Devonai
Member
Boy, I'd love to know which unit has THOSE on the MTOE
11B, of course. They're right there between the M134 and the M18A1.
Boy, I'd love to know which unit has THOSE on the MTOE
Sit back, relax, open a beer. Not one post has defended the cops here. Not. One. Post.Some poor broken down old cop wanna-be gets rousted in IL for havin' a couple of beebee guns and a zap gun and we should be cheerin' it as another glorious victory for the forces of lawn odor?
Again, NOBODY has cheered the cops here. Back off.And a certain percentage on THR and other gun boards would cheer it as a righteous enforcement of duly-enacted weapons laws, too.
For instance, Jack Ruby was a Cop Groupie, which is how he got that
close to Lee harvey Oswald.
I don't approve of it, but I certainly understand how it happened.
He moved to somewhere in Kentucky a couple of years ago and to my best knowledge he's keeping the dragons and demons away from there now.....
An occasional security guard — clad in body armor, combat boots, fatigues and a badge — seemed a little too into his job for the comfort of Orland Park police.
When an officer first noticed Edwin W. Williams, 68, of Kankakee, he was sitting in a car that resembled a police squad, parked alone alongside a shopping plaza.
The officer drove up, and Williams got out of his car. In addition to the fatigues, a weapons belt and other regalia, the officer noticed Williams wore not one but two sets of body armor — one on top of the other, police said.
Williams also wore a hat with the word "security" on it. His badge indicated he was some type of lieutenant, according to police reports detailing the March 27 incident.
Attempts to reach Williams were unsuccessful.
Because the shopping plaza, at 151st Street and LaGrange Road, does not employ uniformed security guards, the officer knew Williams didn't work there.
Williams told police he worked security but could not provide names, telephone numbers or give any reason for why he was in the lot that day at 11 a.m.
The officer found several switchblades, handcuffs and a stun gun on Williams.
The fully charged stun gun got him arrested, police said.
Although he carried a valid firearm owner's identification card, Williams was charged with one count of felony unlawful use of weapons for having the charged stun gun.
A search of Williams' vehicle turned up several bags of clothing, containers of police-type gear such as knives and gloves and several boxes of ammunition.
Also found inside the vehicle were two pellet guns similar to ones used by police and military forces, as well as flashlights, food and blankets. Most of the items appeared to have come from flea markets, police said.
(2) Carries or possesses with intent to use the same
unlawfully against another,
Wrong question, Mad. It isn't about my ever-so-darling-precious feeeeelings, it's about what you're doing. It is an initiation of force or is it not? For instance, entering my curtilage to go through my trash, which, as other have pointed out, is trespass and can, here in Indiana, justifiably end up with you finding out that you really can see the JHP sitting ready by looking down the muzzle end of a handgun. Deliberately videotaping persons who have not given consent when said taping does not occur incidentally to some taping other subject may also be actionable; I have neither the time nor the inclination to look it up but perhaps El Tejon will run a quick check.madmike said:Let's take a hypothetical. You're here in Indiana. I set up across the street in a car, with binoculars, and stake out your house. I have a Remington 700 with all the sniper drag on it visible on the car's back deck. I'm wearing camo, painted up. I have video cameras rolling, and take occasional zoom telephoto images. I periodically go over to the sidewalk with forensic scales and take photos of footprints, etc, and root through your trash.
You call the cops, and they say, "But we can't make a stop or question him. He's not doing anything illegal..."
How do you feel?
Nope, you'd be sitting alone in a sort-of-police-looking-car across the street at 749/751 Mystreet, in bigtime copdrag, perhaps looking dazed or even dozing. Period. And you would not need to give a reason for being there because no citizen need do so to be in any public place, despite the peculiar notions to the contrary held by police forces over in IL.
How common? Can you produce any data to support your assertion? If not, I shall have to file it under "scare tactics," as occurances of this in Indiana are so uncommon as to produce front-page headlines when it does happen. I recall one occurrance in the last 30 years but I have not been tracjing them closely. Perhaps there have been two or even three. Slipping in the bathtub and being seriously injured or killed happens lot more frequently, yet where's the hue and cry over that?Jeff White said:Posing as a police officer, decking your car out to look like a squad car, and usuing these props in a scheme to abduct, rape and sometimes murder women is a common M.O.
"Potential victims?" Oh -- you mean what I refer to as "citizens." Gosh, I never thought of my fellow citizens as a victim-pool. Why would one do so? The key word here is potential. Has a crime been committed? No. Fear-mongering doesn't make a crime less likely to be committed, either.Jeff White said:The question is, what about the potential victims? Do they take comfort in the fact that the police knew that there was guy dressed in police regalia [et scary cetera].
Yes, exactly. That is the response I expect of the police. Why does that seem so wildly far-out to you? That's not a jab. I'm seriously curious.Jeff White said:If madmike was sitting outside your house engaging in the harmless fanatsy of being a supersecret, megaforce, death dealing, tango whacking operative (as described in his post) and you called the local local police to report a suspicious person, and they said, sorry he's got every right to sit there with all that high speed, low drag ninja equipment and watch things, call us back after he shoots you with his sniper rifle, it would be your preferred response?
And I can only agree with you that that was wrong. But:he was stopped and searched for the "crime" of looking different, at which point the presence of certain items, at least one of them alleged to be illegally possessed and none of which he had used or attempted to use against persons or property, resulted in his arrest.
You're missing the distinction. people have been stopped for speeding and then arrested after assaulting police officers. Were they arrested for speeding? Not a perfect analogy, I know, because they were arrested for an act they committed after being stopped, but that's because I'm having a hard time thinking of something that someone could legitimately be arrested for the mere possession of. Still, he was arrested after they found that he was actually breaking the law, not because he looked weird.Long story short: arrested for peaceably looking different.
The line of reasoning I put forth doesn't support any type of government; I never said the cops weren't wrong, or that the law was right. Only that he was arrested for an act that was, in fact, illegal, and that looking different was not that act.That is the kind of government the line of reasoning you put forth supports.