Ever Been Challenged?

[Recon]

sorry, bad edit see below

 

[Recon]

Chris, you sound like you think that the NRA "views are not the norm and different from what most people believe"...so you think that there are more people that do not believe in our Constitutional rights than there are people who do? I know you will want to rationalize/justify your comment but no need. You just used poor word choices. I am a Lifetime member, I am 42 and have been a member since I have been 16. I joined the Marksman program @ about age 10 or so and the taught me and I became a certified Distinguished Expert before age 17, they taught me several Safe Hunter programs, proper and safe firearm handling, we do benefits for less fortunate people, lots of knife companies have the NRA logo. You just are not really in tune with the NRA. These comments are not just directly toward you but abroad for all. TV shows and movies portray your view for fun & spoof, not on fact. I love the NRA and highly recommed them to all. I will defend their reputation so take some time and go to the website and really check it out. I think you may find since you are a knife enthusiast that you may appreciate some ideals. The NRA allowed me to actually exercise my already given Constitutional right to protect myself and my family and understand that just because a gun "looks mean" it is no more or less dangerous than the old beat up rusty off brand firearm at your neighbors garage sale. They do the same thing. Shoot a high velocity projectile.

 

[Gryffin]

...so you think that there are more people that do not believe in our Constitutional rights than there are people who do?

If you've been keeping up on current events, it's not difficult to come to that exact conclusion.

 

[Menocu]

Amazing how much drama can result from calling it like you see it... the NRA is radical by definition. And regardless, the man was just comparing two organizations; not measuring a charactaristic of one.

"Radical":

"Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radical political views"

I thought the point of the NRA involving themselves in politics was to effect changes in current practices regarding firearm legislation... but maybe I'm just thinking too hard.

 

[DGG]

You have to love folks who drop a personal opinion that is debatable and then run away saying they won't discuss it (My mind is made up and I don't want to be confused by the facts!). Oh well, hopefully they don't vote.

 

[Paul Davidson]

What was this thread about? Was somebody asking about knives? I forget.

 

[MBWirenut]

I was pulled over late one night on the way back from a Texas BBQ for cancer, I was the cook. I had my benchmade 630 and a small cleaver still on me. The officer asked what I had been doing and why I had all these knives on me. I replyed and was asked just to put them in the truck while dealing with him, then was free to go. I still remember the good 'ol days when I compared knives with the airport security cops and LEO. I carry my 5" Trident fixed blade in public, never had any problems. Was asked about carrying a knife handle down, the cop said that was carry position for fighting. I told him it was easier to reach and didn't poke me in the side, he just asked me to hide it better, it was a 4" CS minitanto

 

[meangreen]

The reason cops get jittery when they encounter a subject with any type of knife is very simple......a knife is a weapon and can cause serious bodily injury or death. Period. No need to read any more into it. The cop may not know who you are or what your intentions are. There is a saying amongst law enforcement officers that the most important task of the day is to go home to your family after your shift. Often times it is difficult for the public to understand why cops are "hard asses" when it comes to certain things. Anytime an officer encounters a subject with any type of weapon, he is going to take the appropriate measures to make sure that he is ALWAYS in control of the situation, so that he does go home after his shift. If that means having someone lay on the ground for awhile, get on their kness, subject them to a search or whatever then so be it. If the subjects feeling get hurt in the process, the so be it. Common sense dictates that only the amount of force necessary be used to control the scenario, but under no circumstances is a subject to get a tactical advantage over the officer. Period. So for all of you that have been dealt with a bit harshly by a memeber of law enforcement, try putting yourslef in their shoes....Another thing that really ticks me off about Joe Citizen is that they expect cops to be mind readers.. Comments such as "what do you think I am, a criminal" or " why are you harassing me? why dont you go deal with a real criminal?" Do people think cops are mind readers???? If a cop stops someone, they probably dont know them from the next person. They dont know who the hell you are. for all they know you just MIGHT be an axe murderer. And its better to be safe that sorry. Again I'd rather control a situation and avoid a possible physical confrontation and possibly a death and hurt somebodys feelings, that be lax or friendly and end up hurt or dead.

Another thing, has anyone noticed that State Troopers in particular appear to be hard asses. Thats because the further away a cop is from backup (maybe out in the county woods) the more alert and careful he needs to be. Joe Citizen may interpret this as being an asshole. Oh well, we all get over it eventually.....

 

[Rat Finkenstein]

Amazing how much drama can result from calling it like you see it... the NRA is radical by definition. And regardless, the man was just comparing two organizations; not measuring a charactaristic of one.

"Radical":

"Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radical political views"

I thought the point of the NRA involving themselves in politics was to effect changes in current practices regarding firearm legislation... but maybe I'm just thinking too hard.

Did you even read what you typed?
By your own definition, the NRA is exactly the opposite. They are the ones that fight against the radical political forces bent on removing our constitutional rights. Radical are the folks who tirelessly peck away and attempt to restrict firearms.

As to knife laws, I have made a decision to never live anywhere my ability to carry the knife of my choice will be infringed. I am a little pissed that autos are illegal here, but I don't find them very appealing anyways. I prefer the simplicity of fixed blades.

I am currently carrying a Busse ZTBM with a blade of about 9" . (second one down) I also will carry other blades.

I dont get hassled. Of course if I was in a huge city, the sheeple might be more idiotic, so who knows.

 

[Gryffin]

I promised myself I would stay out of this one, but...

There is a saying amongst law enforcement officers that the most important task of the day is to go home to your family after your shift.

Ever heard the phrase, "innocent until proven guilty"? It has it's origins in our legal system, but it also used to define how law enforcement dealt with the public.

I certainly don't disagree with the idea that every cop should go home safe at the end of the shift. But that's not an excuse for treating every "civilian" as guilty until proven innocent. All that breeds is an "us vs. them" mentality in what are supposedly public servants.

If that means having someone lay on the ground for awhile, get on their kness, subject them to a search or whatever then so be it. If the subjects feeling get hurt in the process, the so be it.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you've never been spread-eagled face down on the pavement, for all the world to see.

Intimidating and humiliating a law-abiding citizen just to make the officer's job easier is just plain WRONG. We don't go about our lives at the pleasure of law enforcement; they are there to serve and protect us. Officer Friendly's right to go home to his family at the end of the shift doesn't give him the right to violate my right to be left alone unless I've committed a crime, and even if I'm suspected of doing so, to be treated with dignity and respect.

There's a term for societies where the rights of civilians are secondary to the desires of law enforcement: it's called a "police state". Look it up.

Common sense dictates that only the amount of force necessary be used to control the scenario, but under no circumstances is a subject to get a tactical advantage over the officer.

Again, the "us vs. them" mentality. "Tactical advantage"? That tells me that you see every "subject" as an enemy, to be defended against.

"[O]nly the amount of force necessary be used to control the scenario" doesn't give an officer the right to slam your face onto your car hood just because he stopped you for a tail light out, and you give him some lip.

The average civilian who feels he was stopped without cause is generally angry, scared, tense, and defensive. It's the officer's job to treat us with respect, even when we frankly don't deserve it; they're the ones trained to handle these matters, not the civilian. Yeah, that demands a thick skin, but if you're so tempermental that you'll go all Rodney King on a suspect just because he didn't "show you respect", then you're too tempermental to be carrying a firearm.

As long as the cops insist on treating us mere "civilians" as the enemy — real or potential — the cops shoudn't be surprised when we, the "subjects", treat them likewise.

 

[meangreen]

OK, I can see the point of view expressed here. We all want to be treated with respect and dignity. That goes without saying. It is apparent that the "us vs them" mentality will continue to exist, due to the fact that the majority of the public has not walked in a cops shoes and does not want to. I for one have seen both sides of the fence.

You are getting into specific scenarios, such as "someone got there face slammed" or whatever. We can go on all day like that all day. The bottom line is that being a cop is dirty work. And while you sit there and criticize every minute detail you can think of, some cop somehere is putting his ass on the line to protect you ( and you probably never even knew about it!)

Being a cop is not for everybody, it takes a "different" mentality. Joe citizen doesnt understand and I suppose I shouldnt expect understanding. After all most citizens want cops to be there when they are needed and out of sight when everything is OK. And if you happen to have a tail light out or whatever then of course the citizen should get to decide what laws should be enforced and what laws are just "minor" and should be overlooked. So you all continue enjoying the security that cops provide, while all the time second guessing their every move and bad mouthing them....I love it when Joe citizen calls to complain that a cop is speeding down the road in his cruiser....the same citizens home is robbed and he then calls to complain that the cops didnt get there fast enough to take the report!! Typical.

Just because cops are "trained" to be professional, doesnt give Joe C. the right to "mouth off" because he got stopped. Maybe if Joe C. hadnt commited whatever offense he did, he wouldnt be in that situation. It as much the citizens responsiblity to treat a cop (or anyone) with respect. Or is the upbringing in question, that would cause Joe C. to "mouth off"? Maybe Joe C. should mouth off at the teacher because he didnt like the grade he got. Or maybe Joe C. should mouth off at the Congressman because he didnt like the law that was passed. Or maybe Joe C. just likes to mouth off because things dont go his way?

Why should somenone be "defensive" when they encounter a cop???? I have been stopped on several occasions and I dont recall being defensive...maybe it was because I wasnt doing anything wrong?hmmmmmm. And if I was doing something wrong, I certainly would not have the right to be defensive.

The bottom line is I will continue to serve the public I was sworn to protect with dedication, professionalism, and loyalty. Why? Because it's what I love to do. I will continue to treat Joe Citizen with the upmost respect, UNTIL IT IS TIME NOT TO. And I will make that call and take each scenario on it's own merits. I really wont expect any understanding from Joe C. and thats fine, but there is one thing for certain......I WILL BE GOING HOME AFTER MY SHIFT TONIGHT.......

 

[Menocu]

Did you even read what you typed?
By your own definition, the NRA is exactly the opposite. They are the ones that fight against the radical political forces bent on removing our constitutional rights. Radical are the folks who tirelessly peck away and attempt to restrict firearms.

Yes, I read what I wrote.

Let me clarify..

"radical" is not negative.. it's relative to the current state of things, so don't get all bent out of shape.

The NRA is actively trying to (so I assume they favor) change (of) current conditions and practices regarding the right to keep and bear arms. In that sense, they're "radical," and that was my only point. Frankly, I think it's sad that we're in a current state where a group that supports constitutionally protected rights is "radical." But you can hardly argue that the right to keep and bear arms is not extensively infringed upon and barely protected at this point. I certainly understand what you mean when you call the anti-gun-nuts "radical" but given the current state of things, I think it's the other way around (unfortunately). In the end, it's a moot point. I think we both share the same opinion of who's working for our rights, and who's working against them.

 

[Gryffin]

One more post, before the mods condemn this thread to Whine & Cheese....

I for one have seen both sides of the fence.

Yeah, I figured you for a cop or ex-cop. No surprise there.

You are getting into specific scenarios, such as "someone got there face slammed" or whatever. We can go on all day like that all day.

That doesn't change the fact that it happens. And when it happens, us mere civilians hear about it, and we remember it.

Yeah, sometimes it's someone's friend of a friend, and blown out of proportion in the retelling; but hardly a week goes by where you don't read something in the news about some child or old lady getting tasered, or some teenager taking a bullet for getting scared and running, or a SWAT team blowing away a non-violent perp or bystander (just this week, some podunk PD sent a tac team to serve a freakin' warrant on a doctor, and someone's AD put him on a slab), or a middle school kid handcuffed and "perp walked" outta school for teasing a girl, or... you get the idea. It happens, WAY too often.

Heavy-handed force, obviously out of proportion to the crime committed (if any), can only lead to fear and resentment of law enforcement by civilians. Fear is not the same as respect.

The bottom line is that being a cop is dirty work. And while you sit there and criticize every minute detail you can think of, some cop somehere is putting his ass on the line to protect you ( and you probably never even knew about it!)

I never said it was an easy job. That doesn't excuse thuggish behavior, though.

Being a cop is not for everybody, it takes a "different" mentality.

I agree wholeheartedly. Few people have a strong enough urge to serve their communities, and the ones who do, and who risk their lives for the rest of us, I hold in the highest regard.

But the ones who join the force just so they can carry a gun and push people around under the aegis of "authority", I hold in the deepest contempt. They may be a minority, but there are still too damn many.

Joe citizen doesnt understand and I suppose I shouldnt expect understanding.

And I submit that Joe LEO doesn't understand what it's like for a law-abiding citizen to be confronted by an armed LEO with an attitude, either. Difference is, I do expect understanding on the part of law enforcement, as part of their job; but all too many are content to just look upon us as "the enemy" and not bother to try. Which was my original point, you may recall.

After all most citizens want cops to be there when they are needed and out of sight when everything is OK.

And the problem with that is.....?

I have an accountant; right now, I need him to do my taxes, but after that, I don't want him hanging around snooping to see if my checkbook is properly balanced. I have an attorney, too, who I'd expect to show up if ever ended up in jail, but otherwise shouldn't be involved in my daily life. There's a Emergency Medical Squad right down the road; if I were to have a heart attack, I expect them to show up ASAP, but otherwise, not hang around and make sure I'm eating right and getting enough exercise.

So what is so special about LEOs that I should have to put up with them to intruding into my life, other than when they're needed to perform their duties?

And if you happen to have a tail light out or whatever then of course the citizen should get to decide what laws should be enforced and what laws are just "minor" and should be overlooked.

Oh, bullshit. Either you're just being argumentative, or completely miss my point. Which is: even the most minor of offenses can escalate, if you happen to be pulled over by a cop who decides you "look funny" or wants to "make an example" out of you.

If I'm pulled over for a tail light out, I would hope for a friendly warning, or at worst a ticket. In fact, I've been pulled over for just such an offense, and had a redneck rookie try to intimidate me into letting him toss my car. Thankfully, I know my rights, and asked him on what grounds. He tried to tell me it was "routine", at which point I told him he most definitely did NOT have my permission to do so, and that I had no intention of leaving the vehicle until his shift supervisor was present. I had nothing to hide, and ended up with a ticket where I might've only gotten a warning, and probably risked getting a beating; but I'm one of those "weird" people who take things like the Fourth Amendment seriously.

Oh, as for "which laws should be enforced and which should be ignored", I've got a major bone to pick. I'm a biker (99%), and some of the guys I ride with are cops. Drinking and riding is a spectacularly bad idea, but on three separate occasions, I've confronted a cop-biker who's had too much to drink, and every damn time, they pull out their badge and tell me something along the lines of, "Don't worry, I've got my 'Get Out of Jail Free' card!". And that is fundamentally, woefully wrong. There's no magic in that badge that puts you above the law, but all too many cops act as if it does, even the otherwise good ones. How can the law be fairly enforced, when the enforcers are often themselves criminals?

So you all continue enjoying the security that cops provide, while all the time second guessing their every move and bad mouthing them....I love it when Joe citizen calls to complain that a cop is speeding down the road in his cruiser....the same citizens home is robbed and he then calls to complain that the cops didnt get there fast enough to take the report!! Typical.

If that's directed at me, if you think I hate all cops, then you sir are most sadly mistaken. As I mentioned above, I have the utmost respect for those who protect and serve. I support my local PBA. I voted in support of the rank & file for the ouster of our local Chief of Police who nearly ruined the department, and voted again to increase their budget out of my property taxes. Several of my riding buddies are cops. I'm a firm believer in the rule of law, as long as it's enforced equitably and legally.

Just because cops are "trained" to be professional, doesnt give Joe C. the right to "mouth off" because he got stopped.

Again, I call bullshit. It's called freedom of speech.

Let's take away the badge for a sec, and look at it: you're just some guy in a bar hassling me. I've got every right to express how I feel. You, of course, might decide to rough me up for it. However, there's a legal term for that: assault & battery. If my verbal exercise in free speech passes a certain threshold, I too might be guilty of verbal assault, but that does not give (badgeless) you the automatic right to commit A&B.

OK now, let's put your badge back on. Other than that shiny piece of metal, what's changed? How does your status as a LEO change the law, and allow you some automatic "right" to threaten, injure or humiliate me?

Oh, here's a coupla differences: you're an agent of the government, and you're carrying a gun. The former means you're curtailed by the Constitution, which limits the power of government over the governed; the latter, in the strictly civilian bar scenario above, would be considered a "special circumstance" in some jurisdictions, leading to a whole extra world o' hurt for you. Think about that one for a minute or two.

As I wrote earlier, if you don't have thick enough skin to shrug off some asshole's verbal emissions, you're in the wrong line of work. That service firearm on your belt means you're held to a much higher standard than the rest of us. Some are up to the task, some aren't.

Why should somenone be "defensive" when they encounter a cop???? I have been stopped on several occasions and I dont recall being defensive...maybe it was because I wasnt doing anything wrong?hmmmmmm.

Or maybe, it's because... you're a cop?

You know the drill. You've had the training. You can see it from the LEO's end. Now, look at it from the viewpoint of us mere law-abiding "civilians":

99% of the time, your interaction with law enforcement is in the form of a traffic stop. Why? because it's standard procedure in most US juridictions to supplement the tax-funded budget with traffic fines. So the first thing you think is that you've just become the (un)lucky winner in the Supplemental Tax Lottery.

The second thought you have is that this is all gonna cost you a bundle in fines, fees, lost work, insurance surcharges, etc.

The third thing you realize, assuming you were speeding because you were already late for someplace you had to be, is that you're gona be a whole lot later.

Then there's the fourth thought to fly through your head: all those bad stories you've heard about bad cops. If you have the misfortune of being a minority stopped in a majority white neighborhood, multiply that by a factor of ten or so.

So, why should a "civilian" be angry, scared, tense and defensive? Maybe because he knows it's a crapshoot — maybe a warning, maybe a ticket, maybe a night in jail, maybe a week in the ICU. But definitely a lot of hassle and expense, at best.

So, how does a typical civilian handle the situation? Bow and scrape and lick your patent leather shoes, and hope for mercy? Or maybe let some of that frustration, anger and flat-out panic slip out, either deliberately or inadvertantly? Either way, does it change the the law is applied? Should a civilian be forced to choose between submission and humiliation, or physical harm? What gives you the LEO the right to impose that choice?

As a LEO, you have a duty to enforce the law fairly. We non LEOs have no duty to treat you like our lords and masters. If you want respect, give it. If you don't, suck it up and don't expect much.

Again, I lay the blame at the feet of a law enforcement community who increasingly relies on the doctrine of overwhelming force, rather than diplomacy, in their dealings with the public.

The bottom line is I will continue to serve the public I was sworn to protect with dedication, professionalism, and loyalty. Why? Because it's what I love to do. I will continue to treat Joe Citizen with the upmost respect, UNTIL IT IS TIME NOT TO. And I will make that call and take each scenario on it's own merits.

Good, I should hope you do. And I hope if it comes to it, that you "make that call" wisely and judiciously.

I really wont expect any understanding from Joe C. and thats fine

No, no it's not. Not at all. You should expect understanding from "Joe C.", but it's a two-way street: we too expect you to understand things from our POV. An adversarial relationship benefits neither LE nor the public. And that's been my point all along.

 

[Rat Finkenstein]

Yes, I read what I wrote.

Let me clarify..

"radical" is not negative.. it's relative to the current state of things, so don't get all bent out of shape.

The NRA is actively trying to (so I assume they favor) change (of) current conditions and practices regarding the right to keep and bear arms. In that sense, they're "radical," and that was my only point. Frankly, I think it's sad that we're in a current state where a group that supports constitutionally protected rights is "radical." But you can hardly argue that the right to keep and bear arms is not extensively infringed upon and barely protected at this point. I certainly understand what you mean when you call the anti-gun-nuts "radical" but given the current state of things, I think it's the other way around (unfortunately). In the end, it's a moot point. I think we both share the same opinion of who's working for our rights, and who's working against them.

well, I guess I see things the same, but I look at it differently. I consider how it wasn't that long ago people had the right to own just about any firearms they wanted. It was Radicals who enacted changes to the laws restricting firearms. by definition:

Radical: One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radicals seeking to overthrow the social order.

So I guess from a certain POV, now that radicals have made steps toward infringing our constitutional rights, that the current state of anti-gun sentiment is the norm and the NRA is the Radical force trying to change things.

I prefer a clearer definition: anyone trying to remove or denigrate my constitutional rights is the "radical", not the organization trying to protect and restore those rights.

But this is all semantics since we agree in principle.:thumbup:

 

[Kylun]

I hate to slide off the original subject, but I felt my experience was valid.

I work for a Flooring Distributor, out of New Orleans, as a sales rep. I do a lot of traveling in central and west Louisiana. The President of my company is ranked a Major with the New Orleans police force, and so all the salesmen have used crown vic interceptors for company vehicles. Mine when I got it, had the spot light on the driver's side, black front grill, small chrome hubcaps, and black side mirrors. It looks like an unmarked police car.

I do a ton of driving, and had been driving this vehicle for over 8 months when I had a run in with a LEO. I was on the interstate when a state trooper was coming up on an on-ramp. I had cars on my left side, so I could not move over to let the officer in, so I dropped my speed down and let him get in front of me. The speed limit was 70, and I continued behind him at this speed. He then began dropping his speed. I was on my cell phone talking with a customer, so I dropped my speed with his and continued behind him. *I don't like passing people or getting in the passing lane when I am using my cell phone/ ear phone. *

Well the officer then pulls off the road onto the shoulder and I pass him up. About 2 minutes later I see the officer in my rearview mirror with lights flashing, wanting me to pull off. He sat behind me for a good while on the radio, I am assuming running my plates. I am required to wear a shirt and tie for work, so I was dressed accordingly. He asked me to step out of the vehicle. He then asked me if this was my car. I told him that it was a company car, but it was mine to drive and use. He then wanted to know what company I worked for. I told him and handed him a card at his request. He wanted to know where my company got this car. I told him that I did not know, only that the President of my company was a Major with the New Orleans police force, and that this was the car he gave me to drive. He then asked for my ID and registration.

After looking at this, he asked me if the spot light worked. I told him it did. I had checked it when I first got the car. He asked if I knew that the spot light was illegal to have on the car. I told him I was not aware of that, and had not been told so by my boss. He told me that I needed to get the spot light removed within 5 days and bring the car to the local trooper station to verify I had complied. I asked him if there was anything else I needed to do, and he said no.

I removed the light the next day, and brought it to the trooper station where the officer took my ticket, snickered, and asked if I had paid my fine? I said what fine, and he said the fine for having this light on your car. I was shocked, I had no idea I was being fined also. The trooper told me that I had to go to the courthouse and find out the amount and pay it. I was very mad at this point. I went to find out the fine amount, and was told it was $135.00 but they would drop it to $50.00 or I could contest it with the DA. Well at this point, I called my boss, who was telling me that he wanted me to contest it and ask that it be dismissed completely. He said that in the 15 years that his salesmen had been driving these cars, he had never had this problem. Well I contested it, and after it being lowered to $25.00 and my boss still wanting it dismissed, I decided to just pay for it out of my own pocket instead of fighting it and drawing attention to myself.

Now here is my gripe, first of all this trooper was obviously bored to want to pull me over. Second, I have no problem at all with getting the light removed, I mean heck, I don't need or use it, so that was no biggie. I did have a problem with getting fined for it, especially when I was assigned to drive this car. AND I found out the cars are bought from the law enforcement in Baton Rouge, and THEY COME WITH THE LIGHT MOUNTED. I mean if it is illegal, why are they sold that way, and why was I singled out when no one else gets pulled over for having one? I have seen many taxi's that were old cruisers with the lights still attached.

I guess my point is that as a citizen, it is rediculous that I would pay a fine, because I do not want to "piss" off the local law enforcement, but that is exactly why I paid it out of my own pocket. Because of that one officer, I felt that I may not be treated fairly in the future. Let's face it we are all human, and can all be tempted, either by money, desire, or power, and LEO's are no different. I KNOW that there is an intoxicating feeling of power as a LEO, because I feel it simply by driving around in what looks like an undercover police cruiser. I have had people pass me at first, and then back off on their speed and get behind me, or throw on their breaks when they get near me. It definitly gives you a sense of dominace over those people, like "Uh -huh, you BETTER slow down" I many times thought to myself, "Man that person is lucky I am not a cop."

The more power you possess, the more you need limits!!

Anyway, just my little add on. My chances of running into a LEO is greatly increased due to my job and always being on the road, so I realize that I run a greater risk of having a bad experience. I just feel that since there ARE bad cops, and we all know they are out there, it is only right that we too have some reservations about officers true motives.

 

[eagle12167]

alright, how's this. in my time on this planet, ihave found that there are good peace officers and jack booted thugs. i don't get nervous when i see or talk to an unknown officer, i do treat him with respect. however i have been harrassed by some and warned by others for the same offense. that does not mean i am a perfect person. how ever you gentlemen must remember one thing you are both right and wrong. i, ex spec ops, am considered a weapon. i do look like someone that can or will do harm. i more than likely won't.
now back to the origanal discussion, it is a shame the the leo/jbt dosen't know the law and just because you have it copied or know it, just remember that you are joe c. and they are not as well versed in all the laws of thier government. however you can be courtious and explain and prove you are correct in what you have stated.
after you are off the ground and things have calmed down, don't get heated and start over on the ground. just explain to the PERSON that you have a copy of the law and ask if he would like to go over it with you so that this won't happen again. he/she will get the idea that you wern't trying to break the law just live by it.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

hello, a little late, just saw this thread.
it is not an officer's job to prove someone guilty to make an arrest, or even stop a driver or pedestrian. the standard of probable cause is required. would an ordinary person believe criminal activity is afoot or about to be committed. courts decide much of the rest.
please try and remember, in the words of a co-worker,"We don't get payed for the 59 minutes of an hour when nothing happens. We get payed for the completely sideways balls to the wall one minute. And very few people really want that job."
just because you don't like the way you were spoken to or proned out doesn't make it illegal or even necessarily wrong. while i will agree that many people have been taken into custody at gunpoint, only to find they are not involved in any criminal activity, many officers have been killed by criminals who were not treated by officers as such. I would rather have them offend a few civilians than put themselves in a position of disadvantage and get hurt.

 

[Dune]

So what happened to talking about being challenged for carrying a knife?