TexasCHLforum.com

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:

flb_78 wrote:

C-dub wrote:It probably should have been called in on the non-emergency line, but how many of us have that number programmed into our phones?

Not trying to be smart but I actually do.

That was actually flb's. However,I too have the non-emergency number for my city in my phone. I also have the numbers for several other cities around me that I frequent and also the animal control numbers for the cities that have one. I also have the Dallas and Fort Worth highway assistance courtesy patrol numbers too. I sure am glad these phones hold as many numbers as they do now.

Why do I always forget to delete the extra quote boxes?

That is a rhetorical question.

flb_78 wrote:It probably should have been called in on the non-emergency line, but how many of us have that number programmed into our phones?

I do, but it hasn't been much help.

flb_78 wrote:It probably should have been called in on the non-emergency line, but how many of us have that number programmed into our phones?

I do and I use it all the time, its also the number where I call to get permission to use the range, let them know when we have people inside where I work after hours, and report disabled motorist and/or accidents (I live 20 miles away from work).

jimlongley wrote:

flb_78 wrote:It probably should have been called in on the non-emergency line, but how many of us have that number programmed into our phones?

I do, but it hasn't been much help.

I also had Amarillo's and Potter County's non-emergency numbers in my phone. When I lived in Texas.

If police arrest people who aren't breaking the law, maybe the answer is to call 911 and report more people who aren't breaking the law. Armored car couriers. Armed security guards. Plainclothes cops. Especially feds.

miajaipi wrote:If police arrest people who aren't breaking the law, maybe the answer is to call 911 and report more people who aren't breaking the law. Armored car couriers. Armed security guards. Plainclothes cops. Especially feds.

He did say he wanted citizens to call 911 EVERY TIME they see a gun..

I guess that means Everyone!

G.A. Heath wrote:99.9% of the time when a Law Enforcement Officer says subject they do not use it in a manner meaning someone who is ruled over. The meaning attached to the word in this case is almost always individual or person. Some folks are reading a little too much into this.

Words have meanings. If they meant citizen, person, suspect, man or woman they should says so. In this case, the meaning of the spoken words are supported by the actions of the department. Their disregard for for our laws, constitution and fellow citizens has been made clear. These people divide the world into 2 classes the ruling class and the ruled. They know that they get to punish people even if they break no law. The common folk who displease the the elete, still have to go to court, pay the bonds, pay the lawyer and miss work,find little pleasure in being found innocent while the elitist chief and DA goes unpunished with full pay.
The real criminals are those who pursue the disarmament of the law abiding. Maybe the courts should order the disarmament of the criminal Madison Police Department and let them see how they like it.

dicion wrote:

miajaipi wrote:If police arrest people who aren't breaking the law, maybe the answer is to call 911 and report more people who aren't breaking the law. Armored car couriers. Armed security guards. Plainclothes cops. Especially feds.

He did say he wanted citizens to call 911 EVERY TIME they see a gun..

I guess that means Everyone!

I really like that idea. Next time I see a local Houston LEO, I am going to call up the Chief of Police in Wisconsin and advise man/woman with a gun. I hope it starts to annoy him.

SgtMac wrote:I'm seriously considering tossing some coppers in the bucket for their legal defense.

If their coppers are anywhere near as fat as the ones here, you're going to need a big bucket.

Oh...you meant money...nevermind.

Liberty wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:99.9% of the time when a Law Enforcement Officer says subject they do not use it in a manner meaning someone who is ruled over. The meaning attached to the word in this case is almost always individual or person. Some folks are reading a little too much into this.

Words have meanings. If they meant citizen, person, suspect, man or woman they should says so. In this case, the meaning of the spoken words are supported by the actions of the department. Their disregard for for our laws, constitution and fellow citizens has been made clear. These people divide the world into 2 classes the ruling class and the ruled. They know that they get to punish people even if they break no law. The common folk who displease the the elete, still have to go to court, pay the bonds, pay the lawyer and miss work,find little pleasure in being found innocent while the elitist chief and DA goes unpunished with full pay.
The real criminals are those who pursue the disarmament of the law abiding. Maybe the courts should order the disarmament of the criminal Madison Police Department and let them see how they like it.

I (meaning myself) don't (meaning do not) believe (meaning have confidence that this is the truth) that you (meaning Liberty) really (meaning as apposed to what was posted earlier) want (meaning desire) to go down this road (meaning to take this course of action).

The English language often provides contextual clues to the meaning of words. Sometimes those clues are the speaker, words spoken (or written) with it, or even the intended audience. I disagree with the actions of the officers, but going after a professional for using the language as he was trained to do is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. I have this bad habit of calling things like I see them, and in this case anyone who tries to make a federal case over the use of the word subject(s) really needs to find better material for a debate.

The subject verbed the object.

The adjective subject adverbly verbed the expletive object.

I don't think the chief considers us subjects but his memo infers we are to be treated as such. Gov't has become King. See Avery vs. GBRA (Guadalupe Blanco River Authority)
According to Webster Subject = one subject to a monarch and governed by the monarch's law or one who lives in the territory of, enjoys the protection of, and owes allegiance to a sovereign power or state

flb_78 wrote:

C-dub wrote:I know it won't happen, but what about charging her with misuse of 911? She gave all the information needed to do that on her own. There was no emergency!

She truthfully thought she was calling in a crime. Open carry is still fairly new to Wisconsin. The lady was regretful for bothering the police once she learned that no laws were being broken. None of the Madison 5 have any harsh feelings for the lady. The police are the ones who overreacted to law abiding citizens.

It probably should have been called in on the non-emergency line, but how many of us have that number programmed into our phones?

Sounds like a thousand other inquiry type calls to 911, "Is this normal, acceptable, legal, etc.?" No real misuse as I see it, just ignorance. Not stupid just ignorant, as in, "I was ignorant of that fact."

Dragonfighter wrote:

flb_78 wrote:

C-dub wrote:I know it won't happen, but what about charging her with misuse of 911? She gave all the information needed to do that on her own. There was no emergency!

She truthfully thought she was calling in a crime. Open carry is still fairly new to Wisconsin. The lady was regretful for bothering the police once she learned that no laws were being broken. None of the Madison 5 have any harsh feelings for the lady. The police are the ones who overreacted to law abiding citizens.

It probably should have been called in on the non-emergency line, but how many of us have that number programmed into our phones?

Sounds like a thousand other inquiry type calls to 911, "Is this normal, acceptable, legal, etc.?" No real misuse as I see it, just ignorance. Not stupid just ignorant, as in, "I was ignorant of that fact."

Although the same outcome probably would have resulted whether 911 or the non-emergency number was called I think it was still misuse. Not quite abuse, but there was no emergency. The caller clearly stated that she did not feel threatened and just didn't know if it was legal or not.