yamaha wrote: He hasn't earned a patch to be in the AB.....prolly just a small timer skinhead.
Just enough to make sure he had as few girlfriends as possible in prison.
yamaha wrote: He hasn't earned a patch to be in the AB.....prolly just a small timer skinhead.
Just enough to make sure he had as few girlfriends as possible in prison.
In reply to Flight Service:
I still believe that the people reporting things that turn out to be false should have to pay for the time wasted.
Then again, I've had multiple cops roll into a Wendy's where I was eating because my friend and I had 357 mags in shoulder rigs. They were more pissed at the people who called them. 
Hopefully he got that Nazi eagle crest on his left arm while he was getting raped in prison.
In reply to Appleseed:
The Waffen Amp? Probably not. Some people are stupid enough to get some of these tats on the outside.
Appleseed wrote: Hopefully he got that Nazi eagle crest on his left arm while he was getting raped in prison.
Really? Now we're wishing people get raped? Nice. 
How would this be the fault of the Police?
If they received a call claiming a man brandishing a gun was making threats, shouldn't they respond with the assumption that there is a man brandishing a gun making threats?
Cone_Junkie wrote: How would this be the fault of the Police? If they received a call claiming a man brandishing a gun was making threats, shouldn't they respond with the assumption that there is a man brandishing a gun making threats?
According to the story linked, there was no brandishing.... obviously something of an impossibility in this case..... just someone who might have a gun in their waistband.
Bobzilla wrote:Appleseed wrote: Hopefully he got that Nazi eagle crest on his left arm while he was getting raped in prison.Really? Now we're wishing people get raped? Nice.
Nazis? Yes.
Appleseed wrote:Bobzilla wrote:Nazis? Yes.Appleseed wrote: Hopefully he got that Nazi eagle crest on his left arm while he was getting raped in prison.Really? Now we're wishing people get raped? Nice.
Way to be the better person.
Cone_Junkie wrote: How would this be the fault of the Police? If they received a call claiming a man brandishing a gun was making threats, shouldn't they respond with the assumption that there is a man brandishing a gun making threats?
Is this in reply to my comment earlier? If so, I suggest you reread it. 
In reply to yamaha: No. It was more towards the police "gestapo" comment. But since the "gun" owner is still alive and was not tortured, pretty sure the police didn't have any gestapo qualities.
Which is especially out of context since the guy accused is the one with the Nazi tattoos
I guess when the police get calls about people making threats while having a visible firearm the dispatcher needs to ask if they are sure it's not just a tattoo. No reason to waste the SS's, I mean the cop's time on calls when people's lives feel threatened.
In reply to Cone_Junkie:
Theres the problem, they didn't know what the guy was saying.
The "gun" tattoo is about the dumbest one I've ever seen, but still.....I think people should be held accountable for false reporting. It'd take a load off the law enforcement so they could actually get things done efficiently.
I agree. It was a silly misunderstanding. But the cops came prepared for the worse, as they should. No mention in the article of police abuse, so I don't see how they can be accused of any wrong doing.
But we also don't want to villianize citizens for doing what they thought was right. I'm sure there are plenty of cases where the caller should be held responsible for police actions taken due to their false report. In this case no damage was done, nobody was hurt, and the tattoo guy seemed to have a pretty good sense of humor about it.
Just take your Wendy's story and switch it from a couple of guys with holstered pistols walking in to two guys with pistols jammed in their waistband walking in. It's probably safe to assume the intentions are different. Changes the dynamics dramatically.
It does make for an amusing story though...
In reply to Cone_Junkie:
Tattoo guy does get made fun of/critiqued to the public.
Its the same thing that happens every time some "do-gooder" dials 911 about myself/others carrying firearms. Overreaction that is completely unfounded, police rush to respond, and its about a 50-50 chance if I'm personally treated as a criminal or the cops understand that the "informant" is a berkeleytard.
So growing up in maine I can tell you there is slim to nothing but old people and drug addicts in Norridgewock so really the reaction is completely founded.
Also from what I remember the states KKK branch is just up the road in Canaan.
...with a pineapple.
Sorry, I'm with Joliet Jake on this one.
I hate Nazis.
In reply to Appleseed:
Cone_Junkie wrote: I agree. It was a silly misunderstanding. But the cops came prepared for the worse, as they should. No mention in the article of police abuse, so I don't see how they can be accused of any wrong doing. But we also don't want to villianize citizens for doing what they thought was right. I'm sure there are plenty of cases where the caller should be held responsible for police actions taken due to their false report. In this case no damage was done, nobody was hurt, and the tattoo guy seemed to have a pretty good sense of humor about it. Just take your Wendy's story and switch it from a couple of guys with holstered pistols walking in to two guys with pistols jammed in their waistband walking in. It's probably safe to assume the intentions are different. Changes the dynamics dramatically. It does make for an amusing story though...
I carry IWB. It might look "jammed into the wasteband" to some. Does that make me more of a criminal?
yamaha wrote: The "gun" tattoo is about the dumbest one I've ever seen, but still.....I think people should be held accountable for false reporting. It'd take a load off the law enforcement so they could actually get things done efficiently.
Sorry bro, I thought that someone may have been breaking into your house, but I also thought that it could have been your estranged nephew who unconventionally cleaned up the yard by throwing stray rocks into the kitchen garbage through the window.
Bobzilla wrote:Cone_Junkie wrote: I agree. It was a silly misunderstanding. But the cops came prepared for the worse, as they should. No mention in the article of police abuse, so I don't see how they can be accused of any wrong doing. But we also don't want to villianize citizens for doing what they thought was right. I'm sure there are plenty of cases where the caller should be held responsible for police actions taken due to their false report. In this case no damage was done, nobody was hurt, and the tattoo guy seemed to have a pretty good sense of humor about it. Just take your Wendy's story and switch it from a couple of guys with holstered pistols walking in to two guys with pistols jammed in their waistband walking in. It's probably safe to assume the intentions are different. Changes the dynamics dramatically. It does make for an amusing story though...I carry IWB. It might look "jammed into the wasteband" to some. Does that make me more of a criminal?
My daily carry is IWB. If it were to show, which is totally possible, the police are not showing up pointing any weapons at me.
The issue isn't whether he had the gun in his waistband or under his arm. The issue is that he wasn't wearing a shirt. If you've ever seen "Cops", you know that if there is a shirtless guy, he's probably going to resist arrest forcing the cops to chase him down and tackle him to the ground.
I bet the 911 call went something like this:
Caller: There is a man yelling and shouting. I can't understand what he's saying, and it looks like he has a gun.
Dispatcher: We will send a patrol car out to investigate. Can you give a description of the person shouting.
Caller: White guy, short hair, lots of tattoos, brown pants, and no shirt.
Dispatcher: No shirt? Alright m'am, four cars are on their way immediately.
In reply to Mitchell:
Hell, in some cases a required hand written apology for wasting my time would be sufficient. Its a bit different than actually seeing something suspicious, in my cases, its just been a "ZOMG he has a weapon, lets leave and call the cops" Why a holstered weapon is viewed as suspicious is far beyond me.......although when carrying glocks, I've never had an issue.
In reply to yamaha:
People are suspicious of things they are unfamiliar with. It is human nature. It's a trait that kept our ancestors alive. The motivation to carry is foreign to most folks. Combine that with the fact that we are talking about a very lethal weapon, without background experience the reflex reaction will be to remove yourself from the situation that you imagine could be a possible threat.
As for why a Glock is less weird... possibly because people are more familiar with them and associate them with law enforcement.
It's probably because people who are not "gun fans" do not know about the hair-splitting nuances of gun laws.
In reply to Beer Baron:
That is true, but still.....and the glocks were the only ones I'd open carry at walmart. 
Never once was hassled, which is surprising.
In reply to Mitchell:
Excellent point, I'd happily teach people about them, but thats a different conversation.
You'll need to log in to post.
