Maybe you missed the part where I (and we) said cops aren't perfect, the law isn't perfect, our system is far from perfect, etc. etc. etc...

Except none of that has to do with this thread. Hell if every cop was that polite as was the OP's video, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation right now. While we "trolls" are level headed; you continue to rant and rave everytime you see a badge just because you have some inner quarrel with the boys in blue. Kyushin, how do you smog your car with the SOS kit? Are you just bitter that there are laws in place, and you have to constantly look over your shoulder because you knowingly break them? But seriously, what is with your blind hatred for every single cop that walks the Earth?

 

Yes.

This is exactly what the rest of us are saying.

 

If you think of our politicians as a group that sets boundaries on individual freedoms, the police are their street level enforcers. That's my problem with them. Whether they are a nice enforcer or a mean enforcer, they are still enforcing regulations that limit my freedom. I don't blame them for the laws we have, I blame them for willingly and knowingly restricting my rights, to the point of ensuring that a tool that could be used to save my life is almost useless.

 

LOL at explaining yourself to a cop!
Think about this sentence you may have heard-
"you have the right to remain silent, any thing you say can and WILL be used against you in the court of law"

But what does that sentence mean? It's pretty simple, and there are no hidden meanings. YOU have the RIGHT to remain silent (this means that you do not have to talk to police or explain yourself. It stems from the 5th amendment that gives you the right to not be forced to incriminate yourself.) anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law (this means that if you do talk or try to explain yourself, it will do no good. Cops can not defend you in court. Can NOT defend you. They can't say "well we spoke with him during the field investigation and he seemed like a nice guy. I don't think he committed the crime." they can only say things in court that are held against you. They make this clear when they place you under arrest)

Your logic of explaining yourself to one of your servants is part of the reason police feel that they have so much power.

As far as getting upset when they tell you that you can't open carry, maybe you should read up on AB 144, aka the open carry ban. It has already passed assembly, another law that restricts my freedom and my right to defend my life. So soon I won't be able to open carry, and I still won't be able to get a concealed permit, so the 2A will be virtually null and void. What happened to Chicago V McDonald and the heller case? Just more proof that this country's politicians don't give a damn about laws, rights, or freedom.

 

That's not the cop's fault though, he's just enforcing the laws that someone else set.

If you wanna be pissed at someone, why not be pissed at the lawmakers? Why not be pissed at the general public who vote on things like open carry/concealed carry? Seems like you're just taking the easy way out by blaming the easiest scapegoat.

Blaming cops for not being able to open carry is like blaming guns for murder...

 

What? So you're telling me that cops, should be allowed to interject personal opinion into testimony? If you're being put in the back of a police car, and being read your miranda rights, even then... say your being accused of theft and you're in the back of the Crown Vic, what good does a pleasant conversation about the weather do? How is that relevant to what you're being accused of, or taken in for questioning? If you say "I didn't do it" does that mean they're supposed to believe you? Your Miranda rights is informing you ahead of time that anything you say to incriminate yourself will be used as evidence or in testimony. It's pretty fcking courteous actually. Or do you think you should be able to confess in the back of the cop car, and have it mean nothing? And are you seriously painting a future where the accused can simply be skipped over because they seemed pleasant?

Somewhere in the world Ted Bundy's corpse is rolling over in his grave wishing he was born in Dirty Koala's world. Your logic of the world and the criminal-justice system is so far past delusional dude. But you know what, part of me is sad that I don't live in your world... because the sick violent thoughts I have(had) could come to fruition and I could get away with it no problem with my world class poker face. Too bad we don't live in your world indeed... it would be a freaking playground for 5150's.

 

Can you explain your last sentence please? I feel as though my guns do not have a choice but to go off when i pull the trigger. They can not quit their job if they are dissatisfied with throwing lead down range, they can not make decisions, they can not think on their own. when i pull the trigger, the hammer drops and a bullet flies out of the barrel. Cops on the other hand, do get to make choices. When a politician creates a law that goes against the police officers oath to uphold the constitution, the officer can use his grey matter and say "im not going to enforce that law" or "im not going to continue this job".

The public did not vote on AB144, it was strictly the fault of a politician that I hate. Why blame the cops for the politicians law? because like i said, they are the enforcers of his law. if the politicians were the ones that actually had to enforce the laws that they make, i would have even more of a problem with the politician.

If your boss told you to go F your self, would you do it? you have an option not to, or to quit your job, just as cops do.

if i were to peacefully contest the open carry ban if it goes into effect, and i open carried on a street corner while reading a news paper, what do you think the cops would do? they would use violence and/or physical force to detain me for peacefully exercising a constitutional right. kind of messed up.


you missed what i was saying man. i was saying that the quoted post was hilarious in saying "I just think arguing that you shouldn't have to explain yourself to a cop WHILE open carrying is silly."

we have courts to conduct trials, hear evidence, and convict people of crimes. i was just explaining to tuna that you dont have to explain yourself to a cop, and that you really shouldnt because it cant help you. cops are generally not there to be a judge and jury for you, though sometimes they are a judge, jury, and executioner. did you watch the video i posted of the lawyer explaining why its always a bad idea to talk to cops?

 

I don't know why I bother arguing in threads like this.

Let me make my point in the simplest possible way, since you chose to ignore the entire point of my 2 posts and fixate on one sentence you disagreed with.

My opinions:
-Open carry is a right and it is one we should fight for, even if it is regulated. The legislation you referred to is something you should lobby against. Go ahead and do so. I support you.
-Concealed carry SHOULD be a right because there is no logical argument against it if open carry is also legal (as it should be).
-Just because we should have these rights does not mean we should have them completely without regulation (for example, registering guns is something I find totally acceptable.)
-If you choose to open carry, and you do so in an average public place with normal city going folk, you should expect to be treated with fear and hostility because this is not the wild f@#king west. Whether or not those people are sad ignorant sheep to you is a moot point. You should expect that attitude because that is how our society is today, end of story.
-If you choose to open carry, and a cop comes up to ask you why you're carrying a gun and/or if you have a permit for it...I do not believe that is a horrible violation of your rights. Just because you HAVE the right to do something doesn't mean you should be able to exercise that right with no oversight and no restrictions. I believe that if you want to open carry you should be entirely willing to show any cop who asks proof that your gun is registered and that you're following all necessary regulations while carrying. I believe that would make you a responsible citizen exercising his rights in a reasonable fashion.

From your posts, I can see that you clearly have a problem with my opinion - MOSTLY with that last bit. Fine. Agree to disagree. Guess what? The reason that this is considered acceptable in our society .... is because .... wait for it... OUR SOCIETY has voted in politicians to represent us and THEY have catered to the voters by heavily regulating firearms. If you have a problem with that last bit of my bullet points, that's fine dude. Go ahead and lobby your local congressperson. Go door to door and attempt to convince the voting public. Do what you want, it's a free country. However, don't expect me and anyone else reasonable to think that the cop in the OP is some kind of horrible goon violating the constitution and horribly abusing your rights. He's doing his job, which is to enforce laws.

Now we come to the most ridiculous bit of your posts. You seem to believe that our police force should be interpreting the f@#king constitution and doing what is right based on that. Do you realize that in our country, the country based on the constitution you so adore, the job of interpreting the constitution goes to the Judicial branch? Enforcement falls under the Executive branch, which is specifically NOT supposed to be judging which laws are right or wrong. We have checks and balances in this country. You can say, if you like, that our lawmakers are stupid, and our judicial system is doing nothing to keep them in check. You can say that. Suggesting that police officers should simply ignore the laws that they are employed to enforce is ludicrous. Their job is not to selectively enforce laws based on their interpretation of the constitution. Your problem, sir, is with the legislature for passing those laws. Your problem is also with the judicial branch for upholding those laws. Your problem should not be with the cops. You're taking out your angst at the two previous parties on the third for no apparent reason.

 

Just wondering, have you tried this?

Or are you just basing your conclusion on a prejudiced assumption?

(That last question is rhetorical)

 

Not possible to try due to the ban not being in place. I have refused a search that went beyond what they were allowed to do and I was physically restrained while the illegal search happened.