Charlotte "victims" gun IDed

[Capbyrd]

2 hours ago, Erik88 said:

Chris, Blake, Elliot, I understand your argument and even agree with a lot of it but I feel your condemnation of the "state" is unfairly targeting cops who do not make the laws. If we expect the cops to pick and choose which laws to ignore and which to inforce I feel that is a slippery slope.

 

And that is where E would chime in and tell you how simply being a police officer has made you the bad guy.  I'm not on the same level that he is, but I do think it is the responsibility of every officer, just as it is the responsibility of every of every one of us to decide, is what that person doing so egregious that it warrants the use of force up to and including taking that person's life?  If you wouldn't say yes as a regular person, why are you okay with giving that power to the state's enforcers?

 

 

 

Quote

Let me ask this, lets pretend the cops just ignored this guy and went about their business and then 10 minutes later the guy gets out of his vehicle and kills his wife and kid in a domestic violence situation. What would have happened to those cops careers or freedom?

There is no crime until after it is been committed.  Otherwise, we end up living in the minority report world where just thinking it makes you a criminal. 

Edited October 3, 2016 by Capbyrd

[n0rlf]

4 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

 

And that is where E would chime in and tell you how simply being a police officer has made you the bad guy.  I'm not on the same level that he is, but I do think it is the responsibility of every officer, just as it is the responsibility of every of every one of us to decide, is what that person doing so egregious that it warrants the use of force up to and including taking that person's life?  If you wouldn't say yes as a regular person, why are you okay with giving that power to the state's enforcers?

 

 

 

There is no crime until after it is been committed.  Otherwise, we end up living in the minority report world where just thinking it makes you a criminal. 

Difference being there was a crime. He was a felon in possesion of a firearm. Now toss in the marijuana. That is a crime. 

 

So do we wait until the rapist actually has penetration? If it was your wife and daughter I doubt you would wait but rather plug him quickly. Yeah I know, he was already guilty of assault before he committed the rape. Nice try but not always. Girl gets drunk guy rapes her after she has passed out. So if we wait until the crime is committed we will have a pretty ugly world to live in. I would rather we got criminals before they are able to commit the crime. The laws are not all that hard to follow. So I never got an answer to the questions about the earlier examples so I am guessing that is hitting close to home for some.

There are many examples of freedoms being taken away. Lots of examples of people being wronged by LEO. Just like any other group there is always a percentage that are bad. Be it police, doctors, EMTs, nurses, drivers, financial advisors, politicians (OK very high percentage on them), bikers, boaters, runners, pet owners....everyone gets the idea by now I am sure. So we should handle them as what they are, exceptions. 

But to say no one should ever be approached by LE until they have actually committed a crime is on the border of ludicrus in my humble opnion. Are we supposed to let the guy with the towel on his head running towards a crowd with a rifle yelling Aloha Snackbar alone? Technically he has not committed a crime (In some areas) until he pulls the trigger. Again, if your family is in his path i bet you would want someone to cap him. But hey, if it is bothering your freedom then look the other way and let it happen. Tells us a lot about you and I guess most folks will take you off the list of people they would consumate a transaction with here.

But to each their own, feel free to live that way just do not expect an outporing of sympathy when your decisions turn out rather badly. 

[gregintenn]

18 hours ago, JAB said:

I think you must have missed my subsequent post where I stated:

"As I said, I am not necessarily supporting the dead dude.  I was simply wondering about the justification for initiating contact.  If, indeed, he was seen rolling a joint and if somehow the observer could tell that it was, indeed, a joint and not a hand-rolled tobacco cigarette and he was, indeed, observed with a gun then absolutely that justified initiating contact.  At that point, not dropping the firearm justified the shooting.  If that is/was the case then I agree - move along, nothing to see, here."

My questions were:

Given that the police could not possibly have known that the individual was a felon nor that he was having 'mental issues' at the time of contact - meaning that his being a felon or having mental problems could have had no bearing at the time,

1. Did the police know, before initiating contact, that it was a joint he was smoking and not a completely legal tobacco cigarette?

2. Did the police know, before initiating contact, that he had a gun?

3. If the answer to #1 and #2 were 'no' then what was the justification for initiating contact in the first place?

As Omega indicated that another article stated that the police (somehow) did know these things before initiating contact I agreed that there was nothing really questionable about the actions taken by the officers.

I simply never take anything police say at face value.  This is not because of some 'unfounded' hatred of police.  This is due to experiences I have had.  Yes, I - who have no police record, have never smoked pot (no, seriously) and have never been in any legal trouble beyond one or two traffic violations have been unjustly pulled over and treated like a low-life criminal by police on more than one occasion in more than one jurisdiction. 

1. One evening, after dark, a cop rode a few feet from my bumper with his bright lights on.  This made it difficult for me to see and created an unsafe driving situation.  When I swerved a little - because I couldn't see - he pulled me over, "because you were swerving a little back there."  He then proceeded to say to my friend who was in the vehicle with me (who has also never been in any kind of trouble,) "Didn't I arrest you last week?"  He had nothing with which to charge us and had to let us go (and obviously wasn't happy about it.)

2. A few years later a different cop also rode just off of my rear bumper causing the same situation and pulled me over for the same bs reason.  His first words to me were, "Didn't I give you a ticket two nights ago?"  My response, "Well, that would have been kind of hard seeing as how I am just returning home from a cruise and I was on a Caribbean Island two nights ago."  He had nothing with which to charge me and had to let me go (and obviously wasn't happy about it.)

3. When I attended UTK and lived at my grandmother's on East Fifth through the week a cop pulled me over. He claimed he was pulling me over because I had a tail light out.  Curiously, he did not issue a citation or even a warning to fix any, such light and it never came up again after he mentioned it initially.  I checked when I got home - as suspected, I did not have a tail light out.   He had no legal reason to cite for pulling me over and his real reason was to ask, "What are you doing in this neighborhood?"  Yes, I have been pulled over for driving while white.

I won't drag this on by citing at least two, other similar instances when I have been pulled over literally for nothing with the only 'probable cause' being things that the cop purposefully created or just flat made up.  Suffice it to say that at this point in my life whenever I hear of a police run in where the probable cause sounds a bit suspicious I don't simply and immediately assume that was how things really happened.  Some cops do lie.  I've experienced it.  Strangely, the two times I have been pulled over and given a ticket for speeding (and I admittedly was) those officers were professional and courteous.  In other words, I came away from interactions when I actually received a ticket with a more positive perception of police than in the multiple occasions when I was pulled over and didn't receive a citation (because they had no justifiable reason to pull me over in the first place, much less cite me for anything.)

Oh, I've been there multiple times. I won't go into detail here, but I've explained several interactions I've had in the past, and have been called a liar here.

All I'm saying is that if a law enforcement official told me to put down a firearm, I intend to comply no matter the circumstance. The side of the road isn't the place to dispute what's right or wrong.

[Capbyrd]

14 hours ago, n0rlf said:

Difference being there was a crime. He was a felon in possesion of a firearm. Now toss in the marijuana. That is a crime. 

 

So do we wait until the rapist actually has penetration? If it was your wife and daughter I doubt you would wait but rather plug him quickly. Yeah I know, he was already guilty of assault before he committed the rape. Nice try but not always. Girl gets drunk guy rapes her after she has passed out. So if we wait until the crime is committed we will have a pretty ugly world to live in. I would rather we got criminals before they are able to commit the crime. The laws are not all that hard to follow. So I never got an answer to the questions about the earlier examples so I am guessing that is hitting close to home for some.

There are many examples of freedoms being taken away. Lots of examples of people being wronged by LEO. Just like any other group there is always a percentage that are bad. Be it police, doctors, EMTs, nurses, drivers, financial advisors, politicians (OK very high percentage on them), bikers, boaters, runners, pet owners....everyone gets the idea by now I am sure. So we should handle them as what they are, exceptions. 

But to say no one should ever be approached by LE until they have actually committed a crime is on the border of ludicrus in my humble opnion. Are we supposed to let the guy with the towel on his head running towards a crowd with a rifle yelling Aloha Snackbar alone? Technically he has not committed a crime (In some areas) until he pulls the trigger. Again, if your family is in his path i bet you would want someone to cap him. But hey, if it is bothering your freedom then look the other way and let it happen. Tells us a lot about you and I guess most folks will take you off the list of people they would consumate a transaction with here.

But to each their own, feel free to live that way just do not expect an outporing of sympathy when your decisions turn out rather badly. 

 

 

And we just keep going in circles.  Again, the police knew he was felon just by looking at him?  And taking it back further, being a felon and having a gun SHOULD NOT be a crime, just like weed.  None of that matters. We won't ever get anywhere because y'all think the way you have been conditioned to think and we think very differently.  

[gregintenn]

13 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

 

 

And we just keep going in circles.  Again, the police knew he was felon just by looking at him?  And taking it back further, being a felon and having a gun SHOULD NOT be a crime, just like weed.  None of that matters. We won't ever get anywhere because y'all think the way you have been conditioned to think and we think very differently.  

Again, police are employed to enforce laws. If you disagree with a law, law enforcement isn't the organization with which to air your grievances.

[Capbyrd]

9 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

Again, police are employed to enforce laws. If you disagree with a law, law enforcement isn't the organization with which to air your grievances.

and again, nazis were employed to kill jews and black people, they were just doing their job.  THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!!!!

 

 

[gregintenn]

27 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

and again, nazis were employed to kill jews and black people, they were just doing their job.  THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!!!!

 

 

So, you are endorsing anarchy or what?

This fella was shot because he was a fool; not because he was black or Jewish.

Edited October 4, 2016 by gregintenn

[Omega]

This thread reminds me of this cartoon:

 

The argument here is NOT whether something should be illegal or not, it is whether this was a good shoot or not.  Many, I included, think that some laws should be looked into, some are just not relative to their objective anymore.  But they are the law; we can rebel and refuse to follow any law we choose but must accept the consequences of said action.  Just like telling your wife that yes, that dress makes her butt look big, it may be the truth but you know there will be consequences.  You can argue the point with her all week long, but that won't get you anywhere.  Or as in this case, you can tell her that no, the dress doesn't make her butt look big, her big butt makes the dress look huge...yea, that is the extreme of what happened here.  Instead of him laying down his weapon and arguing that a blunt should not be illegal, he refused and suffered the extreme circumstances of his decision.

[Capbyrd]

33 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

So, you are endorsing anarchy or what?

YOU FINALLY GET IT!!!!

 

5 minutes ago, Omega said:

The argument here is NOT whether something should be illegal or not, it is whether this was a good shoot or not.  

I think that a few of us aren't merely trying to argue that anything shouldn't be illegal, but are trying to make people think about what starts the interaction to begin with and is that thing so egregious that it justifies taking someone's life to enforce it?  

[TNWNGR]

10 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

YOU FINALLY GET IT!!!!

 

I think that a few of us aren't merely trying to argue that anything shouldn't be illegal, but are trying to make people think about what starts the interaction to begin with and is that thing so egregious that it justifies taking someone's life to enforce it?  

Oh I'd long since realized several of you were radical anarchists, you might look at Somalia and see how well that's worked out for them.

As to the actions leading up to the incident you continue to insist was just some guy who wasn't doing anything because there wasn't a victim of a crime. Well, first of all your more interested in proving your point then accepting that the observance of the infraction or violation(s) led to the contact.

How about you get caught driving while impaired. Say its an empty highway with no other traffic aside from the police officer who sees you weaving about and all over the place. You get stopped, fail field sobriety tests and are arrested, subsequently you either fail a blood alcohol test or refuse to take it and are charged with an implied consent violation. Guess what your going to find out. The community as a whole is the victim.

Your argument that none of this should have happened because it shouldn't be against the law to smoke weed or be in possession of a firearm while smoking weed is specious at best. As for ex-cons who've been convicted for violent felonies being in possession of firearms being alright. I actually hope your never the victim of a violent crime or have a family member victimized by a career criminal.  

 

 

[56FordGuy]

4 minutes ago, TNWNGR said:

 

Your argument that none of this should have happened because it shouldn't be against the law to smoke weed or be in possession of a firearm while smoking weed is specious at best. As for ex-cons who've been convicted for violent felonies being in possession of firearms being alright. I actually hope your never the victim of a violent crime or have a family member victimized by a career criminal.  

 

 

 

Show me who is harmed by an individual having weed or alcohol and a gun at the same time. 

 

 

16 hours ago, n0rlf said:

So do we wait until the rapist actually has penetration? If it was your wife and daughter I doubt you would wait but rather plug him quickly. Yeah I know, he was already guilty of assault before he committed the rape. Nice try but not always. Girl gets drunk guy rapes her after she has passed out. So if we wait until the crime is committed we will have a pretty ugly world to live in. I would rather we got criminals before they are able to commit the crime. The laws are not all that hard to follow. So I never got an answer to the questions about the earlier examples so I am guessing that is hitting close to home for some.

I'm not an expert on rape law, but I believe the scenario you're describing is what we have now. That's why our current system has charges for battery, sexual battery, aggravated sexual battery and I believe either extremely aggravated sexual battery among others. Prosecutors pick the charge that they think fits the crime the best. If you're talking about self defense, then as soon as a person is in reasonable fear for their life they can defend themselves or a third party with deadly force, and with lesser degrees of force before that, right?

Everyone likes to say freedom isn't free. Well it's not. Freedom means living in a world where the people around you are allowed to do things that might make you uncomfortable. If you don't like the activity, you're free to try and convince them to stop or go elsewhere. 

 

Stopping crime before it happens is impossible. After all, if laws worked then there would be no crime. Where do we stop? GPS units on all cars that won't allow you to exceed the speed limit? Your entire income going from your employer to the government, then from the government to you to ensure you can't cheat on your taxes? Seat belt checkpoints at every intersection?

 

I don't know what question you asked that hasn't been answered, but if you'll point it out I'll do my best. I'm still curious how you can say society is harmed by an individual possessing a firearm and marijuana at the same time, and how that makes life harder for those who choose to live in accordance with the laws prohibiting that?

[Capbyrd]

30 minutes ago, TNWNGR said:

How about you get caught driving while impaired. Say its an empty highway with no other traffic aside from the police officer who sees you weaving about and all over the place. You get stopped, fail field sobriety tests and are arrested, subsequently you either fail a blood alcohol test or refuse to take it and are charged with an implied consent violation. Guess what your going to find out. The community as a whole is the victim.

 

No the community is not.  There is no victim.  How was the community harmed?  You said it yourself, no traffic and a cop that merely saw me.  No one has been harmed in any way.  

[Capbyrd]

30 minutes ago, TNWNGR said:

How about you get caught driving while impaired. Say its an empty highway with no other traffic aside from the police officer who sees you weaving about and all over the place. You get stopped, fail field sobriety tests and are arrested, subsequently you either fail a blood alcohol test or refuse to take it and are charged with an implied consent violation. Guess what your going to find out. The community as a whole is the victim.

 

No the community is not.  There is no victim.  How was the community harmed?  You said it yourself, no traffic and a cop that merely saw me.  No one has been harmed in any way.  

[n0rlf]

15 minutes ago, 56FordGuy said:

 

Show me who is harmed by an individual having weed or alcohol and a gun at the same time. 

 

 

I'm not an expert on rape law, but I believe the scenario you're describing is what we have now. That's why our current system has charges for battery, sexual battery, aggravated sexual battery and I believe either extremely aggravated sexual battery among others. Prosecutors pick the charge that they think fits the crime the best. If you're talking about self defense, then as soon as a person is in reasonable fear for their life they can defend themselves or a third party with deadly force, and with lesser degrees of force before that, right?

Everyone likes to say freedom isn't free. Well it's not. Freedom means living in a world where the people around you are allowed to do things that might make you uncomfortable. If you don't like the activity, you're free to try and convince them to stop or go elsewhere. 

 

Stopping crime before it happens is impossible. After all, if laws worked then there would be no crime. Where do we stop? GPS units on all cars that won't allow you to exceed the speed limit? Your entire income going from your employer to the government, then from the government to you to ensure you can't cheat on your taxes? Seat belt checkpoints at every intersection?

 

I don't know what question you asked that hasn't been answered, but if you'll point it out I'll do my best. I'm still curious how you can say society is harmed by an individual possessing a firearm and marijuana at the same time, and how that makes life harder for those who choose to live in accordance with the laws prohibiting that?

Well, the question of the pilot or the terrorist is a starting point. I understand your viewpoint as you are wanting no laws basically. Anarchy. Well that has never worked well. As for how it harms everyone? I have to have a permit and there are a lot of restrictions on when and where I can choose to carry a gun. Why? Because we have dipstuffs that think they should be allowed to do anything with a firearm. So the actions of a few are hurting all of us that have chosen to follow societies laws.

I would recommend you move out of the US if you do not like laws. Try Iran or Iraq. Let us know how that works out for you.

[n0rlf]

20 minutes ago, 56FordGuy said:

 

Double tap for some reason

Edited October 4, 2016 by n0rlf
Duplicate

[TNWNGR]

@56FordGuy you keep playing that same old record of who is harmed by someone being in possession of weed and a handgun at the same time. You refuse to accept that a statute or law was in place and its violation hurts no one. Go out in a multi family residential parking lot in daylight and pull out your makings while people are out and about. Make up a big doobie and fire it up. Have your handgun in sight of the public to while your smoking that joint while sitting behind your steering wheel. When someone calls the police or someone you don't know is a police officer sees you and the police respond then argue your case to them. You tell everyone "hey, no harm here, I can do this".

Edited October 4, 2016 by TNWNGR

[TNWNGR]

Double

Edited October 4, 2016 by TNWNGR

[Capbyrd]

Because it's the law is not a valid reason.  Y'all like to use sheeple or sheep to refer to people that want more gun control but look at you.  You are using "because its the law" as an argument for why something is bad.  

[Omega]

7 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

 

No the community is not.  There is no victim.  How was the community harmed?  You said it yourself, no traffic and a cop that merely saw me.  No one has been harmed in any way.  

Oh, nobody I guess:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/10/marijuana-related-fatal-car-accidents-surge-washin/

[TNWNGR]

5 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

 

No the community is not.  There is no victim.  How was the community harmed?  You said it yourself, no traffic and a cop that merely saw me.  No one has been harmed in any way.  

I suggest you explain that in front of a judge then, no other traffic or not its still you in control of the vehicle.

[56FordGuy]

49 minutes ago, TNWNGR said:

. You refuse to accept that a statute or law was in place and its violation hurts no one.

No, this is my whole point. These laws exist for no other reason than to control people solely for the sake of controlling them. People are uncomfortable, instead of accepting that freedom means we may be uncomfortable every so often politicians pass these feel good laws so they can say they did something and look good for the voters at election time. 

 

Because these victimless laws exist, the officers in Charlotte escalated a situation and approached an individual who was not harming anyone and that individual is now dead. These officers never should have been in a position to make a shoot/ no shoot decision because they never should have approached him. "But it's the law" is my point, it shouldn't be. Laws creating victimless crimes need to be repealed, and there's no more appropriate time to be making that argument than now, when just such a law has resulted in death.

[56FordGuy]

1 hour ago, n0rlf said:

Well, the question of the pilot or the terrorist is a starting point. I understand your viewpoint as you are wanting no laws basically. Anarchy. Well that has never worked well. As for how it harms everyone? I have to have a permit and there are a lot of restrictions on when and where I can choose to carry a gun. Why? Because we have dipstuffs that think they should be allowed to do anything with a firearm. So the actions of a few are hurting all of us that have chosen to follow societies laws.

I just skimmed back through this thread and didn't see anything about a pilot. I'd be glad to address it though. Without knowing the entire question, I'd just say that airlines are private businesses and should make their own security decisions. I have no idea of that relates to your question, but I'm trying. 

 

I'm not anti-laws. I'm anti laws that create criminals out of people who are not harming others. That is not freedom. I would rather live in a world where every dolt and doofus can carry a handgun without a permit than have to jump through hoops to prove to the government that I'm good enough to exercise the rights already guaranteed me by the constitution. 

[leroy]

This is good stuff... Reason, logic, appeals to good sense, nor citation of "norms for civilization" seem to be workin here for some of our "free thinkin" and libertarian brothers... That makes me a bit sad; i wuz hopin for better...

This ain't about debate or discussion of what ought to be legal, how much freedom ya ought to have as an individual, or any of these other things... It's about bein the smartest guy in the room, and being free to be completely free... It is, in essence, being your own being... Some call it being "god" with a small "g"... It's all about you as the individual who is instantaneously right... When you are "god", you are automatically the smartest being in the universe... You that have these tendencies might need ta think about that a bit... Ya might also need to know that some of us dont see ya that way... We see ya as just another mule out here plowin in the field with the rest of us...

I gotta tell ya who keep beatin this point to death; goin around is a big circle is called a "circular arguement"; it aint very "godlike"...... It's easy to spot and a poor way to win a debate on pure points... You that keep sayin the same thing over and over aint lookin too smart to my way of thinkin; but that's just me...

Here is the truth of the matter.... If you interact in society, there are gonna be some restraints on your personal behaviors and preferences that you do not like... We can quibble about changing these restraints, laws, and rules; but there will be, inevitably, some that the individual does not agree with... Such seems to be the case here... "Society" (...whoever that is...) sets rules and laws... Cross 'em... Get dinged, or, in this case; get killed... More than that, no one is gonna come to you and ask your opinion of whether those involved in any action meets your approval... The brutal truth is, sometimes you get over ruled... That's a problem with the "god" thing... Who could imagine "god" being overruled?

If ya don't like the rules, and don't like not bein asked to adjudicate every action; i would suggest movin up on the hill and bein a recluse... That way, ya can set your own rules (..to a point...) and adjudicate any actions that happen up there if ya have the horsepower to enforce those adjudications...

If you are a real "freedom jhadist", go out in the bush in africa or south america and start your own place and make your own rules... The only caveat i have with this one is that ya better be pretty damned tough... There might be some aboriginal folks out there who are pretty tough and have their own ideas about rules...

Have fun in your new place and send us some notes from nirvanna from time to time to let us plebians know how it's goin...

leroy

[56FordGuy]

24 minutes ago, leroy said:

Have fun in your new place and send us some notes from nirvanna from time to time to let us plebians know how it's goin...

Doing pretty okay.  Got a little lease for the cows to run on, bought some new tires for the plow truck. Probably push the cows down out of the mountains in a couple of weeks to winter them nearer the house. Hoping to rebuild a 1937 model Caterpillar this winter, may start on it as soon as this weekend. I need to grade our 5 miles of dirt road out to the highway though, so the Cat may still be a week or two out. 

 

It does become a circular argument. We say these laws shouldn't exist, others say they should because the government made them. It's brought on by different world views, and often leaves me wondering if it's even worth debating. It's not, but sometimes I just can't help it.  

[gregintenn]

33 minutes ago, 56FordGuy said:

I just skimmed back through this thread and didn't see anything about a pilot. I'd be glad to address it though. Without knowing the entire question, I'd just say that airlines are private businesses and should make their own security decisions. I have no idea of that relates to your question, but I'm trying. 

 

I'm not anti-laws. I'm anti laws that create criminals out of people who are not harming others. That is not freedom. I would rather live in a world where every dolt and doofus can carry a handgun without a permit than have to jump through hoops to prove to the government that I'm good enough to exercise the rights already guaranteed me by the constitution. 

I remember the gist of the airline scenario being : Should a drunk pilot be allowed to fly a passenger jet? After all, til he's hit a mountain, there hasn't been any harm to anyone.