Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:I can basically guarantee you that the vast majority of people in the United States are not law abiding.

It's illegal to posses a lobster. @ your earlier post, that's about what I figured.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
I'd really be more interested in why you can't fit a snubbie in your pocket

It's not the snub nose, 2 1/2 inch barrel for one and two if I'm carrying defensively I don't want to be fething around in my pocket when I could have a clean straight draw instead.

Also at the time I could only open carry as this was before permitless CCW came to AZ.

Most of your point is well met, but I and most if not all of the folks I know consider 2.5 inch a Snub.

 quickfuze wrote:

Actually the overuse of SWAT as you call it is a good thing. If you read any articles on the "shock and awe" effect of a tatical team, versus that of uniformed officers, it shows that SWAT usually results in less injury and death to subjects do to the pschological effect that even the appearance of the teams have on suspects. There would actually be more shootings if you used regular police to try to apprehend violent subjects.

I'm sure it does, of course that result might also indicate that SWAT raids tend to result in less injury and death because they are often conducted in instances which do not warrant them.

And, while it may be a good thing with respect to injury and death, it might not be a good thing with respect to overall cost and public image. Contrary to popular belief, human lives do have price tags and storming the houses of average Americans only to be proven unjustified usually has a negative PR effect.

In America, we are wiling to die or kill to keep are freedom. I say more peopling dieing is a fare price to pay for having fewer swat raids. The US is crazy like that.

SWAT officers are regular police officers too, they just do extra training to get/keep their SWAT designation.

I'd rather have a situation where the SWAT deployment was not needed then not send them on a call that turns ugly and would have been avoided by them.

Their entire purpose is to swiftly aprehend a suspect that has a potentially high danger level.

Besides, this keeps them sharp for the really serious situations.

 quickfuze wrote:
kids unaware of the horror he sees everyday. He is the one that creates the buffer between the law abiding citizen and the criminal (tries to anyway). He is the one that sees the abused spouse, the tortured children, the sadist, rapists, pedophiles and the like. He carries that burden, the physical and mental scars, the lack of appreciation from the general public...does all this for not alot of pay and when he comes home he has to put on his "daddy" face. Tell the wife everything was fine, take the kids to soccer practice etc.

.. You're a forum moderator too ?

 AustonT wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
I think the point that is being made by the activists is that Police cannot just stop you for no good reason. Stopping people just to check if someone is a US citizen is unreasonable..I.E the person did nothing wrong. In most states a LEO has to have a reasonable suspicion that you have done something wrong, in order to detain a person.

Is it reasonable to suspect that a brown person driving a car (or being brown) is an illegal immigrant?

I don't think so, but that's the crux of the debate regarding laws akin to the one passed in Arizona.

That's kind of a stretch. I mean I think we agree on the basic issue just not how the law works. A year before 1070 was even proposed a friend of mine on PHX PD told me he suspected a guy of being illegal and after less than 2 blocks of following him pulled him over for failure to signal and hooked him up for DUI. This is the same tactic that will be used under 1070 with varying outcomes because its just plain common police tactics with what is now an infamous law overshadowing it. seatbeklt laws bro, they are evil.

It becomes racist if the same treatment is not given to white drivers.

 generalgrog wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:
LoL...this thread kills me....having been a LEO since 1997 I can tell you this, its all how you write it up. Traffic, standing, camera or no camera you can justify any stop if you are intelligent and really want to. In the case of the one video, look at all those Texas Rangers in one area. WHo is to say the camera man was not involved in the original incident and is now taping the LEO response to an emergency situation. This could be intel gathering for a future critical incident plan. It could then be investigated and DETAINED for concerns under Homeland Security. Once detained you DO have to present your ID, and if you refuse, no problem....the jail has a finger print machine. How much is YOUR time worth? I'm getting paid and even get over-time to play your game if it goes over. More sexy GW models for me thanks to you being a knucklehead. Most of you have at least 1 vehicle infraction on your car, whether that be tire tread depth or what-have-you, so justifying a taffic stop is no different. Failed to signal a turn, loud stereo, window tint, you get the idea.

So your proud that you can abuse the power that law abiding tax payers have given you? Great example.



GG

He's just being realistic. Hey if you don't like it, quit voting for legislatures that pass stupid laws.
On the other hand, all interactions I've had with police in the past decade have been very professional. It helps that I don't act like an donkey-cave around them and generally obey the traffic laws.

TBone's interactions have been equally good. One helped him get into the van at the park one day. Of course His Magnificence expects no less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 dogma wrote:
I can basically guarantee you that the vast majority of people in the United States are not law abiding.

Law abiding, or acting fully within the law 100% of the time?

I'd say law abiding, and generally within the law. Take out government regulations and much closer to fully within the law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 quickfuze wrote:
I don't consider it abusing anything.....there is something that aroused my suspicion about you, or I wouldn't be interacting with you. Now if that is because someone wants to use douchebaggery to try and prove their point, well now you're playing my game. It's funny, no one wants to be BOTHERED by the police until something happens to them and then its "why weren't you here faster, why were you patrolling my street every 10 mins". We are an inconvenience until we are not. Again this falls into the ME ME ME ME concept currently plaguing America. Everyone demands to be left alone until its convenient for them to need to interact with the police. Effective policing comes from a PROACTIVE approach not a REACTIVE approach. Law abiding, contributing members of society recognize this and are willing to endure a certain level of inconvenience for the greater security of the whole. Others are just egocentric, and are only concerned with what fits into making their own little world revolve around them.

I'd never trust police to actually help me or show in time to help me. Thats just stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 quickfuze wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Again this falls into the ME ME ME ME concept currently plaguing America.

Well, y'know, that and the thousands of annual cases of police abuse of power in the United states.

And the overuse of SWAT...and the overemphasis on police protecting themselves.

Actually the overuse of SWAT as you call it is a good thing. If you read any articles on the "shock and awe" effect of a tatical team, versus that of uniformed officers, it shows that SWAT usually results in less injury and death to subjects due to the psychological effect that even the appearance of the teams have on suspects. There would actually be more shootings if you used regular police to try to apprehend violent subjects.

UNless you hit the wrong house, or shoot a dog, a give grandma a heart attack. The "war on drugs" has been one of the greatest erosion of our civil rights in the history of the Republic.

 Frazzled wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Anyone know how it changes state to state with a pistol permit? I carry in Colorado, so I have a duty to inform officers that I'm armed, present a state photo I.D. (Driver's License usually) and my CCW in the manner least likely to make a rookie nervous if I'm stopped on foot or in a vehicle.

Texas is the same.

You're not required to volunteer the information that you're carrying in Virginia. I usually do with State Police, just because they've been, in my experience, dialed-in and rational. Northern Virginia local cops, though? Hell, no. You could do a, "Good day, officer, before anything else I wish to inform you that I am a concealed carry permit holder and I am currently carrying a weapon on my person. You will note how I am keeping my hands firmly on the steering wheel, and should you need me to reach for anything, I will move at the speed of frozen molasses. I would be delighted to provide you with all the information you require and take any other steps that would make you feel more comfortable during our interaction," but you'd get to maybe the words 'concealed carry' before you were over the hood of your car.

And Jebus help you if you carry a 1911 cocked and locked. "Holy gak, do you know how dangerous this is? We just saved your ass, guy! This is probably illegal. Hey, Joe, is this illegal?"

 Seaward wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Anyone know how it changes state to state with a pistol permit? I carry in Colorado, so I have a duty to inform officers that I'm armed, present a state photo I.D. (Driver's License usually) and my CCW in the manner least likely to make a rookie nervous if I'm stopped on foot or in a vehicle.

Texas is the same.

You're not required to volunteer the information that you're carrying in Virginia. I usually do with State Police, just because they've been, in my experience, dialed-in and rational. Northern Virginia local cops, though? Hell, no. You could do a, "Good day, officer, before anything else I wish to inform you that I am a concealed carry permit holder and I am currently carrying a weapon on my person. You will note how I am keeping my hands firmly on the steering wheel, and should you need me to reach for anything, I will move at the speed of frozen molasses. I would be delighted to provide you with all the information you require and take any other steps that would make you feel more comfortable during our interaction," but you'd get to maybe the words 'concealed carry' before you were over the hood of your car.

And Jebus help you if you carry a 1911 cocked and locked. "Holy gak, do you know how dangerous this is? We just saved your ass, guy! This is probably illegal. Hey, Joe, is this illegal?"

In Texas its very required. Ironically, its legal to have a firearm in your car, and you don't have to tell them...unless you have CHL.

The Wife was pulled over, handed her CHL and id, and the officer went from businesslike to 'well I'm just going to give you a warning, and hey whatcha carrying. Oh yea those are good guns...blah blah blah'

 Frazzled wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Anyone know how it changes state to state with a pistol permit? I carry in Colorado, so I have a duty to inform officers that I'm armed, present a state photo I.D. (Driver's License usually) and my CCW in the manner least likely to make a rookie nervous if I'm stopped on foot or in a vehicle.

Texas is the same.

You're not required to volunteer the information that you're carrying in Virginia. I usually do with State Police, just because they've been, in my experience, dialed-in and rational. Northern Virginia local cops, though? Hell, no. You could do a, "Good day, officer, before anything else I wish to inform you that I am a concealed carry permit holder and I am currently carrying a weapon on my person. You will note how I am keeping my hands firmly on the steering wheel, and should you need me to reach for anything, I will move at the speed of frozen molasses. I would be delighted to provide you with all the information you require and take any other steps that would make you feel more comfortable during our interaction," but you'd get to maybe the words 'concealed carry' before you were over the hood of your car.

And Jebus help you if you carry a 1911 cocked and locked. "Holy gak, do you know how dangerous this is? We just saved your ass, guy! This is probably illegal. Hey, Joe, is this illegal?"

In Texas its very required. Ironically, its legal to have a firearm in your car, and you don't have to tell them...unless you have CHL.

The Wife was pulled over, handed her CHL and id, and the officer went from businesslike to 'well I'm just going to give you a warning, and hey whatcha carrying. Oh yea those are good guns...blah blah blah'

I used to think carrying a 1911 at condition one was insane... now that I've actually done it I'd say on average it's safer then carrying a glock period XD.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:I used to think carrying a 1911 at condition one was insane... now that I've actually done it I'd say on average it's safer then carrying a glock period XD.

You're gonna have to explain this one to me. How in the world have you managed to arrive at this conclusion, especially with regard to the safety that glocks employ.

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:I used to think carrying a 1911 at condition one was insane... now that I've actually done it I'd say on average it's safer then carrying a glock period XD.

You're gonna have to explain this one to me. How in the world have you managed to arrive at this conclusion, especially with regard to the safety that glocks employ.

Glocks have a bit of a reputation with their "internal only" safety for accidental/negligent discharges. In fact depending on your opinion the Glock doesn't have a safety at all. Certainly nothing vaguely as safe or effective as a manual safety. The last bit was honestly more or less a joke though I personally am not a Glock man. I do find their safety system a bit suspect but with the sheer number of Glocks in LEO and civilian hands world wide it's clearly effective, I even have a Smith and Wesson M&P that is set up similarly... though for just that reason I carry it at condition three. (Mag inserted, no round in chamber)

For those who don't know, when we say "cocked and locked" or "condition one" we mean like this:

Which is to say, magazine inserted, round in chamber, safety on.

Carrying a 1911 on the other hand features a couple different safeties all of which have to be disengaged to allow the weapon to discharge. So a condition one 1911 really isn't that dangerous if you're informed on how they function. The manual safety is first, followed by a grip safety on the back strap of the pistol grip and then third "safety" aka proper trigger control. The pistol will not discharge without a serious internal malfunction if all the safeties aren't properly disengaged before attempting to fire.

Here's a full article on "cocked and locked" 1911 carry. http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/tech/cockedandlocked.htm

Edit and just for funsies here's a DEA agent giving himself a case of "Glock foot" while giving a lecture to a bunch of students.

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:I used to think carrying a 1911 at condition one was insane... now that I've actually done it I'd say on average it's safer then carrying a glock period XD.

You're gonna have to explain this one to me. How in the world have you managed to arrive at this conclusion, especially with regard to the safety that glocks employ.

I read KMs response and he's on point but I would like to answer as well.
Glock doesn't have a safety, yeah yeah trigger safety, it's as useful as a sticker that says warning on a blinking red button. If you have your booger hanger on or around the go button it's going to go; clearly a design flaw. Glocks safety system is designed to keep it from going off when dropped, jostled, or bumped. It's a great system. It does not address the human component, which is what the slide and grip safety do. The 1911 is more susceptible to drop fires in its original configuration surprise surprise so was the Glock. Most now have series 80 or similar firing block which makes it arguably safer than a Glock.

 AustonT wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:I used to think carrying a 1911 at condition one was insane... now that I've actually done it I'd say on average it's safer then carrying a glock period XD.

You're gonna have to explain this one to me. How in the world have you managed to arrive at this conclusion, especially with regard to the safety that glocks employ.

I read KMs response and he's on point but I would like to answer as well.
Glock doesn't have a safety, yeah yeah trigger safety, it's as useful as a sticker that says warning on a blinking red button. If you have your booger hanger on or around the go button it's going to go; clearly a design flaw. Glocks safety system is designed to keep it from going off when dropped, jostled, or bumped. It's a great system. It does not address the human component, which is what the slide and grip safety do. The 1911 is more susceptible to drop fires in its original configuration surprise surprise so was the Glock. Most now have series 80 or similar firing block which makes it arguably safer than a Glock.

Kimber's ProCarry 1911's have a reputation for being reliable, safe pistols:

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/review/KimberProCarry.htm wrote:
When testing the Kimbers, 16 different Pro Carry II’s were shot, firing 23,000 + rounds. So impressed was the test staff that they went out and purchased an off-the-shelf Pro Carry II and ran 5K through it. No problems were encountered. Other than the Kimbers, pistols had a failure rate as high as 22%. Kimber had the lowest failure rate Tacoma PD has recorded in over 20 years of testing for any type of firearm – less than one half of one percent! They also determined that the Kimber was safer than other test pistols when the safety was in the “on” position. “The Kimbers we tested had the lowest failure rate of any guns I have ever tested or shot, less than 1/10 of 1 percent. We tested 37 different guns and none of the others were even close,” said Sgt. Mark Jenkins, Tacoma Police Range Master.

IIRC the data I got when I worked at the gun store was that the pistols were all dropped from "shoulder height" (about 5') in various attitudes; Butt down, Hammer down, Barrel down. Kimber out-performed in every category. So much for 1911's being unsfe in condition 1.

I didn't intend to start a debate about the relative safety of carrying Glocks vs. 1911s. My point was that most cops aren't "gun people," and like most non-cop non-gun people, they see a cocked and locked 1911 and assume it's about half a second away from going off. It's annoying to have a civilian suggesting I'm being unsafe; it's downright infuriating to have a cop do so, especially because they can keep your ass on the side of the road for quite a long time if you're doing something they don't like.

Which has more to do with the police not being educated on the laws they are supposed to enforce.

This isn't exactly their fault. A cop has better things to do then read up on our fethed up laws.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:I used to think carrying a 1911 at condition one was insane... now that I've actually done it I'd say on average it's safer then carrying a glock period XD.

You're gonna have to explain this one to me. How in the world have you managed to arrive at this conclusion, especially with regard to the safety that glocks employ.

Glocks have a bit of a reputation with their "internal only" safety for accidental/negligent discharges. In fact depending on your opinion the Glock doesn't have a safety at all. Certainly nothing vaguely as safe or effective as a manual safety. The last bit was honestly more or less a joke though I personally am not a Glock man. I do find their safety system a bit suspect but with the sheer number of Glocks in LEO and civilian hands world wide it's clearly effective, I even have a Smith and Wesson M&P that is set up similarly... though for just that reason I carry it at condition three. (Mag inserted, no round in chamber)

I read the article... it keeps referring to glock's accidental discharges, but I was always under the impression that most of glock's misfires were the result of the design's highly stupid manner of disassembly, and people firing into their own hands. (I should say at this point, I personally dislike glocks and greatly prefer the 1911 as well.)

Why are you disassembling the gun while its loaded in the first place? That just seems the height of stupidity.

Grey Templar wrote:Why are you disassembling the gun while its loaded in the first place? That just seems the height of stupidity.

Because some fools do not practice proper firearm safety, and sometimes assume that there is no round chambered after they eject the magazine. The glock for some reason requires a partial trigger pull in order to remove the slide, and thus has been known to send a bullet into someone's palm and up their arm. (even thinking about that makes me cringe)

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which has more to do with the police not being educated on the laws they are supposed to enforce.

This isn't exactly their fault. A cop has better things to do then read up on our fethed up laws.

I think this is a great point back on topic. It seems like things would go a lot better if LEO were better trained on how to act when citizens express their right to film them and also their right to question detainment. Here is a good example of a police officer overreacting..albeit he remained calm. he didn't need to call in 6 or 7 other LEO's though. That was quite ridiculous.




GG

 azazel the cat wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Why are you disassembling the gun while its loaded in the first place? That just seems the height of stupidity.

Because some fools do not practice proper firearm safety, and sometimes assume that there is no round chambered after they eject the magazine. The glock for some reason requires a partial trigger pull in order to remove the slide, and thus has been known to send a bullet into someone's palm and up their arm. (even thinking about that makes me cringe)

It is a Darwinian device.

I really think that firearms should not have to be fool proof.

Fools should not handle guns.

 generalgrog wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which has more to do with the police not being educated on the laws they are supposed to enforce.

This isn't exactly their fault. A cop has better things to do then read up on our fethed up laws.

I think this is a great point back on topic. It seems like things would go a lot better if LEO were better trained on how to act when citizens express their right to film them and also their right to question detainment. Here is a good example of a police officer overreacting..albeit he remained calm. he didn't need to call in 6 or 7 other LEO's though. That was quite ridiculous.




GG

And that's a perfect example of someone being a douche nozzle for no good reason. It's his 'neener neener, can't touch me' attitude that gets up cops noses and causes the situation to deteriorate.

The way I read the situation, the biker is annoyed at having been stopped for the fifth time because he is riding an electric bicycle without a helmet.

That said, it would be easier to give your driver's licence.

So to offset the negative cop videos. Here's a police officer in Oceanside doing it right. Now I do have an issue with this mook carrying because he didn't have his I.D. or CCW on him. Both of which you should have if you have your weapon on you. So this guy was clearly trying to prove a point in /not/ making life easy on the extremely professional and reasonable officer.




Also fun fact, open carry whether your have a permit or not is now illegal in California.

generalgrog wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which has more to do with the police not being educated on the laws they are supposed to enforce.

This isn't exactly their fault. A cop has better things to do then read up on our fethed up laws.

I think this is a great point back on topic. It seems like things would go a lot better if LEO were better trained on how to act when citizens express their right to film them and also their right to question detainment. Here is a good example of a police officer overreacting..albeit he remained calm. he didn't need to call in 6 or 7 other LEO's though. That was quite ridiculous.




GG

Too smart for his own good my ass. He lacks the tact to make the situation work for him. He's lucky that cops don't just beat the gak out of people anymore. The response by SMPD was a little much, I'm pretty sure he just called for his partner and a supervisor. The narration on the video just makes me want to shove that piece of paper down his throat.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So to offset the negative cop videos. Here's a police officer in Oceanside doing it right. Now I do have an issue with this mook carrying because he didn't have his I.D. or CCW on him. Both of which you should have if you have your weapon on you. So this guy was clearly trying to prove a point in /not/ making life easy on the extremely professional and reasonable officer.




Also fun fact, open carry whether your have a permit or not is now illegal in California.

When did that change?

=/ Something police officers hate; being made to look like fools when they're trying to enforce something that's been proven to be nonsensical.

My dad gets the police at his door at least once a month over domestic issues with our neighbours. Each time the charge's have been shown to be bull, but they keep coming back month after month with new ones. He handles them in an civil manner, especially considering the attitude of some officers. When he makes a counter claim of say slander against his name, or any other domestic charge (this time with clear evidence), they treat him, not the accused like gak (or ignore the call altogether). Is that because he's now got a black mark against his name for disarming their heavy handed approach every time with common sense and his rights, or are the police not as impartial as they want to make us believe (40 something being charged by a deeply Catholic pair of pensioners for abuse sounds less plausible than the reverse I assume). =P

Yup, there may be a hundred and one factors coming into play that aren't immediately apparent, but your average police officer seems to take the scene as they first see it and not change their view from there.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So to offset the negative cop videos. Here's a police officer in Oceanside doing it right. Now I do have an issue with this mook carrying because he didn't have his I.D. or CCW on him. Both of which you should have if you have your weapon on you. So this guy was clearly trying to prove a point in /not/ making life easy on the extremely professional and reasonable officer.




Also fun fact, open carry whether your have a permit or not is now illegal in California.

LOL even the PD in CA asks you if you're a police officer if you're open carrying.

 Grey Templar wrote:


When did that change?

http://www.californiaopencarry.org/faq.html

Open carry of loaded firearms has been illegal in California since Governor Reagan banned it back in 1968. With the recent passage and signing of AB 144 by Govenor Brown, Open Carry of unloaded handguns is no longer legal in most of California effective Jan 1, 2012. As such, most of this FAQ was obsolete and has been deleted.

generalgrog wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which has more to do with the police not being educated on the laws they are supposed to enforce.

This isn't exactly their fault. A cop has better things to do then read up on our fethed up laws.

I think this is a great point back on topic. It seems like things would go a lot better if LEO were better trained on how to act when citizens express their right to film them and also their right to question detainment. Here is a good example of a police officer overreacting..albeit he remained calm. he didn't need to call in 6 or 7 other LEO's though. That was quite ridiculous.




GG

I'm confused: he was originally pulled over because he was not wearing a helmet while operating his vehicle, and in the end he was issued a valid ticket for not wearing a helmet while operating his vehicle.

Exactly what rights were violated?

Thats dumb, how else am I supposed to carry around a weapon. I can't it loaded, thats commen sense. I can't carry it unloaded, thats just uncalled for.

It the gun you don't see thats the threat, people should know that.


If a person is openly displaying their weapon, the chance of them being a person that is about to commit a crime is almost zero(unless they are displaying the weapon while commiting the crime)



Obviously we must now resort to carrying non-firearm weaponry.

Hmmm, shall I wear my warhammer, my sabre, or my galdius today? Or maybe my Naginata? its more useful walking up and down the hills around here


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which has more to do with the police not being educated on the laws they are supposed to enforce.

This isn't exactly their fault. A cop has better things to do then read up on our fethed up laws.

I think this is a great point back on topic. It seems like things would go a lot better if LEO were better trained on how to act when citizens express their right to film them and also their right to question detainment. Here is a good example of a police officer overreacting..albeit he remained calm. he didn't need to call in 6 or 7 other LEO's though. That was quite ridiculous.




GG

I'm confused: he was originally pulled over because he was not wearing a helmet while operating his vehicle, and in the end he was issued a valid ticket for not wearing a helmet while operating his vehicle.

Exactly what rights were violated?

The guy on that video is a complete dumbass. You are required to wear a helmet while riding a bike(of any kind)