Posted on 09/13/2013 5:17:26 AM PDT by rellimpank
“If I’m a police officer and I’m responding to a call about a man with a gun then I’m going to pull on you until I can be sure you’re not a threat to me. And why should anyone expect the police to act otherwise?”
Because citizens doing nothing illegal should not be put under a deadly threat for no reason?
There have been several settlements of multiple thousands of dollars over exactly what you are proposing.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/08/wabellingham-pays-15000-for-police.html
Mrs BN & I were driving home from town yesterday on a local four lane, divided, limited access highway into a rural area. The portion we were on had a 55mph speed limit coming away from the intersection with the Interstate highway. Cars exit the 65mph Interstate into this highway, which has Interstate standard design and construction. Immediately after this section the four lane goes to 65mph.
Two highway patrol cruisers were sitting, one each side of the highway, waiting to catch "eeeevilll-doers" speeding over the 55 limit. I made the comment to my wife that because of the revenue-enhancing mindset of local & state authorities, law enforcement vehicles are universally seen as 'The Enemy'.
This is contrary to "government of the people, by the people and for the people" and is very poor public relations and psychology. It does very little to improve highway safety, ticketing someone driving 60 on a road designed for 70+ speeds driven by "little old ladies" in a 1956 Chevy with drum brakes, no seat belts and bias-ply tires.
Speed limits used to be set by timing cars on a section of road, then determining the speed at or below which 85% of the cars were traveling. The rationale was that while there are idiots and ignorant drivers out there, most people are reasonable & prudent in selecting their speed over a given section of road. As a result, most two lane roads in the South were posted at 60 mph. Tennessee had 65 mph on the winding two lane roads adjacent to the Great Smoky Mountains.
Now we have Interstate with sections of 55mph limits. Traffic is bunched together, drivers afraid of being ticketed. Which is more dangerous, nose to tail clusters of cars driving at the artificial limit, or a MAXIMUM speed set higher and drivers spread out with each traveling at a speed which they deem reasonable & prudent? The highway patrol can spend most of their time training slow driver s to move to the right lane.
If government is really concerned about safety, why don't they really get drunk drivers off the road? Perhaps double penalties for government authorities DWI, just to convince the little people that they are serious?
Another safety improvement would be to have a realistic driving video game. Drivers would be tested annually. Dangerous driving or crashes during the game test would result in the driver being zapped by stun gun electrodes...and drivers licenses suspended for a time.
/rant
Too many cops automatically equate open carry as a “public danger” whether you are menacing anyone or not.
It doesn’t sound like it got dangerous until the police showed up and started pointing their firearms at people.
Stupid, unnecessary stunt. I would like to keep my right to carry for a while longer before democrats start getting elected again and decide to rescind CCW. Low-lifes in Milwaukee already make our argument for CCW, we don’t need law-abiding citizens stirring the pot and giving the conservative dems second thoughts.
Thank God you are not a police officer, but you'd fit right in with the jack-booted thugs that seem to be the majority of the LEOs today.
Police are not gods, little tin ones or otherwise. They "should act otherwise" because they, more than any other group--MUCH more than any other group--must obey the law.
"When policemen break the law, then there isn't any law. Just a fight for survival." --Tom Mclaughlin in the movie Billy Jack
Two men carrying rifles slung over their backs do not present an immediate threat to an approaching officer, or anyone else for that matter. The LEOs had NO reason to draw on them, NO reason to cuff them; and NO reason whatsoever to so much as touch their camera. (SCOTUS has ruled precisely on point on that last one.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.