btq96r

  Fair point.  They why not a simple check for an HCP, with further actions dependent on if the biker can produce one?

  The term "has been committed" would seem to make it a high standard, at least to me if I were to interpret it.  I guess it depends on where the line between could have been, and has been is to the individual.  I see it as could have been absent any witness statement (even an informal one would be enough).  I don't see how an armed citizen with his weapon holstered, wearing a helmet on leaving a store on a motorcycle qualifies as leading to the conclusion that a crime has been committed, unless someone in the store reports it that way.  The officer himself only said the guy looked suspicious because of the helmet and the holstered weapon, not any other actions.  Is that in itself enough?   Regardless, the stop was 100% correct if the focus had been on simply ascertaining if the biker had a permit to carry the weapon while dismounted.  Even the position of the plates was justified as a reason for the stop, if the officer didn't think the weapon alone was worth investigating.  I'm on the officers side for stopping the guy under the two reasons above.  It's how he approached the situation and his actions during the stop that irks me.

Look at you going back to your roots, Pete.

Since I'm a single guy, I learned how to cook a steak from Gordon Ramsey videos on YouTube.  One thing he makes clear is you never want to cook a steak just out of the fridge, instead letting it sit out for at least 30 min.  I think this is where a lot of restaurants can make their mistakes.  I can't imagine them leaving cuts of meat outside of the fridge long enough before cooking them.  Health and safety reasons factor into it I'm sure, but when you're cooking for the masses, and time equals money it's easy enough for the problems a lot of us have with restaurant steak to present themselves. 

  My issue is that the gun was not something the officer discovered at the stop once he was close enough to see it, he knew about it before the guy left the store and even admitted it as such.  So, if it was a threat to his safety, why not address that threat from the beginning of the contact with the biker?    Also, you keep calling it an edited video.  Do you see any reason to think there was editing from when the biker pulled over for the stop to when the officer grabbed the gun?  Did something happen in those 25 seconds to make the officer perceive a threat?   The officer told us what he saw in his conversation with the biker, a guy go into a store with a gun on his hip and his helmet on.  The gun was not a new variable found during the stop.

...and we still haven't settled which came first, chicken or egg.

Welcome to TGO.  Sorry to hear your personal collection was stolen like that. 

The title translates into "Typical Dnepropetrovsk typical APU" which are references to Ukraine's 3rd largest city, and the Ukrainian Armed Forces.  Apparently the military in the region doesn't have much concern for motorists.  The song is a Snoop Dogg remix for those of you wondering.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=155&v=jye40dwDDlc

  Yeah, but with the amount of PTSD or TBI brought about by the Iraq and Afghan wars, this is going to be a big deal.  The level at which this is decided, and how much input the doctors the veteran actually sees will be the key.

The whole discuss it or not was for EssOne, ref. post #56. We've railed against our states screwed up perception that gun owners are criminals until proven innocent, but I really don't see why an officer has to disarm a citizen absent a cause. If I can produce a valid HCP, that should be enough to prove I've been vetted through the system. At least that's the BS they feed us while we fork over cash. Absent an HCP, or making threats by all means, disarm and arrest someone. But you're right, that's a legislative issue. Stopping someone is fine with probable cause, and in the case the positioning of the bikes plates would justify it, which could then lead to questioning about the guys actions in the store. But if the officer was truly concerned for his safety, why wasn't his weapon drawn from the outset? Why no commands to place the weapon on the ground while the officer used the cruiser as cover? From getting out of the cruiser at the 1:50 mark, and disarming the biker at the 2:15 mark, all he did was talk to the guy, including the line at the 2:00 mark, where the officer tells the biker he saw him come out of the store "with a gun on your side and a helmet on. That looked suspicious." So the officer knew this guy had a weapon before he even got out of the cruiser, and for 25 seconds, the officer didn't give any commands regarding the weapon, but then decides he needs to disarm the biker once he is is distracted by taking off his gloves to retrieve his drivers license so the officer can check it. Given that, I'm having trouble understanding when exactly the officer developed a (to paraphrase TCA 39-17-1351) reasonable belief that the bikers gun posed a threat to him, the biker, or anyone else. Absent that I come to the conclusion that taking the bikers gun wasn't about safety, it was about either being afraid of an armed citizen, or he just feels like an LEO should be the only one armed regardless.

  That in itself is a big part of my issue.  It shouldn't be that way, not if we're going to preserve the intent of the 2nd Amendment.    Now if there is belligerence, or an apparent safety issue, by all means, disarm someone.  But don't do it because you want to be the only one with a gun.

  If you don't want to discuss it, fine.  I'm not being emotional, just calling it as I see it.  Even the slightest impairment is still an impairment, it's not a matter of degrees.   I'm just surprised that on a website that is in no small measure inspired by the 2nd Amendment, that people are okay with a citizen who has a carry permit being disarmed absent any evidence.

  What danger did he reasonably believe/perceive during the stop.  I'm not buying it in that video, because the guy didn't show any hostile actions.  Did you see anything suspicious from the biker?    License plate not mounted right on a bike, common enough and good reason for a stop.  But the justification end's there, IMO.  Open carry alone isn't cause for suspicion, he could ask to check the permit, and that's quite alright, but to go straight to disarming someone shows me contempt for the right to carry.    Sorry if I came across as only implying it, I absolutely think police officers are required to submit themselves to higher degree of dangers because of their job.  They're professionals, and professionals should be held to higher standards.  The LEO had his hand on his service pistol, the biker wasn't acting unreasonable in any way, so I think the LEO had control of the situation.  What was running around in his mind may have been a different story, and then we have an issue of police who are afraid of armed citizens, or the public at large.  Which is an entirely different problem set.         I can see the bikers reasons for open carry.  If he was wearing enough safety gear, it may not be the easiest to CC a gun in.  Regardless, the point is the fact that open carry, a perfectly legal option in Tennessee and it was at least partly the cause for an LEO to disarm a citizen absent any other evidence.  Very uncool in my book.       I cannot say how much I completely disagree with that.  Justifying a loss of rights, even temporally, is a dangerous precedent to set.  Don't police officers take an oath to support Constitution?  How do you reconcile that oath with taking away someones rights absent a trial?

  The day I had Morton's Steakhouse outside mess up my order, I knew it was best to just leave making steak to myself. 

The Scorpion has been on my want list for a bit now.  Only thing stopping me is the cost.  I wouldn't SBR it, just keep it as a pistol for versatility purposes.  For a 9mm, I could only see using it at 50yds max, more realistically 25 and in .  Why waste the time and money to SBR something I can shoot without a stock to shoulder well enough at that range?  There is also the wait you need to do for the 922r compliance kit before it's legal.   Put a decent red dot on top, load a full mag with JHP's and I think it's a great home defense weapon.

  I'm the same way, I only order steaks on a rare occasion, and only from a top notch steak joint.   I'm not a fan of rare or medium rare, instead I enjoy medium well or well done.  Good luck getting that from a franchise steak place without having the outside covered in black burn.  But at home with my grill or in my kitchen with a pan and some olive oil, I can do it just right by my tastes. 

  I get all that, I really do.  I don't disagree that officers have the potential to be shot at at any point in the performance of their duties.  But as I'm a big fan of saying, their safety isn't supposed to supersede citizens rights.  I'd submit that's means increased risk is assumed by virtue of the job itself   To me, disarming someone without cause runs counter to the intent of the 2nd Amendment.  I'm supposed to be able to be keep and bear arms to protect myself against government tyranny.  Kind of hard to do so if said government can disarm me at will and without justification.    I really wish there was a standard to allow it or not and the officers had to explain and justify any disarmament of a citizen carrying in accordance with the law.  Might help put the issue in perspective.

Biker should have shown us how his plate looked from a few yards away to give us perspective on the stop. That would have helped a bit.   I get that the police have the legal authority to disarm someone for officer safety with no reason needed, but nothing in that video justified it for me.  The bike rider wasn't combative, belligerent, or anything that would indicate danger.  Also, you can make out that the officer has his hand on his weapon from stepping out of the cruiser, so he already has the advantage on the draw.   It's my right to be armed.  I even had to meet a series of standards to prove to the state that I'm deserving of that right.  Seems the biker did so as well.  For a police officer to casually dismiss someone of that right "just because" gives me concern. 

  Same here.  I've come to think of TGO as a community as much as an online forum. 

  Concur.  Imagine how upset he's going to be if he ever gets to the White House, and then has to deal with an uncooperative Congress.   One thing to remember is that his company, The Trump Organization, isn't a publicly traded company, it's structured as an LLC.  So Trump doesn't have a board of directors or shareholders to worry about or keep him in check.  That gives him a lot of latitude in how he runs things and has to have fed into his personality.  He won't get the same operating standards with Congress.

Wrong button... :drunk:

San Fran is on my personal list, for all the reasons you mention, plus I want to sit out on a boat in McCovey Cove, listen to a Giants game on the radio, and hope to see some home run balls come into the water. I'd also take in a game inside the stadium, as they have a great beer selection from what I hear.

  I know I'm not too keen to get sent there.

  While it would be awesome to get everybody together for a draft, it wasn't really practical last year.  So what we set up was an online draft where you simply logged into ESPN's fantasy site, and a "draft room" was set up for us.  You just clicked to make your pics.  It only took about 30 min if memory serves. 

https://www.airbnb.com/ Pick a place on the bucket list and see what's available.