Cop says cops should shoot open carry advocates

[puppetmaster]

http://www.ktvu.com/news/22516072/detail.html


This cop is NOT an exception to the standard peace officer. I saw many cases of this type of behavior when I was in law enforcement.

A controversy was brewing in East Palo Alto Tuesday night after a police detective made apparently joking comments through his Facebook account saying “open carry” advocates who visibly carry guns in public should be shot.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm going to be doing some Open Carry demonstrations with the Motorhome Diaries folks, so if they shoot me it'll all be on footage. (And bet your house that if they restrict my rights in any way I'm suing them. That is the only way to get through to these tyrant motherfuckers (I take the 5th of going any further ))

I guess this cop doesn't understand that he himself is open carrying. Is he saying we should shoot cops?

 

[RideTheDirt]

his co workers should watch out! they all open carry!

 

[phill4paul]

I reckon if enough harshly worded letters are written he'll get a weeks paid leave. Well, if they want to continue w/ an "us vs. them" attitude I know which side I come down on.

 

[AFPVet]

I would not want to be these officers. I just hope that Internal Affairs or their superiors know about this and have started disciplinary proceedings. LEO's and Military do not have the same rights that we do. They must watch their words!

 

[xd9fan]

that cop needs to feel the heat....he needs to be fired.

He doesnt understand the law and/or rights.......which IMHO makes him lawsuit material for the department

either retrain him or let him go.

 

[Charlie41]

You know the thing that just kills me.

2A clearly states "Shall not be infringed"

1A is a little more vague.

The Cops will attack if they see a weapon here, but some how they don't attack when you speaking you mind to another person.

If you look at the situation under a constitutional stance. It is very clear the cops are over stepping their authority on the issue of gun rights.

 

[JeNNiF00F00]

well a lot of cops open carry all the time sooooo....

 

[theclip]

..then cops should be arrested....

 

[RJB]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=267601&page=24

He's a member of this forum under the name ".45shooter"

see post 237

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

..then cops should be arrested....

Or in his words, given a taste of his own medicine?

 

[Kalashnikov Josh]

This is what happens when we have an over-all disregard for our rights by those in authority,especially when authority has a monopoly on the use of force.
We get Gestapo.
We get Stasi.
We get slimy authority figures that insist we need to surrender our rights 'for our own protection',and their thugs,supposedly hired and armed 'for our protection',sneering at us as they have a privilege granted to them by government that we may not have-power over us,the power of life and death.

And they'll try to make this look like this is an isolated incident,as if cops everywhere dont have the attitude and TRAINING that they are 'better than us' because of their 'commitment to serve' the government.
Because they dont serve me,or you.They get a paycheck playing at being the security apparatus for a government gone wild,federalizing state and local authority more and more day by day,demanding that we surrender our arms and obey them,'for our own protection',of course.

This attitude,this elitist authoritarian psychosis-Its endemic in the system we have at this point in our nations history.Its in all the police forces local to state to federal,and because every aspect of our government seeks to push its own authority past the boundaries and limitations of our Constitution,it should hardly be a surprise when this attitude surfaces individually among government employees.

Rare is the 'oathkeeper',the true 'peace officer',as his evil twin,the 'law enforcement' drone,who seeks only to enforce the laws of his masters upon the rest of us-are legion.

One of them said something about "Getting out the AR and making them prone".

If the police keep acting like an occupying army,one day,the citizens will play their role-and we'll be 'proning out' with FNFALS,AKs and ARs of our own and drawing a bead on these thugs.

 

[Dr.3D]

You know the thing that just kills me.

2A clearly states "Shall not be infringed"

1A is a little more vague.

The Cops will attack if they see a weapon here, but some how they don't attack when you speaking you mind to another person.

If you look at the situation under a constitutional stance. It is very clear the cops are over stepping their authority on the issue of gun rights.

Cops have no authority on the issue of gun rights. What is the law, is the law and they are not the ones who make the laws.

 

[Kalashnikov Josh]

Cops have no authority on the issue of gun rights. What is the law, is the law and they are not the ones who make the laws.

Do police in general swear an oath to uphold and obey the Constitution of the United States of America?

it might be different from state to state,local to local,but I believe the vast majority of them do......

They might as well stop with the formality,as it seems,judging by this issue in particular and any number of others,that the vast majority of them dont take it to heart....just like our congress and other elected 'representatives'.....

Just to be clear,I'm no more anti-cop than the cops are anti-constitutional......and last time I looked,the establishment of a national police force via the Department of Homeland Stasi and its 'fusion centers',let alone any 'law enforcement agencies' at all were never mentioned in that document......the power of the use of arms to provide for the security of the free state is a power reserved to the people,refer to the Second amendment.
Police forces are delegates of the people,and hence must act in the peoples,not the governments' best interests.
Blindly enforcing the law as it is written by government without individually assessing its merit based on a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution is what makes a 'law enforcement' officer different from a 'peace officer'.

The difference is huge.

Peace officers I will support-'law enforcement' officers I detest.

Police may not make the laws,but they can and should judge whether to obey the precedent to enforce them based on sensitivity to the highest law of the land -the Constitution of The United States of America- if they are in fact acting in the best interests of the people.

In so doing,they act as an extra check and balance on tyranny.

If they are rendered unable to do so as required by some stipulation of employment,then perhaps that needs to change.The power to police comes from the people,not the government.
The government must not be allowed to stand between the interests of the people and the Constitution via the enforcement of law.

Please read my signature line.

 

[AFPVet]

Do police in general swear an oath to uphold and obey the Constitution of the United States of America?

it might be different from state to state,local to local,but I believe the vast majority of them do......

They might as well stop with the formality,as it seems,judging by this issue in particular and any number of others,that the vast majority of them dont take it to heart....just like our congress and other elected 'representatives'.....

Just to be clear,I'm no more anti-cop than the cops are anti-constitutional......and last time I looked,the establishment of a national police force via the Department of Homeland Stasi and its 'fusion centers',let alone any 'law enforcement agencies' at all were never mentioned in that document......the power of the use of arms to provide for the security of the free state is a power reserved to the people,refer to the Second amendment.
Police forces are delegates of the people,and hence must act in the peoples,not the governments' best interests.
Blindly enforcing the law as it is written by government without individually assessing its merit based on a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution is what makes a 'law enforcement' officer different from a 'peace officer'.

The difference is huge.

Peace officers I will support-'law enforcement' officers I detest.

Police may not make the laws,but they can and should judge whether to obey the precedent to enforce them based on sensitivity to the highest law of the land -the Constitution of The United States of America- if they are in fact acting in the best interests of the people.

In so doing,they act as an extra check and balance on tyranny.

If they are rendered unable to do so as required by some stipulation of employment,then perhaps that needs to change.The power to police comes from the people,not the government.
The government must not be allowed to stand between the interests of the people and the Constitution via the enforcement of law.

Please read my signature line.

Precisely Josh! All public officers and military personnel swear to support and defend the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. This means that the U.S. Constitution trumps ANY and ALL laws which may be in conflict.