[SVT-40]

Sorry but you cannot parse your words and say "I have never "demanded" anything from LEO in any real sense" If you mean you have never walked up to a LEO and to his face demanded anything. Yes, I believe that.

But your words assert your demands upon LEO's as a whole.


Below are both verbatim quotes from your posts.

Originally Posted by nobody_special

"Woah, hold on; I never lumped all California LEO's together."

"The attitude displayed in the OP's article is good. But that attitude is not universal. For example, it is not shared by many officers in my locale; rather, my impression is that they're cut from the same cloth as bigstick61's godfather."

So you did lump LEO's together. At least "many" of the LEO's in your local.

And of course no group of any sort LEO's or gun owners have a attitude which is "universal" as you call it.

You say:

Originally Posted by nobody_special

"But there is a rational basis for some (not all) of the anti-police sentiment here."

Given the same logic you are saying that LEO's should have a rational basis for being suspect of gun owners??

Bias is bias. No way to pretty it up to make it acceptable.

If you have bias toward LEO's in general. Or bias against gun owners in general then those views are just plain wrong.

Another of your flawed reasoning's.

Originally Posted by nobody_special

You can't pass this off to the legislature, that's the Nuremberg defense. Those who enforce unjust laws are in fact enforcing injustice. By definition they are instruments of oppression.

Comparing LEO's to NAZIS, which you do when you raise "the Nuremberg defense". Is absolutely bias.
Our system of justice is nothing like the NAZI's


Until laws are legally changed they are legal and enforceable. Just because you don't like them does not change that fact. Your stance is an opinion and nothing more. LEO's don't enforce "opinions". If that were the case it would be anarchy.

You are entitled to your opinion. But it is just your opinion.

As I said before when laws change then LEO's will also change their enforcement.

Your quote

Originally Posted by nobody_special

After MacDonald, the right to bear arms is a civil right in California. The stated behavior (pointing a gun at a person for no reason other than the fact that he is openly carrying a weapon) is a likely violation of all four statutes that I linked.

As above. NOTHING in California law has changed. When it does enforcement will change. LEO's don't get to cherry pick which laws they enforce.

You also oversimplify by stating that LEO's pointed guns at individuals for:
"no reason other than the fact that he is openly carrying a weapon".

You nor I know the circumstances of these encounters. Were the police called because of a armed individual? what was the situation at the time?

I'm sure many have had guns pointed at them? But just because the police point guns at an individual does not mean the police were guilty of any misconduct.

Originally Posted by nobody_special

Yes I am specifically referring to bigstick61's story, though you could also include the EPA facebook hubbub, pullnshoot's experiences as detailed on his blog, etc. -- there are plenty of examples. You decry the anti-LEO attitude here, while ignoring the obvious anti-gun-owner bias expressed by numerous LEO.

I guess you missed my comments above.

"Or should each man be judged by his own individual actions and words. LEO's and gun owners alike?

"Bias of any sort is just wrong and shows a lack of reason and an elitist attitude."

"Personally I would disagree with anyone who had a similar attitude and would tell them to their face how wrong they were."

Three examples of my equal and ethical treatment of both LEO's and gun owners.

But I guess you don't get it.

It's about an individuals actions and words. Not a group.

If you have a issue with a certain LEO address that issue with the appropriate agency.

As in the EPA officer. There was a complaint made. It was investigated and he was found to have been guilty of improper conduct.

Judging any other LEO because of this fools stupid words. is absolutely wrong.


As above each situation is different.

Originally Posted by nobody_special

As for "stories being one thing and actuality is another," plenty of people exercising UOC have had guns pointed at them.

I'm sure they have. But there are always two sides to each story. Making an assumption or forming an opinion without both sides input is ignorant and foolish.

I if you were to ask the officers involved in those situations I would bet there would be some legal or reasonable justification for pointing guns at armed individuals. Not all the time, but I'm sure it would add at least another side to the story.

Originally Posted by nobody_special

I never said that having an opinion is a 1983 violation; I said that the threat (drawing and pointing a gun at someone for UOC) is a violation. And in fact the conspiracy law in section 241 only requires that two people "conspire to... threaten, or intimidate" -- it does not even require that the threat or intimidation actually occur. That felony is only a small step beyond two officers merely "having an opinion" together.

Sorry but your interpretation and application of 1983 regarding LEO's pointing guns at UOC folks is flawed.

LEO's have the very complicated job of separating people who are acting in a legal way from folks who are committing crimes. Time after time it has been found legal for LEO's to point weapons at individuals when they (the LEO) have a reasonable fear of their lives.

Regarding section 241, again you analysis is flawed. As long as LEO's are acting "reasonably" there cannot be any constitutional violations.

But again I return to the main premise of my comments.

Stop the anti LEO bias.

It's individuals not groups.


If it were applicable it would have been raised by persons more intelligent than either of us.