the street is carrying legally. So what's the big deal? No harm, no foul. Wanna increase you likelihood of NOT get stopped for 3 minutes by a cop? Don't strap a gun to your waist. Simple as that. Otherwise, you deal with the possible implications of a law officer making sure you're not up to no good. How dare he.

< And yes, I'm a gun rights advocate.

 

So if you are being terry frisked, it seems like they wouldnt have the right to search/open a pack of cigarettes, right?

 

A Terry Frisk is for safety and is for weapons only. It is a pat down of the outer garments.


An Officer cannot remove a pack of cigarettes from you and open it unless you consented to it. Or you are being placed under arrest.

 

many seem to be missing a critical point that this vid illustrates. the cop may have started out ok, but when a "victim" starts to stand up to police authority, the messed up treatment starts to come out and that is wrong/should be illegal. police expect people they stop to grovel at their feet and anything else in insubordination. the only thing this cop did well was save his own ass from getting bad behavior caught on tape. what do you think would have happened if the camera has been concealed?

 

You don't have any idea how the cop would've acted if there was no video. For all you know, that's just how he acts, always.

I love that to cop haters, good behavior caught on camera is automatically assumed to be a product of the camera. It sounds like you've condemned this individual already just for being in blue.

 

are you honestly saying you didn't notice how his tone and behavior changed after he realized he was being filmed? not my fault cops are easy to hate.