My Idea of Gun Control

mark_j said:

Let's ask a pertinent procedural question here..

As a CWP holder, when you get stopped by a cop and he approaches and asks for your lic,reg,ins and such do you:

A. Quietly hand the cop your papers along with your CWP and basically say nothing.

B. You or your passenger blurts out that you have a gun possibly setting the cop's teeth on edge before you hand him the paperwork.

Click to expand...

handysr said:

C. Not say anything unless asked. Or if you have to get out of the vehicle, say it while your hands are on the steering wheel.

Click to expand...

If you have a CWP, you'd sure as hell better know what you need to do with it.

In some states, the cops can see if the person that owns the car has a permit, so the cop knows before walking up.

phrodeau said:

If you have a CWP, you'd sure as hell better know what you need to do with it.

Click to expand...

Yep, and any good instructor should have walked you through all of this and you should know it if you have a CWP.

Make the situation easy and clear for the officer.

• Pull off the side of the road far enough, if possible, to give the officer enough room to approach your vehicle without having to worry about oncoming traffic.
• Roll your window down, place both hands on the steering wheel and leave them there until told to do otherwise.

The first thing the officer is going to want to see is your hands, because that is where any threat is going to come from. If it is dark outside, take the added step of turning on your vehicle’s interior light; it is just one more thing that shows you’re looking out for his safety. It’s common courtesy as a CWP holder to remove as many perceived threats as possible from the situation. Good for your life too.

This is not the time to start digging in your glove box or center console for your insurance card or wayward registration. To an approaching officer, that looks like someone reaching for a gun. This is especially true in states that allow one to carry a pistol legally without a carry permit.

This is also not the time to jump out of your vehicle and walk back towards the officer. Seeing a driver exit their vehicle and start walking back raises all kinds of warning alarms as the officer thinks back to their training on how many deadly encounters started that way.

Once the officer approaches and begins speaking with you, make sure that he/she knows what you’re going to do.

1. Tell them where your hands are going and why.
2. The officer should be giving very specific directions to control your actions, so do exactly as told. If there is a reason why you can’t follow instructions, you should calmly explain why and wait for direction.
3. If asked for your identification, let the officer know where it is and what you have to do to retrieve it.
4. This is the perfect time to explain that you’re a CWP holder, that you are armed, and where your handgun currently is. Many states have made it mandatory to provide your CWP permit with your license during a traffic stop.
5. Just make sure that when you mention CWP, firearms, or anything else that could be perceived as a threat, that your hands are clearly visible, your voice is calm, and you don’t do anything without letting the officer know before hand.

Always keep in mind that a diminishing number of police officers are experienced and/or active shooters. They carry a handgun only because it is required for their job.

In the Yanez/Castile case, you can see all the things that can go wrong. It's worse and more dangerous when (a) you're black and/or (b) the police officer is black or hispanic (see stats post below, black/hispanic officers are more likely to shoot). In this case there were mistakes on both sides and the end result was that someone died who shouldn't have.

The jury saw all the evidence and decided Yanez was not guilty. That's what jury's are for and it's the best method for trial decisions that we've come up with anywhere. Not all cases may be decided the way we'd all like, but on balance its the best system around. You want to move away from that to "politically correct" court decisions? We all know where that one goes.

ChloeTzang said:

]

In the Yanez/Castile case, you can see all the things that can go wrong. It's worse and more dangerous when (a) you're black and/or (b) the police officer is black or hispanic (see stats post below, black/hispanic officers are more likely to shoot). In this case there were mistakes on both sides and the end result was that someone died who shouldn't have.

The jury saw all the evidence and decided Yanez was not guilty. That's what jury's are for and it's the best method for trial decisions that we've come up with anywhere. Not all cases may be decided the way we'd all like, but on balance its the best system around. You want to move away from that to "politically correct" court decisions? We all know where that one goes.

Click to expand...

The Court Of Public Opinion, fueled by the big media Fake News journalists, have convicted him of Copping While White. They almost never mention how many white people are killed by the cops, just the dead black folks.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of times when cops improperly kill people. I'm not debating that. I'm also glad that more and more often the public "gets" to see the actions. Whether security cams, cop/cruiser cams, or people with cell phones, the cops are under more pressure to act properly and legally at all times. This keeps the dirty cops from hiding behind the blue line.

But this also means that when there is a legit police shooting, the public should STFU about jailing the cop just because they are mad another black guy dies.

handysr said:

The Court Of Public Opinion, fueled by the big media Fake News journalists, have convicted him of Copping While White. They almost never mention how many white people are killed by the cops, just the dead black folks.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of times when cops improperly kill people. I'm not debating that. I'm also glad that more and more often the public "gets" to see the actions. Whether security cams, cop/cruiser cams, or people with cell phones, the cops are under more pressure to act properly and legally at all times. This keeps the dirty cops from hiding behind the blue line.

But this also means that when there is a legit police shooting, the public should STFU about jailing the cop just because they are mad another black guy dies.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, just more Fake News in this case. And Fake White cop as well. Yanez isn't white to start with, he's hispanic (mexican-american) if anyone wants to be precise, which we know the Fake News doesn't. As we know, Hispanic and Black cops are more likely to shoot people than white cops. Which raises the question, if we want less people of all races shot, should we only have white cops? But that's not the question the Fake News wants to hear coz, well, it doesn't fit the narrative does it?

Cams? Oh yeah, those're great. Everyone should have one. Keeps the narratice completely open and honest at all times.

The public? Hah, it's the left that should STFU. For years they've been trying to ignore or make irrelevant laws they don't agree with. Starting with Obama and his refusal to enforce many laws, which, after all, was his main job as President. Now the Left wants us to ignore or reverse judicial decisions they don't like. Hey, I got an idea. What if we all do that? Want to work out where that one takes us?

It kind of occurred to me that the whole reason we have a policing and judicial system is so that we don't take the law into our own hands as individuals and small localized groups. Our policing and judicial system evolved for a reason and the left wants to eliminate that? Hey, go for it guys. I'm all for that one, and we'll see what emerges in its place. Bet you don't like the alternative much at all.

I did 18 years in the British army (Scottish regiment)and saw some close up killing in Malaya, Aden(Yemen) and one or two other spots. Shooting is easy, and easy to learn, killing people up close is a totally different thing and very very difficult.

I'm not the slightest bit surprised the policeman missed several times, he was almost certainly as terrified as the target. Some of you guys have watched too many Eastwood movies.

colddiesel said:

I did 18 years in the British army (Scottish regiment)and saw some close up killing in Malaya, Aden(Yemen) and one or two other spots. Shooting is easy, and easy to learn, killing people up close is a totally different thing and very very difficult.

I'm not the slightest bit surprised the policeman missed several times, he was almost certainly as terrified as the target. Some of you guys have watched too many Eastwood movies.

Click to expand...

And everyone I know (several) whose been in that same position says exactly the same thing, although my partner says military training these days is in part designed to get you over those psychological barriers to actually shooting someone. The police tend not to have that level of shooting training tho so you're back to stress and adrenaline. And, yes, panic.

ChloeTzang said:

And everyone I know (several) whose been in that same position says exactly the same thing, although my partner says military training these days is in part designed to get you over those psychological barriers to actually shooting someone. The police tend not to have that level of shooting training tho so you're back to stress and adrenaline. And, yes, panic.

Click to expand...

So the police aren't as well trained as military, or at least that one isn't. Maybe it didn't "take" with him, or maybe he wasn't interested in getting the training.

Or maybe the police department can't afford the added training expenses. The cost of a few court cases is probably a lot less than the expense of training up to military standards.

And besides, the military needs that tax money more than the cops. We have to protect all the foreign property of American businessmen. We need to make sure that nobody attacks any of our vacant embassies.

We also need to consider the cost of training needed once stop-and-frisk becomes the national police policy. The cops will all have to learn how to frisk with one hand, while the other is on their weapon.

phrodeau said:

So the police aren't as well trained as military, or at least that one isn't. Maybe it didn't "take" with him, or maybe he wasn't interested in getting the training.

Or maybe the police department can't afford the added training expenses. The cost of a few court cases is probably a lot less than the expense of training up to military standards..

Click to expand...

Rather different types of training. Different source of funding (federal vs local). And yes, apparently a lot of police training budgets are tight. Doesn't take much effort to find all this out for yourself. As for the rest, practicalities my dear little hairy-toes. Policing is, by and large, local or state rather than federal.

ChloeTzang said:

Rather different types of training.

Click to expand...

Phro doesn't understand that.....hell he doesn't even know the difference between a revolver and a fuckin' M2.

All the same shit to him.

colddiesel said:

I did 18 years in the British army (Scottish regiment)and saw some close up killing in Malaya, Aden(Yemen) and one or two other spots. Shooting is easy, and easy to learn, killing people up close is a totally different thing and very very difficult.

I'm not the slightest bit surprised the policeman missed several times, he was almost certainly as terrified as the target. Some of you guys have watched too many Eastwood movies.

Click to expand...

There are too many people carrying tin who don't have the testicular fortitude necessary to do the job.

JayCuck said:

Based on my reading of the evidence, viewing the online video, the officer acted wrongly. Juries tend to side with/ police officers. I'm not surprised at the verdict, I just disagree. Juries get verdicts wrong all the time.

Click to expand...

This is an emotional reaction and not one based in logic. The jury was selected after being questioned about their beliefs, opinions, and objectivity. It was comprised of men and women, white and non-white, young and old. It was a pretty decent cross-sectional representation of the members of the community.

They listed to the testimony, heard the evidence, saw the video, discussed everything amongst themselves with no outside interference, and came to a decision.

THEIR decision followed the rules of law and society. YOURS is an opinion based on viewing 20 seconds of video. Of the 2, I trust theirs more than yours.

ChloeTzang said:

Rather different types of training. Different source of funding (federal vs local). And yes, apparently a lot of police training budgets are tight. Doesn't take much effort to find all this out for yourself. As for the rest, practicalities my dear little hairy-toes. Policing is, by and large, local or state rather than federal.

Click to expand...

"The police tend not to have that level of shooting training," said you. Which is it, a different level of training or a different type?

And why are the people patrolling Kabul better trained than the people patrolling St. Paul? America First!

ChloeTzang said:

Rather different types of training. Different source of funding (federal vs local). And yes, apparently a lot of police training budgets are tight. Doesn't take much effort to find all this out for yourself. As for the rest, practicalities my dear little hairy-toes. Policing is, by and large, local or state rather than federal.

Click to expand...

The hobbit isn't rational when it comes to guns. Thus, his arguments tend to the absurd.

I teach concealed carry. The dead guy broke ALL the rules. And paid the price for it.

Rule #1; NEVER say the word gun.
Rule #2: NEVER show your firearm to the cop during a traffic stop.
Rule #3: NEVER touch the firearm.
Rule #4: NEVER make it look like you're going to touch the gun.

There are caveats (aren't there always?) to the above rules.

Some issuing agencies require that you announce that you are carrying a concealed weapon at the beginning of the stop. If that's the case, just hand over the permit and tell the officer you are required to inform him of your status. Then wait for instructions from the officer. You don't say "I have a permit to carry a gun": because all the cop hears are the words "I HAVE A GUN!" Just hand over the permit and wait.

Another is if you are asked to exit the car. If you haven't informed the officer of your permit status, then do so at that point by presenting your permit and wait for instructions.

Beyond that, if you're stopped - SHUT THE HELL UP. If you have a permit, it's legal for you to be armed. You don't have to be ashamed or afraid or nervous about it. The less "weird" you act, the fewer problems you will have and the less risk of getting shot during a traffic stop.

I'm not anti labor union but I believe that the police labor unions are a big part of the problem. Also, they ain't making em like they used to. Too many unqualified guys with copitis who lack the balls to do the job properly.

HisArpy said:

This is an emotional reaction and not one based in logic. The jury was selected after being questioned about their beliefs, opinions, and objectivity. It was comprised of men and women, white and non-white, young and old. It was a pretty decent cross-sectional representation of the members of the community.

They listed to the testimony, heard the evidence, saw the video, discussed everything amongst themselves with no outside interference, and came to a decision.

THEIR decision followed the rules of law and society. YOURS is an opinion based on viewing 20 seconds of video. Of the 2, I trust theirs more than yours.

Click to expand...

And it was a unanimous decision.

LincolnDuncan said:

I'm not anti labor union but I believe that the police labor unions are a big part of the problem. Also, they ain't making em like they used to. Too many unqualified guys with copitis who lack the balls to do the job properly.

Click to expand...

I would take issue with that. At one time, it was routine for cops to beat confessions out of suspects and to write phony police reports. With video cameras, they can't do that as easily.

From what I heard, there were only 10 in the beginning who voted for acquittal with 2 holdouts.

Which was good because that meant that they actually HAD to deliberate the case and talk it out until everyone reached consensus.

Yes, JUSTICE was actually done in this case. The racial bias, hate, and spin began immediately afterward.

Boxlicker101 said:

I would take issue with that. At one time, it was routine for cops to beat confessions out of suspects and to write phony police reports. With video cameras, they can't do that as easily.

Click to expand...

I know a lot of cops who don't have the balls to do the job. That was not the case 40 years ago. There are too many people who need a job, manage to survive the academy but don't really have the right stuff. I'm not pulling this out of my ass. I'm talking from experience.

HisArpy said:

From what I heard, there were only 10 in the beginning who voted for acquittal with 2 holdouts.

Which was good because that meant that they actually HAD to deliberate the case and talk it out until everyone reached consensus.

Yes, JUSTICE was actually done in this case. The racial bias, hate, and spin began immediately afterward.

Click to expand...

That's what I read about the deliberations also. And the holdout were NOT the black members of the jury.

JayCuck said:

It's not an emotional reaction. There's nothing emotional in my posts. Is it an opinion...yes. That's kinda the whole point of a discussion forum. I never said the jury was impaneled incorrectly, or that they didn't follow the law. Those are your words...not mine.

It's possible the jury did all the things you said...and I can still disagree with their verdict. There are people being proven innocent, and released from prison, and they were convicted by juries who did precisely what you described above.

Here's the rub. Your opinion is that the jury is right. My opinion is the jury is wrong.

Both opinions have equal weight.
Peace

Click to expand...

No they don't.

My opinion is based on experience, training, statistics and analysis that juries do the correct thing and usually reach the correct decision. It's based on the fact that the jury in this case took 3 days to make a decision after combing through the evidence and discussing it. It's based on actual courtroom time in front of a jury PICKING that jury, presenting evidence and then waiting for the result KNOWING that it's the best that humans can do under the circumstances.

Your opinion is based on 20 seconds of You Tube video played again and again and again. No proof. No analysis. No evidence. Just a gut emotional response that they got it wrong. Because that's what you want to believe. That's not an opinion, it's faith. And sometimes that faith is vindicated but usually only rarely. You would hang everything on that faint hope with nothing to support it.

So, it comes down to hope vs knowledge. Faith vs. trust. Which of those things is more likely to be true?

JayCuck said:

Best that humans can do under the circumstances.

Your opinion is also based on hope and faith....in the best that humans can do.

Time deliberating doesn't make them right. Lawyers picking juries, doesn't guarantee a right verdict. CAPITALIZING your points doesn't give them any more validity.

You're not the only one with experience, training, and there liars, damned liars, and statistics. You're case that your opinion is somehow 'more informed' than mine is not compelling. The legal system, including juries, is FALLIBLE.

They got it wrong this time.
Peace.

Click to expand...

If two people, one very knowledgeable on a subject and the other knowing very little, express an opinion on that subject, I would place much more confidence in the first opinion. This was not a hung jury; this was a unanimous decision.

However, you are entitled to your opinion. I do not have one on this subject, except that I would agree with the knowledgeable person.

Right wingers love to dry hump guns unless they see one of these walking the streets



Thank you, Raygun for helping with the Mulford Act to protect us from those NEGRAS n their guns.

Men who are pussies, who can't fight rely on guns to take care of business

Without guns, some of you hillbillies would end up curb stomped cause you can't fight for shit.

nowisthetime85 said:

Men who are pussies, who can't fight rely on guns to take care of business

Without guns, some of you hillbillies would end up curb stomped cause you can't fight for shit.

Click to expand...

That's why guns are sometimes called "The old equalizers."