TMF

I wouldn't worry about that. The military has had this for a while and has used it in Iraq and Afghanistan. The one we had was mounted on the roof of our building so we could detect the direction of an attack. It's probably a good system to put in neighborhoods with high gun crime. I don't see this translating to too many arrests, but it might make some people think twice before doing something illegal. I mean, if the system stores or transmits data regarding the approximate location of the shooter it is pretty much going to tell you the same thing that a witness could. It also could provide hard evidence during prosecution. I don't see this as an invasion of privacy issue. The system itself is not directional, meaning it couldn't pick up random conversations if it wanted to. From what I understand the set of microphone detectors on the boom all work together to determine an azimuth to the point of origin.

T.C.A. 39-17-1351(t) Any law enforcement officer of this state or of any county or municipality may, within the realm of the officer’s lawful jurisdiction and when the officer is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer’s official duties, disarm a permit holder at any time when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals. The officer shall return the handgun to the permit holder before discharging the permit holder from the scene when the officer has determined that the permit holder is not a threat to the officer, to the permit holder, or other individual or individuals provided that the permit holder has not violated any provision of this section and provided the permit holder has not committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the permit holder. I don't believe "reasonably necessary" is defined by a HCP holder simply having a weapon. Perhaps signs of drunkeness is a reason, but just "looking" like a dirtbag? I don't buy that. Often when I'm doing yard work or remodeling parts of my home I make frequent trips to the dump and I'm not dressed professionally. I guess I probably look like a dirtbag. This shouldn't be reason to disarm me. If an officer decides to disarm me for no reason and then runs the numbers on my weapon (which violates my Constitutional rights) there will be a fallout in regards to the civil leadership contacted regarding the violation of my rights. Once again, I'm not getting into a pissing match on the side of the road. I don't have time for that, nor do I think I would win. I will make sure the issue is addressed after the fact. A Law Enforcement Officer is there to enforce the law. I don't see how disarming a law abiding citizen or finding reason to search a vehicle is enforcing any law. And to counter the argument of "the LEO doesn't know if they're a law abiding citizen", well, that should always be the assumption of a LEO until he has reason to suspect the citizen of breaking the law. Being prepared for the worse/having situational awareness and assuming everyone is a criminal are two totally different things.

Nope, not unless he has a good reason. I'm not condoning getting into a pissing match with a LEO, but I'm also not going to let my rights be trampled on. If I'm asked by a LEO to search my vehicle I'm going to comply, but if I don't want him to then he doesn't get to search. Also, according the the HCP laws he can't disarm me unless he has a reason to. I'm not going to get into it with him on the side of the road over the matter, but I will inform him that he is outside his bounds and after the incident I will be reporting to his Chain of Command. As for "integrity checks" I don't even know what to say. I understand that LEOs have a hard job and I respect their service and sacrifice. HOWEVER, if your friend thinks that LEOs exist to conduct "integrity checks" of law abiding citizens then I am appalled. LEO stands for LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. If I'm not breaking the law then there is NO LAW TO ENFORCE. Even if I'm speeding and get pulled over then that doesn't give them the right to "integrity check" me. The contents of my vehicle don't have anything to do with my speeding, and therefore, there is no probable cause to search my vehicle. Once again, I do consent to search when being pulled over. But that is MY CHOICE to make, not the LEO. If I don't want to be searched that is my business and I'm pretty sure that's why we have a Constitution.

The instructions that came with my Kimber said there was a "breaking in" period of (I think) 500 rds. I had a few FTF in the first 200 rds but none since. I dig it. It's a nice pistol.

Man, what's with all the Kimber-hating? Mine shoots just fine.

Back in the '90s (in Florida) my uncle had to pull his weapon and shoot an aggressor. Long story short, the criminal mistook my uncle's green Ford Taurus station wagon for a green lowrider pickup truck of an individual he had gotten into a bar fight with earlier that evening (the criminal had a BAC over .2 at the hospital later that night). He followed my uncle back to his house and exited his truck with a golf club exclaiming "I'm going to kill you m'f'er" at which point my uncle produced his weapon and informed the criminal that he would shoot if he came any closer. The criminal advanced and was shot 3 times by my uncle. The criminal retreated back to his vehicle and drove himself to the hospital. At the hospital the next day the criminal was unable to determine to police where the shooting even took place let alone who shot him or the circumstances surrounding how he was shot. My uncle went into the house and called 911 immediately following the shooting. Police responded and conducted their investigation. They concluded the shoot was self-defense. Later the DA did try to press charges unrelated to the justification to use deadly force but those charges were later dropped.

Yes. Not only do I think I should be arrested but I most certainly WOULD be. There is another side missing from this story, but unless that story involves the civilian threatening the officers with death or great bodily harm then they should be fired and charged with aggravated assault. A HCP holder would not be justified in pulling a weapon in a traffic dispute, let alone a dispute that THEY helped escalate. Even if I was approached by an angry motorist in a similar situation WITHOUT my involvement in escalation, my weapon stays holstered until I think I need it; meaning, it ain't coming out to diffuse the situation, it's only coming out when I'm pretty certain if I don't pull it out I may be killed. I really doubt in a situation where TWO grown men (and trained LEOs) would think that ONE (unarmed) man presented enough of a threat for them to pull their weapons. We'll see, but I just don't think it's gonna pan out that way.

I agree, I'm sure his actions helped to escalate the situation, but that doesn't warrant pulling a weapon on him. If someone gets out of their car to yell at you in traffic would you pull your weapon out? And to the other post, if someone advances on me and claims they are going to kill me then yes, my weapon is coming out. It's pretty clear to determine someone's intentions when they plainly tell them to you. If someone says they're going to kill me and advances in a threatening manner I'm not taking the time to find out how well they're armed.

We will see. It didn't sound to me like they were protecting any innocents. Two (armed) grown men versus one unarmed man? I don't care how he was acting, pulling your weapon only occurs when you are in reasonable fear for your life or serious injury... I say again, two grown men versus one. LEOs are not above the law. Just like I said before, if this was any of us non-LEOs we would be in jail.The only thing that could excuse the actions of these LEOs would be if this guy was presenting a threat. That remains to be seen. Maybe he said "I'm gonna kill you" to the officers. That would certainly warrant pulling a weapon in my book. Maybe something like that happened. Based on the preliminary facts though, it doesn't look like the facts are gonna shake out that way.

I'm watching Team America tonight in honor of the Glorious Leader.

Haha, it's one of the few pleasures they're allowed to have before martyring themselves! "Can't beat the real thing"

No kidding? That's awesome, that'll really set my in-laws off next time I go up there. I don't OC so I never looked into it for MI, so they don't know I'm carrying when I go up there. Next time I'll probably bring my OC holster just to get them going. I'm glad to hear they're so friendly considering that state tends to lean left.

I thought Kim Jong Il preferred Hennessee over everything else. It looks like Hans Blix got the last laugh on this one.

It's supposed to be the skyline in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. They chose a design for the people they're marketing it to. Abu Dhabi and Dubai are like the Las Vegas and New York City of the Arab world and scenes from these two cities are depicted on many of the Pepsi cans in the Middle East/SW Asia. Naturally Pepsi would use such a design to market their product and relate to their target audience. Besides, terrorists don't drink Pepsi, they drink Coca Cola. The plane only adds to the metropolitan representation they're going for on the can. Planes tend to fly around cities a lot because usually there is a major airport around them. Dubai has a major airport that serves as a major hub for East/West travel. It is the Dulles Int'l of the Mideast but not as crappy as Dulles. I think the reason so many people are getting their panties twisted over this is because the Arabic lettering in conjunction with the design. Just pretend it's all in English and it loses the "offensive" context. Either that or we can force the rest of the world to abandon their native languages for English so we don't get offended. Score another one for 'Merica.

I find that my cell phone face generates plenty of light. I hate carrying around a bunch of clutter. I'm annoyed that I have more than 5 keys on my key chain and that keyless entry remotes are so big.

If any of us had reacted in that manner we'd be enjoying the view from the inside of a jail cell. LEOs should be held to a higher standard than a HCP holder. We don't know all the facts of the case, but we know enough to make safe assumptions. Fact: They pulled their weapons (witnessed by others). Fact: The officers failed to report it. Fact: The civilian involved her was not arrested or detained. Everything else in this case may be subject to their respective side of the story. If they pulled their weapons they should have been in fear for their lives; if the civilian here was presenting a reasonable threat then he should have been arrested, or at a minimum, the off duty officers should have called it in so that an on-duty officer could make the arrest. The fact that none of this happened suggests that the individual was not presenting a threat. What if this guy was armed and pulled his weapon? I can tell you, if some off duty officer gets pissed at how I drive and ends up pulling a weapon on me, he is getting shot. Maybe in this case there was some degree of provokation from the civilian, however, I honk my horn if someone is about to do something unsafe such as pull out in front of me. If that motorist, in turn, decides to follow me to a stoplight and pull a weapon I am going to assume he intends to use it, therefore justifying my use of deadly force. The problem here is that if such a situation occurred, the person who shot the off duty LEO would be branded a cop killer and would most likely spend the rest of his life in jail. There better be some charges here and not some civil suit that gets settled out of court.

I stayed away from Glocks for the longest time because of this. I was forced to use a G17 for a shooting course a little over a year ago and once I was done I immediately went out and got a G19. I carry it all the time now; great weapon... simple and I like the "no frills" appeal of it. Of course, when I go to the range and use my Kimber now my muscle memory is all jacked up.

Well I want to make sure to preface this by saying that I understand you're much more of a legal expert than I, however, from the law abiding citizen point of view this is how I see it: Trust me, my heart doesn't necessarily bleed for the "victims." I remember when this story first broke and having the impression that all were engaged in some kind of felonious activity at the time of the shooting. However, it doesn't excuse his actions. Just like everyone has a right to a fair trial, everyone should be held to the same standard regardless of what the circumstances are. Justice should be blind. I would rather the prosecution risk losing a case in an effort to see justice done than negotiate for a lesser charge. I'm a firm believer in taking the hard right over the easy wrong. His guilt or innocence should be decided by a jury, not a few lawyers doing back alley deals to avoid a dent in their conviction rate or be able to prove to their clients that they can get severe charges knocked down because they're good at negotiations. I don't doubt that the prosecution would of had a hard time with reliable testimony. The defense would have ripped them apart, but then again, it is up to the jury to decide. Perhaps intent would have been hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but it's also hard to prove it was all an accident or lacked intent considering 3 people were shot and recieved wounds in places where they were likely to be killed (head/torso). In the end the facts are what they are, and the facts are that he shot 3 people. From what I recall he admitted to shooting two and didn't know if he had shot the third. This alone is enough for illegal possession of a weapon, but those charges were dropped too. It's safe to assume that this criminal will be back on the streets before the end of 2012. The fact that he'll be a free man after shooting three people is only going to embolden him more in his future criminal enterprise. Somehow I don't see him bothering to turn his life around and become a law abiding citizen like the rest of us. I would say there's a good chance he'll victimize people that aren't apart of his criminal community at some point down the road; normal, law abiding people like myself and my family. When this inevitably happens you can't point to a jury and say that justice was done or not done; you can only point to a few select individuals who's job it is to uphold the law or provide a defense for the charged.

I can't even fit that into my head. Our legal system needs an enema.

I don't know, I've seen some pretty horrible things and had to do stuff that I'm not proud of, but I think it's pretty easy to compartment things that go on downrange from the normalcy of being home. I treated it like it was two different worlds I guess. I don't know if that's something I could do; see that stuff on a shift and then come home to my family at night. I don't think I would have the ability to reconcile that reality so easily.

I agree that we have to do as much as we can to prevent voter fraud but we have to stop short of making restrictions to the point of preventing folks with extenuating circumstances from voting. There will never be a 100 percent solution, but we can get close. The penalties for voter fraud should be made so severe and should be so strictly enforced that people aren't willing to take part in it. ANY elected official that is fraudulantly voted into office nullifies our whole system of government.

I honestly don't know how you or any other LEO does it. I would lose my mind.

I've seen an Air Guard unit with a similar patch... the SAS one I mean (I learned that from hours of playing Call of Duty).

Yeah, I blame them both. These are the same yahoos that let my neighbor go with a clean slate so long as he didn't do anything violent for 6 months. So when he does something again he'll be going before the judge without a record and they'll do the same thing. Friggin' pro-crime judges and DA.

This is kinda what I was looking for. I don't put anything past some of our government agencies in regards to how they conduct investigations and what they'll tell people in order to collect information; there's a lot of ambitious federals that want to get a golden star by their name. However, I would just assume that if such an agency was involved they would at least show identification to the person they were interviewing/questioning. In that case that agency would have to answer for their actions regarding this incident. Since there is nothing stating what agency was involved and there is nothing stating an inquiry into that agency it all sounds a little suspect in regards to the validity of the whole story. As much as I despise the ACLU, this is one of those cases they would be all over if it were true.