TMF

Oh, I thought this thread was about Robin Meade... pure as the driven snow she is.

The fact that Awful Waffle is posted isn't the primary reason I don't go there.

Yes.

My choice to die standing up rather than die laying down is irrelevant. No, I'm not clouded by the fact these are LEOs. I have some pretty deep respect for law enforcement, and hell, my father is rounding out a 30 year career in law enforcement here in a few months. This isn't about LEO bashing. I do know that there are bad LEOs, and based on what was reported so far I have a stronger reason to suspect these officers committed a crime than not. The root fact here is whether they were justified in pulling their weapons. I think it would be hard to prove that they were. The alleged victim would have to of been pretty threatening for two men to think they had to pull their weapons to protect themselves. And yes, you do have to have justification to pull a weapon on someone, otherwise it IS a crime. If it wasn't then I'd be pretty comfortable pulling my gun out everytime someone gave me the bird. I am pretty open minded about this. I'm sure the alleged victim is quite the a**hole. If the story included witness statements of his behavior being threatening, or that he threatened the two officers then I'd be on the other side of the issue. But as far as I know this man was followed by the officers, they got out of their vehicle, he did in kind and they pulled their weapons. That story suggest that the LEOs instigated the whole thing, and all the alleged victim did was react. You said it yourself right here: Is this not the scenario originally reported? If that is true even you would arrest him. So that is what needs to be found out. I would expect anyone who did this to be prosecuted; the fact that they are LEOs is an issue simply because many of us think that it will be swept under the rug.

I don't think it's a poor analogy at all, as I read it the Government will be able to shut down sites where OTHERS are conducting illegal activity. So to shut down a gun manufacturer for the crimes of someone that uses their product for illegal purposes is a pretty good analogy, and I was using it to illustrate the point that we get so wrapped up in gun rights, but we're so quick to shirk other rights for the "common good". A more relevant analogy would be this: I have a buddy who is a professional photographer down in Nashville. He's done some work for Barrett, and I assume it was based on a portfolio of his that was full of gun porn. So, let's say that my buddy comes to this site to show off some of his work to see what people think before he adds it to his portfolio. Now, I come on to this site and see the photos. I'm looking to start an internet gun wholesaler site, and I happen to like his photos so I zapgrab them here and feature those photos on my website. Obviously I would be doing something illegal and my site could/should be shut down for it, but as I understand this bill TGO could be shut down since people are using the site to illegally download copyright. That doesn't make any sense. The website shouldn't be responsible for the illegal actions of others. I get that piracy is a big problem, but that doesn't mean that we give the Government liberty to control the internet at will to prevent it. They should be seeking better ways to prosecute those that break the law instead. Blaming the internet for rampant piracy is like blaming PBR for drunk drivers. That analogy works. People still have a choice whether to break the law or not.

I get what you're saying, and in the case you cited above the individual was indeed justified in pulling a weapon. In the case of these two officers that remains to be seen. Unfortunately we don't know the statements of the officers. Maybe they said they didn't pull their weapons at all. The story claims there is a witness to the events, and I would think that there are a lot more due to the volume of traffic. If one of these independent witnesses claims that one/both pulled their weapons then they need to be able to explain why. If he wasn't presenting a threat then they committed a crime. I'm not trying to bash Police, but understand that there are those out there that would abuse their position, and there are those out there that will sweep those events under the rug. I don't want to see that happen because it sets a precedent for those officers and other officers that may be apt to abuse their power. I don't think that being a felon means that no one can be guilty of committing a crime against that person. Just think, if this happened the way it was orginally reported, what if it was someone with a HCP? These officers weren't in uniform, so if it happened to me I'd defend myself. In that case the DA would seek to fry me even though I wasn't the person who pulled a gun first. So I say once again, UNLESS HE WAS PRESENTING HIMSELF AS A DEADLY THREAT THESE OFFICERS WERE WRONG. That is the root of the issue. I have a hard time believing that ONE man who is UNARMED presents a deadly threat to TWO men.

If they weren't clearly posted before they will be now... ya know.. so they can prove to customers that they're taking steps to prevent this from happening again. I won't be going there, ever.

Well there are laws against shooting folks, but people still do that so I guess those laws ain't workin' either. Maybe the next time someone uses a firearm in a crime the Government should step in and shut down the manufacturer of the weapon, or close down the store that originally sold it.

Stories/versions aside, if the facts of the case are that one or both of the officers pulled their weapon they'd better have a DAMN good reason for doing it. Police Officers should be held to a higher standard than us, not a lower one, and they shouldn't get a pass when breaking the law. Unless they were able to articulate how Estep was threatening them to the point they used the threat of deadly force they should have been charged. If Estep is a convict then this case is over which is BS. I'm not a bleeding heart here, I'm sure Estep is an a**hole, but it still doesn't excuse the officers if they didn't have good reason to pull their weapons. I've been known to be an a**hole too, and if two guys pulled their guns on me for such I'm gonna burn them down. Where would that leave me if they turned out to be off duty officers??? The smoke and mirrors of bringing in facts that have nothing to do with the facts of the case is what is wrong with our legal system. If it is a fact that one or more pulled their weapons on this guy they should be able to justify it; if they can't they are guilty of a crime... very simple.

You're crazy.

Good articulation of the point. I haven't heard that one before but I'm gonna use it in the future. I agree, regardless of whether the intentions here are good, the compromise isn't worth it. This treads way too close to regulating information.

No, I wouldn't say anything. It kinda steps on toes since it's their business to run as they see fit even if that means dispensing opinions that aren't accurate. With that said, sometimes I think I should go back into customer service just so I could right the wrongs I see every day. The guy behind the counter is shooting himself in the foot by badmouthing products that he's selling. His goal should be to SELL, not turn the customer off, or offer an overbearing opinion which is making the decision for the customer. He simply should be energetic about selling ANY firearm to a potential buyer, and lead with the PROS of the purchase and advise cons only based on what the customer is looking for so that he can pair the best pistol suited for the customer's needs so that when the customer walks out the door he is HAPPY. Happy customers means repeat business and referrals. The seller should be looking for information from the buyer more than the buyer is looking for information from the seller.... such as: what is your budget?...what will be the primary function of your purchase (range/home defense/carry/looking tacticool)?... do you have a particular caliber in mind?... Ughhhhh.... I've had this experience first hand before which is why I don't promote those gun shops. The ones that I have a good experience at I will promote, like Guns & Leather. They are still in business while some of the gun stores that don't know how to handle customers aren't anymore.

... because why not? Solved that rant before it began!

Based on his comments to the media I assumed from the start that Estep was no "choir boy" but if his account is true then that doesn't excuse the two officers. They still have to behave themselves. If I was in an altercation with a larger person and was partially responsible for instigating the incident I wouldn't be justified in pulling a weapon, especially if there were two of me. His criminal record shouldn't come into play here. It should simply be the testimony of the two officers, Estep, independent witnesses and HOPEFULLY video tape evidence. Estep being a convict doesn't mean that these officers didn't commit a crime.

All the more reason to keep the tin foil hat firmly in place... coincidence that the Chinese would switch to a caliber that we don't have available? You hear those choppers?.... of course you don't, because they're stealth!!

Thanks again. Many of us do realize that if this was an effort to create a biased story then you wouldn't be here collecting data for it. And yes, I agree here wholeheartedly. I think of the Second Amendment in the same way I think of having to lock my locker when I was in Basic Training... it keeps folks honest. The only Amendment that guarantees all the rest of them is the Second; it keeps the Government honest... mostly.

Yep, and those folks who think that way should go ahead and do the obvious thing which is to eliminate their carbon footprint... permanently. If guns are too evil to use they should Google "Seppuku with Frisbee".

Wow. I thought I was the only one.

I've decided to vote against any incumbent; any. No one deserves a second term. If a Republican takes the helm next and keeps screwing this goat I'll vote for whoever goes up against him. Maybe if all our elected leadership in Washington knew that their political careers were to end at first term if they don't get their crap together then they would start focusing on their JOBS and not hanging on to power.

Eh, I put more rounds through my Colt M4 than 99% of the rest of the Army and have only had malfunctions due to bad mags or the bolt lugs breaking. I've put over 6 combat loads through it (well over 1,000 rds) without cleaning or lubricating during one day on the range and had no issues at all. All those stories you hear (such as the Jessica Lynch POG unit) revolve around Soldiers who don't know how to properly maintain their weapons, then complain that there is something wrong with the rifle. M-16 series rifles haven't had real issues relating to poor design since mid-Viet Nam era, and the kinks have been since worked out. Even in the desert environment, if it's cleaned every so often and given a light coat of thin viscosity lubricant (not drowning it in CLP) the desert dust won't accumulate on it as much and thus "gum" it all up. I do agree that the AK performs better in austere environments with poorly trained troops, and that is the reason so many third worlds use it... you can teach a caveman how to use it without having to expect them to conduct proper maintenace, and trust me, I've trained my share of cavemen on using the AK. You can lubricate it with sand and it will still work.

My uncle got a nice bolt action Marlin .22 mag for his daughter's 12th birthday and she still loves it today and she's in her mid-20's. It's a good rifle to start with and still has enough punch to it that it's not such a "kiddie" rifle. Of course now she has a Bushmaster AR and tends to have that at the range more often than not.

Is that not in the socialist realm? I agree, all politicians (not just Obama) are just concerned with getting votes and seek the best way to get them, but he sits on the socialist side of the fence. Once he's not worried about getting votes anymore which way is he gonna go? His economic policies are inherently socialist even if we don't use the "S" word. Other assessments can be left to opinion, such as him being a closet Muslim or secret Nazi or Darth Vader or whatever else, but his actions as President define him. Just using the word "entitlement" screams socialism. The two go hand in hand.

?

Well look at the s****er on that critter!

ugghhh, I'm putting my tin foil hat on for this one.... I don't like it.