TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote: why tolerate LEO contact on legal behavior?

E.Marquez wrote:

cb1000rider wrote: why tolerate LEO contact on legal behavior?

The same reason we tolerate and outright demand they stop someone who might be driving drunk, might be involved in selling drugs, might have been involved in a fight reported, might be the guy called in by a 911 caller as having been involved in a hit and run.

cb1000rider wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

cb1000rider wrote: why tolerate LEO contact on legal behavior?

The same reason we tolerate and outright demand they stop someone who might be driving drunk, might be involved in selling drugs, might have been involved in a fight reported, might be the guy called in by a 911 caller as having been involved in a hit and run.

None of those calls are about legal behavior.

So if there was a call about illegal or suspicious behavior, I get it... I understand why you might have to initiate contact.
My understanding is that if there is a call - that call must provide credible and specific information about what sort of questionable activity might be going on.
I also understand that these days it would be pretty bad if a call was made, it was not responded to, and there was a legitimate incident. You can initiate consensual contact without any basis of cause.

You can't call the police and say that I "might be selling drugs" - that's not enough to initiate non-consensual contact with me. You'd need to tell them that you saw me buy or sell something that looked like or was known to be drugs - or describe some behavior that warranted culpable suspicion. You can't expect them to stop me if I "might be drunk" - you'd need to see and report me for drinking, swerving, or perhaps (really low bar) frequenting an area where alcohol is sold...

gigag04 wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:

cb1000rider wrote: why tolerate LEO contact on legal behavior?

The same reason we tolerate and outright demand they stop someone who might be driving drunk, might be involved in selling drugs, might have been involved in a fight reported, might be the guy called in by a 911 caller as having been involved in a hit and run.

None of those calls are about legal behavior.

So if there was a call about illegal or suspicious behavior, I get it... I understand why you might have to initiate contact.
My understanding is that if there is a call - that call must provide credible and specific information about what sort of questionable activity might be going on.
I also understand that these days it would be pretty bad if a call was made, it was not responded to, and there was a legitimate incident. You can initiate consensual contact without any basis of cause.

You can't call the police and say that I "might be selling drugs" - that's not enough to initiate non-consensual contact with me. You'd need to tell them that you saw me buy or sell something that looked like or was known to be drugs - or describe some behavior that warranted culpable suspicion. You can't expect them to stop me if I "might be drunk" - you'd need to see and report me for drinking, swerving, or perhaps (really low bar) frequenting an area where alcohol is sold...

I'm half not to take the bait, but what saying, while technically true, does not reflect how things actually play out. For instance if I get an anonymous tip that you're selling dope, but I see you riding a bike without a headlight at night, guess what my PC will be based upon.

03Lightningrocks wrote:A guy walking down the street in a place where it is not a common sight would seem to be enough reason to stop a person and question them. Can anyone imagine the backlash against firearms ownership if it turned out the person was headed down to the local elementary school to take out a few dozen children and word got out that the cops didn't ask the guy questions because he was well within his rights to carry a gun down the street? I bet it wouldn't take three months for the right to open carry a long gun to disappear in every state in this country. Why can't the right to open carry a long gun down the street be utilized in case it is needed? Why is it necessary to use it as a way of getting attention? Live in a vacuum if you wish but believe me when I tell you that the majority of Americans in this country who are pro RKBA are not pro reckless abandonment to keep that right. A schoolyard full of dead kids and a report that a cop just let it happen, is just what it takes to cause people to give in to "common sense" gun laws.

gigag04 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:I don't think law enforcement officers are held to the exact same standards as a civilian. As a civilian, we have the option of walking away or even avoiding the situation. A law enforcement officer is duty bound to stand and verify the danger is neutralized. How about when an officer forcefully says, stop or I will shoot? Maybe this officer used a little more "color" than required but he had to be sure this guy got the message. When did we all become so touchy feely about a word? I am beginning to think the libtards and Obama have begun to have more of a sissyfying affect on us all than we thought. We are now gonna nit pick how a cop phrases his intentions if we go for our guns? I suppose I was raised with a little thicker skin than that... but then again... I also don't believe every kid that played soccer in the city league, win or lose, "deserves" a trophy.

Here is my perspective on what the cop said to him. "BooHoo, you hurt my little feelings. I was acting like a total fool and you said a mean thing to me. Boohoo, you said you would shoot me in my whittle head.". That about covers it.

We don't all have a commander-in-chief, only the military does, so the "civilian" distinction does not apply. Police are not superior beings. If they're not active duty military then they are "civilians" just like the rest of us who are no longer on active duty. My contact with police is not between civilian and military, it's between civilian and civilian, or better, citizen and citizen. We're not supposed to be the servants of LE, they are supposed be serve and protect us. And I totally agree, the country has been sissified, but it started before Obama, and most of the sissification is in the big cities.

I found this response a bit selective in its focus, and I think the terminology is a sidebar issue to what the OP was trying to communicate.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:I don't think law enforcement officers are held to the exact same standards as a civilian. As a civilian, we have the option of walking away or even avoiding the situation. A law enforcement officer is duty bound to stand and verify the danger is neutralized. How about when an officer forcefully says, stop or I will shoot? Maybe this officer used a little more "color" than required but he had to be sure this guy got the message. When did we all become so touchy feely about a word? I am beginning to think the libtards and Obama have begun to have more of a sissyfying affect on us all than we thought. We are now gonna nit pick how a cop phrases his intentions if we go for our guns? I suppose I was raised with a little thicker skin than that... but then again... I also don't believe every kid that played soccer in the city league, win or lose, "deserves" a trophy.

Here is my perspective on what the cop said to him. "BooHoo, you hurt my little feelings. I was acting like a total fool and you said a mean thing to me. Boohoo, you said you would shoot me in my whittle head.". That about covers it.

We don't all have a commander-in-chief, only the military does, so the "civilian" distinction does not apply. Police are not superior beings. If they're not active duty military then they are "civilians" just like the rest of us who are no longer on active duty. My contact with police is not between civilian and military, it's between civilian and civilian, or better, citizen and citizen. We're not supposed to be the servants of LE, they are supposed be serve and protect us. And I totally agree, the country has been sissified, but it started before Obama, and most of the sissification is in the big cities.

My goodness. Seriously? Commander in chief? wow! You are so far off base I don't even know where to begin. Not once did I say anything remotely relative to the response you gave. Please.... Give me a break!

Read my post over again and see if you find where I said anything about commander in chief or anyone being superior. If you are going to respond to my posts, please try not to put your own words into my mouth.

Many thanks.

VMI77 wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:I don't think law enforcement officers are held to the exact same standards as a civilian. As a civilian, we have the option of walking away or even avoiding the situation. A law enforcement officer is duty bound to stand and verify the danger is neutralized. How about when an officer forcefully says, stop or I will shoot? Maybe this officer used a little more "color" than required but he had to be sure this guy got the message. When did we all become so touchy feely about a word? I am beginning to think the libtards and Obama have begun to have more of a sissyfying affect on us all than we thought. We are now gonna nit pick how a cop phrases his intentions if we go for our guns? I suppose I was raised with a little thicker skin than that... but then again... I also don't believe every kid that played soccer in the city league, win or lose, "deserves" a trophy.

Here is my perspective on what the cop said to him. "BooHoo, you hurt my little feelings. I was acting like a total fool and you said a mean thing to me. Boohoo, you said you would shoot me in my whittle head.". That about covers it.

We don't all have a commander-in-chief, only the military does, so the "civilian" distinction does not apply. Police are not superior beings. If they're not active duty military then they are "civilians" just like the rest of us who are no longer on active duty. My contact with police is not between civilian and military, it's between civilian and civilian, or better, citizen and citizen. We're not supposed to be the servants of LE, they are supposed be serve and protect us. And I totally agree, the country has been sissified, but it started before Obama, and most of the sissification is in the big cities.

My goodness. Seriously? Commander in chief? wow! You are so far off base I don't even know where to begin. Not once did I say anything remotely relative to the response you gave. Please.... Give me a break!

Read my post over again and see if you find where I said anything about commander in chief or anyone being superior. If you are going to respond to my posts, please try not to put your own words into my mouth.

Many thanks.

Your response here has nothing to do with what I said. As Giga understood, my response is a sidebar.....strictly about the terminology used to describe what once were merely considered to be citizens. The C in C remark was part of an analogy. The only thing I "accused" you of was using the term "civilian" when describing those of us who are not LE. Language has meaning.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:A guy walking down the street in a place where it is not a common sight would seem to be enough reason to stop a person and question them. Can anyone imagine the backlash against firearms ownership if it turned out the person was headed down to the local elementary school to take out a few dozen children and word got out that the cops didn't ask the guy questions because he was well within his rights to carry a gun down the street? I bet it wouldn't take three months for the right to open carry a long gun to disappear in every state in this country. Why can't the right to open carry a long gun down the street be utilized in case it is needed? Why is it necessary to use it as a way of getting attention? Live in a vacuum if you wish but believe me when I tell you that the majority of Americans in this country who are pro RKBA are not pro reckless abandonment to keep that right. A schoolyard full of dead kids and a report that a cop just let it happen, is just what it takes to cause people to give in to "common sense" gun laws.

Oldgringo wrote:What Lightnin' said above plus don't you give things/activities 'out of the ordinary' a second look?

gigag04 wrote: I'm half tempted not to take the bait, but what you're saying, while technically true, does not reflect how things actually play out. For instance if I get an anonymous tip that you're selling dope, but I see you riding a bike without a headlight at night, guess what my PC will be based upon.