The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Magoo541 on April 06, 2016, 08:58:01 PM
-
...Are you carrying?
Me-Carrying what?
HR-We are all for people owning guns...
Me-Nodding in agreement.
HR-Concealed?
Me-I do.
HR-How about now?
Me-No. :-X
HR-Well someone thought you might be carrying and our policy is no Firearms on the premises so you can leave it in the car.
Me- Sounds good.
Smh....
Here we go again.
-
"thought you might be"
And they call us paranoid >:(
I used to get asked that all the time. I always responded by parroting the company "no guns" policy. You would think they would catch on when some days I would say flat out "NO', and others I would quietly parrot the handbook or posting information.
-
I don't understand hoplophobia, it's an irrational fear after all, but the fact that someone suspects or might even think they saw someone carrying a gun would feel compelled to say something to the powers-that-be, to what end? Are they any more safe? I could make the case that they were less safe.
I must say this was less hostile than my previous trip to HR at my previous job though for the same "suspicion" ;D
-
I wish I had your problem.
-
HR-Well someone thought you might be carrying and our policy is no Firearms on the premises so you can leave it in the car.
That is the problem to be concerned about. "Someone thought". This is what Hitler did. He had the people squealing on each other to the SS. That is what this country has been reduced to. Anyone who thinks this will not end in bloodshed, and very soon, is badly mistaken.
Just watch what is poised to happen, after the GOP takes the Republican nomination away from Trump. Which is exactly what is going to happen. The last thing people are going to have to worry about is "who is carrying". Because if your not, there is a damn good chance you'll be shot. This whole nation has become a powder keg, with a fuse that will burn until July 18th.
-
This whole nation has become a powder keg, with a fuse that will burn until July 18th.
I, unfortunately have to agree.
-
I, unfortunately have to agree.
This is one of the few situations where I pray that I am wrong. I just don't think I am. But I will rejoice if that is the case, and on January 20, 2017 we are watching the swearing in of President Donald J. Trump.
-
Bill, this is the result of decades of allowing subversives to control education and the media.
The population has been brainwashed to the point where the only real fix is either revolution or a disaster like the plague, or Spanish flu that kills off half the population.
-
Bill, this is the result of decades of allowing subversives to control education and the media.
The population has been brainwashed to the point where the only real fix is either revolution or a disaster like the plague, or Spanish flu that kills off half the population.
Yep.
Sadly, I fear anything else is just a tourniquet...it might stem the profuseness of the bleeding for the short term, but does nothing to treat the wound.
-
I don't understand hoplophobia, it's an irrational fear after all, but the fact that someone suspects or might even think they saw someone carrying a gun would feel compelled to say something to the powers-that-be, to what end? Are they any more safe? I could make the case that they were less safe.
I must say this was less hostile than my previous trip to HR at my previous job though for the same "suspicion" ;D
I was going to start a new thread, and someone or I may still, about a story I heard on the radio this morning. I need to find it to read, but the basics are as follows:
A paranoid pansy saw a man carrying a rifle in Walmart;
The paranoid pansy called 911 and reported it;
The police arrived and ordered the man to drop the gun;
The person with the rifle did not comply;
Police shot and killed the man;
The rifle was a BB gun he had picked up from the shelf in the store;
The paranoid pansy is being charged for false report of a crime.
-
A paranoid pansy saw a man carrying a rifle in Walmart;
The paranoid pansy called 911 and reported it;
The police arrived and ordered the man to drop the gun;
The person with the rifle did not comply;
Police shot and killed the man;
This actually happened to a guy in Las Vegas named Erik Scott in a Costco there. It was a very controversial shooting. His family is now suing Costco as a result.
http://lasvegassun.com/news/2012/jun/08/erik-scotts-family-files-lawsuit-against-costco-sh/
-
Bill, this is the result of decades of allowing subversives to control education and the media.
The population has been brainwashed to the point where the only real fix is either revolution or a disaster like the plague, or Spanish flu that kills off half the population.
I agree Tom. We're there. It's not the fact people don't like Trump for this or that reason. It's the fact they're too stupid to see the way the establishment is forcing him out. They're just too dumb to ask WHY? For years we speculated about this going on in Washington, (good ol' boys club), without any concrete evidence. Now we have it starring us in the face, and these dumb bastards are still too stupid swallow it.
-
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/cops-shoot-and-kill-man-holding-toy-gun-walmart (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/cops-shoot-and-kill-man-holding-toy-gun-walmart)
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/shopper-called-911-ohio-man-walmart-gun-chaos-story-article-1.1936449 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/shopper-called-911-ohio-man-walmart-gun-chaos-story-article-1.1936449)
http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/news/crime-law/judge-finds-probable-cause-for-911-caller-in-crawf/nqzq4/ (http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/news/crime-law/judge-finds-probable-cause-for-911-caller-in-crawf/nqzq4/)
The caller is responsible for two deaths and an officer's life ruined, not to mention all the family affected. I have not found today's story of charges against Ritchie being filed, but will look again later.
-
I was going to start a new thread, and someone or I may still, about a story I heard on the radio this morning. I need to find it to read, but the basics are as follows:
A paranoid pansy saw a man carrying a rifle in Walmart;
The paranoid pansy called 911 and reported it;
The police arrived and ordered the man to drop the gun;
The person with the rifle did not comply;
Police shot and killed the man;
The rifle was a BB gun he had picked up from the shelf in the store;
The paranoid pansy is being charged for false report of a crime.
The scumbag who called 911 reported that the man was pointing the gun at people in the store. He later admitted he made that up.
The man with the gun was talking on his cell phone and there is no indication he heard the police or was aware they were present.
I have 2 questions:
1. Did the police feel threatened or feel others in the store were threatened?
2. If I had been in the store, armed, and witnessed the same actions by this man, then I would feel just as threatened as the police and fell others were just as threatened as the police felt they were. From that it would appear I would be as justified in killing him as the police where, right?
1. did the police feel threat
-
The girlfriend, who he was talking to on the cellphone, heard him saying "it's not real, it's not real" before the shooting.
-
1. Did the police feel threatened or feel others in the store were threatened?
1. did the police feel threat
"Feelings" don't work in a court of law. The threat MUST be REAL. Not just "felt", or "imagined". The same thing applies to CCW holders. Your life must be placed in real, immediate danger in order to justify the use deadly force. This is what brought on all of the legal and civil action in the Erik Scott case. Many believe he was not a threat when the cops fired, killing him.
-
"The reasonable man" is based on feelings and perception. It is all about how you present you case and express your feelings. This is what helped George Zimmerman both the night of the shooting and in the eventual trial brought on by our racist leader who has no sons, but if he did George would have just killed them.
-
"The reasonable man" is based on feelings and perception. It is all about how you present you case and express your feelings. This is what helped George Zimmerman both the night of the shooting and in the eventual trial brought on by our racist leader who has no sons, but if he did George would have just killed them.
Zimmerman should have NEVER been charged. It was all based on race to appease a bunch of whining blacks. Nothing more. The only argument the prosecution had, was that he should have never gotten out of his car. That actually helped the defense. Because if he hadn't, then Martin wouldn't have had him pinned to the ground, while at the same time punching him in the face, forcing Zimmerman to shoot him in self defense.
That's no more of a prosecuting argument than saying if the person who was car jacked had stayed home, it never would have happened.
-
"Feelings" don't work in a court of law.
Evidently that is not the case anymore. Witness:
"April 27, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Illinois, voting two to one to back the city’s banning of certain firearms and magazine capacities, partly based on feelings: “If it has no other effect, Highland Park’s ordinance may increase the public’s sense of safety.#…#If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417641/what-right-feel-safe-robert-b-young
The decision goes against Heller AND the Bill of Rights based on people's feelings. Modern judicial douchebaggery at it's best.
-
"Feelings" don't work in a court of law. The threat MUST be REAL. Not just "felt", or "imagined". The same thing applies to CCW holders. Your life must be placed in real, immediate danger in order to justify the use deadly force. This is what brought on all of the legal and civil action in the Erik Scott case. Many believe he was not a threat when the cops fired, killing him.
I can go with that...were the police or customers in any real danger? A citizen seeing what they were seeing would be just as justified in using lethal force as those cops were.
Point I was making wasn't about "feeling" but about a CC non-cop having the same justification for the use of force as the police.
-
Point I was making wasn't about "feeling" but about a CC non-cop having the same justification for the use of force as the police.
I was told by the last CCW instructor I had the police are, "held to a higher standard" because they receive more training than a civilian CCW holder. Now, how true is that? I have no idea. Better to ask a criminal lawyer. And like Jaybet pointed out, the area of the country is important. Highland Park, Illinois is a notorious socialist, overtaxed, high priced, liberal $h!t hole. Not the same as Arizona. Especially with anything involving guns.
-
I was told by the last CCW instructor I had the police are, "held to a higher standard" because they receive more training than a civilian CCW holder. Now, how true is that? I have no idea. Better to ask a criminal lawyer. And like Jaybet pointed out, the area of the country is important. Highland Park, Illinois is a notorious socialist, overtaxed, high priced, liberal $h!t hole. Not the same as Arizona. Especially with anything involving guns.
From many examples I have seen, it is not true.
There are some differences...It is acceptable for police to get involved in circumstances a non-police officer should avoid...like suspicious activity in a known drug selling area. Police can stop and question, others cannot and should not.
Read a report where an officer pulled a car over on the highway for a minor infraction...tail light out or something. As the officer was approaching the vehicle the drivers door opened and the driver started getting out. The officer yelled for him to remain in the car, but he kept getting out. The officer saw what he "believed" was a long gun and shot the man dead.
Turned out to be a 71 year old getting out of the car with his cane.
Now, I cannot pull cars over, but say I was pulled over changing a flat and that same car pulled in ahead of me, probably to offer assistance...but me being paranoid, yell for him to stay in the car..but he continues to get out....the same 71 year old with his cane.
What would happen to me if I shot him dead because I thought the cane was a long gun?
Believe me, I am not anti-Police. but I do see a problem that seems to be growing...an "Us" vs "Them" attitude ...with the "Us" being police and the "them" being everyone else....among too many officers. Years ago I stopped watching the Cop shows on TV because that attitude was evident even when being filmed.
-
From many examples I have seen, it is not true.
There are some differences...It is acceptable for police to get involved in circumstances a non-police officer should avoid...like suspicious activity in a known drug selling area. Police can stop and question, others cannot and should not.
Read a report where an officer pulled a car over on the highway for a minor infraction...tail light out or something. As the officer was approaching the vehicle the drivers door opened and the driver started getting out. The officer yelled for him to remain in the car, but he kept getting out. The officer saw what he "believed" was a long gun and shot the man dead.
Turned out to be a 71 year old getting out of the car with his cane.
Now, I cannot pull cars over, but say I was pulled over changing a flat and that same car pulled in ahead of me, probably to offer assistance...but me being paranoid, yell for him to stay in the car..but he continues to get out....the same 71 year old with his cane.
What would happen to me if I shot him dead because I thought the cane was a long gun?
Believe me, I am not anti-Police. but I do see a problem that seems to be growing...an "Us" vs "Them" attitude ...with the "Us" being police and the "them" being everyone else....among too many officers. Years ago I stopped watching the Cop shows on TV because that attitude was evident even when being filmed.
For the most part I agree because you are applying common sense. I would say that in many parts of the country, not all, if a cop makes a mistake, for the most part he's got the department behind him. The citizen has no such support. He has to buy it through legal channels. And that can financially ruin lives.