Search found 2 matches
Return to “Almost went to jail!!!”
- Fri Jan 01, 2016 11:44 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Almost went to jail!!!
- Replies: 292
- Views: 65158
Re: Almost went to jail!!!
Makes no sense to me. If I walk past an improper 30.07 sign of which I fully understand both sides of the coin, my only net expected outcome is eventually a verbal request. There is no challenge to the sign other than for them to fix it, as the management has already stated their opinion. My walking past makes no statement at all.
- Fri Jan 01, 2016 11:15 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Almost went to jail!!!
- Replies: 292
- Views: 65158
Re: Almost went to jail!!!
I have followed this story from the start but am now seeing something else. If you didn't take a ride for your conviction, what was gained? It would seem that this action only reinforced the restaurant's use of the signs and looked bad on LTC.PSTL*PAKR wrote:Totally agree with you.thetexan wrote:I guess I have mixed feelings about all of this.
It irks me that one half of the parties in the contract (so to speak), the sign posting establishments, do not have to post compliant signs. If someone can call the police on OCers why isn't there a way to do something about their non-compliance?
We are expected to live by the specifics of the law, but they don't have to. And, when it comes down to a contest between the two, the establishment is given the benefit of the doubt the offender, who technically is not offending, is scolded, arrested, or worse as if the burden of fulfilling the contract (the law that specifies requirements to both parties) rest solely on the OCer.
That's a sad system.
How many of us are afraid to risk the ride rather than to insist that establishments are just as responsible to follow the compliance law as we are to follow compliant notices? Do we fear they, whoever they are, may take our freedom away from us if we protest too much?
Why should a LEO have anything to say at all to a OCer when he is being completely lawful. IN FACT, IT IS THE ESTABLISHMENT THAT IS FAILING TO ABIDE BY THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE LAW!!! Of all people the LEO should know that the OCer has done nothing wrong and rather than making him to feel like a criminal why not advise the establishment to get ITS act together?
The LEO should, if asked by the establishment, give his verbal 30.06 or 30.07 notice and be on his way. I almost want to say how dare they presume to admonish the OCer for doing nothing but following the law as written. That requires the LEO to be solidly clear on the law which most are. Fairness in the application of a law written to and for both parties is not too much to ask.
So I am torn about how to feel about this kind of situation.
To quote Hamlet...."...Thus, conscience, does make cowards of us all. And thus the native hue of resolution, is sullied ore' the pale cast of thought."
And let me add, I am one of those who would rather retreat and fight on another battlefield of legislation and try to make a point in front of a family eating their dinner at a restaurant and make life more difficult for the rest of OCers.
BUT IT TICKS ME OFF THAT IS SHOULD BE THIS WAY!!!
tex
