Would you call the cops?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm willing to "enforce" my opinions by informing authorities of a possible crime in progress. He may or may not be arrested, but he wouldn't be stripped of any rights or freedoms (eg, he wouldn't be prosecuted) unless he had broken a law. Therefore, if he does lose any rights or freedoms, he deserved to.
You mean like this guy? A victim of a "concerned citizen".<http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=647744>
 
Well, here we are again with what this person "deserves." I don't believe anyone "deserves" to lose their freedom and property for this unconstitutional law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse when you're charged. I have no interest in helping put someone in front of a judge because they didn't know the law -- or really for any victimless nada-crime.
There is no such thing as a victimless crime.

All I'm saying is if you break a law, I believe you deserve to pay the consequences for that action or omission - whichever the case may be. Isn't that belief just part of being a responsible citizen? Deliberate indifference to a crime is just as bad as committing it myself. Whether or not I agree with a particular law is irrelevant.

What was the question again? "If someone is breaking a law and putting himself (and potentially others) in danger by doing so, but you don't think its a big deal, would you pretend you didn't notice?"

Or if you prefer, "Do you have absolutely zero integrity?"

Too many responses here indicate that many would answer "yes."
 
Last edited:
All I'm saying is if you break a law, I believe you deserve to pay the consequences for that action or omission - whichever the case may be.
Really? Well, thank Heaven so few of us get what we deserve.

I believe if you harm someone you deserve to pay the consequences. I'm not big on the malum prohibidum stuff.

Isn't that belief just part of being a responsible citizen?
I don't believe so. But I guess that's up to each to decide. I tend to see being unarmed in public as being rather a irresponsible, which would put me more in line with the guy being narc'd on, I guess.

Deliberate indifference to a crime is just as bad as committing it myself. Whether or not I agree with a particular law is irrelevant.
Yikes. If that's how you feel...okay. There's no way I could possibly internalize that value system.
 
In my state,it is illegal to drive in the rain without having your headlamps on. Should I report this to police if I see someone not doing this? Or not having their seatbelt on? Or riding a motorcycle without a helmet? These are,afterall,unlawful acts in my state. How sad to see just how quickly we are willing to throw our fellow citizens to the wolves.
 
Given the OP's claim that it was a prohibited act where it occured, yes I would call.

What do you expect the cops to do, follow the individual and wait until something might happen? Here it seems that prevention is better than the cure.

Maybe it is harmless, but you can bet that there will be a lot of calls to 9-1-1 like it or not. My calm description of a seeming innocent act will translate into a more calm response by LE. Once 20-30-40 calls come in from frantic sheep about a wolf in their midst and that poor individual will likely be proned out by a dozen police officers.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke
 
Another scenario: You're working in your front yard one day, and you notice a rental van backed into your neighbor's driveway. It has no front license plate, and you can't see the rear one. You and your neighbor are friendly, and you have seen some of his collection of outstanding Walker Colts, and the 1911 his father carried in WWII and Korea. His garage door is up, and two men are removing a gun safe from the house and loading it into the van, using a pair of skateboards as a makeshift dolly. The one facing you appears to have a Glock tucked in his waistband. Both are perspiring heavily, and appear to be in a hurry.
Do you:
1) Mind your own business.
2) Assume they are engaged in interstate commerce, thus under the protection of federal law.
3) Offer them a cold drink?
4) Call your neighbor's cell phone and leave a voice message?
5) Assume they are taking the safe with the owner's permission, and get excited for him. He must be getting a new safe!
6) Suspect something criminal may be happening, but decide that the system doesn't work anyway, they'll be home by dinner, you don't agree with prison time for burglary, and besides - he's got homeowner's insurance.
 
In my state,it is illegal to drive in the rain without having your headlamps on. Should I report this to police if I see someone not doing this? Or not having their seatbelt on? Or riding a motorcycle without a helmet? These are,afterall,unlawful acts in my state. How sad to see just how quickly we are willing to throw our fellow citizens to the wolves.

Those violations you speak have never preceded a mass shooting of innocent people. Not all criminal acts are equal.

So how much of a potential threat are we supposed to ignore in the name of the second amendment? What if the guy is carrying an M60? RPG? A few grenades strapped to his chest? A nuclear suitcase bomb? Everytime somebody shoots up a group of people it certrainly doesn't help our second amendment rights.
 
One more: Your neighbor reported his wife as a missing person two days ago. Now he's at your door, asking to borrow your pickup and your chainsaw, 'cuz he feels like cutting some wood. He thinks it might rain, so he'd really appreciate using a tarp, too.

Now, be a good neighbor....
 
In my state,it is illegal to drive in the rain without having your headlamps on. Should I report this to police if I see someone not doing this? Or not having their seatbelt on? Or riding a motorcycle without a helmet? These are,afterall,unlawful acts in my state. How sad to see just how quickly we are willing to throw our fellow citizens to the wolves.

[sarcasm]

But, but, but....we are talking about a G. U. N. here!

(and an evil black one, too!)

[/sarcasm]
 
Those violations you speak have never preceded a mass shooting of innocent people. Not all criminal acts are equal.
But the law is the law! Violators must be reported. Not running headlamps in the rain can lead to multicar accidents.
 
Or what about this: An Apache gunship hovers over you while 17 armed chimpanzees in hoodies and sunglasses pillage your neighborhood.
Oh my.....The squirrels are terrified.
Ya know, I just might call the police for that. :D

The scenario in the original post has been modified (in subsequent posts) so many times that it is no longer the original scenario.

I did enjoy this comment though;
Perfect scenario why concealed carry should be ALOUD on campus with a state issued permit.
If the schools would allow suppressors, then guns wouldn't be 'ALOUD'. ;)

.
 
Last edited:
The old argument of ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law is not an excuse) is starting to get a bit tired when we have >10,000 federal laws (not to mention state, municipality, etc.). Short of a savant, no one is going to be able to know all of those laws. Humans aren't computers.

We need fewer laws for that to be a legitimate argument.
 
Quote:
The Second doesn't give us the right to carry in a prison, courthouse, or commercial airliner.

From Teachu2 ,we got this.I thought the Second says ,"shall not infringed", affirming our unalienable right to self defense of ourselves,our families and others in any surroundings.

Unfortunately, the courts have ruled against this argument - be a true American patriot and be the case that gets that overturned! Pick any one of those places, go affirm your right, and you'll get to see at least one of the others. Choose wisely, and you can get all three!

Guys, I'm an advocate of OC, CC, drum magazines, and mandatory firearms training in public schools. I would like less government, and vote accordingly. Heck, I've had a FFL - twice! I'm also a former LEO and recently became a lifer in NRA. But I'm also firmly grounded in the present - some of what we used to do as kids isn't allowed any more. We can organize, educate, and advocate changes in the laws - but the current laws are what we currently live with.

Nostalgia for the lifestyle we had as kids doesn't erase the societal changes since. When we were kids, "school shooting" involved a BB gun and a window.

This scenario draws attention simply because it is not normal today. Armed abnormal behavior in public will draw the attention of LE.
 
This scenario draws attention simply because it is not normal today. Armed abnormal behavior in public will draw the attention of LE.

Unfortunately, you seem to fail to be able to separate the "armed" from the "abnormal behavior in public".

Thank goodness, the Washington State Supreme Court does:

http://forum.nwcdl.org/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile&id=9

Fourth, the trial court found that Casad did not carry the weapons in a manner that would warrant reasonable alarm. This factor is heavily contested by the parties, primarily based on individuals’ reactions to seeing a gun carried on a city street and whether Casad pointed one rifle barrel toward the roadway. We note that, in connection with this case, several individuals have commented that they would find it strange, maybe shocking, to see a man carrying a gun down the street in broad daylight. Casad’s appellate counsel conceded that she would personally react with shock, but she emphasized that an individual’s lack of comfort with firearms does not equate to reasonable alarm. We agree. It is not unlawful for a person to responsibly walk down the street with a visible firearm, even if this action would shock some people.
 
I understand your point, and misrepresented reality re the 2nd. The reality is that our courts have routinely upheld limiting our rights, interpreted the Constitution in ways contrary to our personal interpretations, and established case law that stands today.

Until those laws are overturned by a higher court or legislative action (including initiatives), they remain the law.
 
Another scenario: You're working in your front yard one day, and you notice a rental van backed into your neighbor's driveway. It has no front license plate, and you can't see the rear one. You and your neighbor are friendly, and you have seen some of his collection of outstanding Walker Colts, and the 1911 his father carried in WWII and Korea. His garage door is up, and two men are removing a gun safe from the house and loading it into the van, using a pair of skateboards as a makeshift dolly. The one facing you appears to have a Glock tucked in his waistband. Both are perspiring heavily, and appear to be in a hurry.
You had me up until you stated that BOTH of the movers are sweating like pigs. I could have gotten by if only one of them was wet, neither would be my favorite, but both of them means that they are members of the Genovese crime family and that my neighbor is in a building's concrete foundation somewhere. If only one were sweating, that would mean that they are legit hired movers, my neighbor is moving out of town and the one guy's simply got influenza. Neither perspiring means that they are both priests from the local diocese picking up a donated piece of furniture, and in this case it would be a gun safe.
 
Here's another example

I was safely target shooting on my property, not much just 20 rounds from a .22 and 10 rounds from a 30-30 because coyotes have started to hang around my property. The neighbor lady from two properties down, in the opposite direction as my line of fire, came over and expressed to me that it was illegal to discharge a firearm on my property.

I told her I did not believe it to be illegal because we were in an unincorporated area of the county, but that I would check on it. When I looked it up, there is a no shooting zone within 500 yards of the shore of the lake near my property. There is an "arm" of this lake that points towards my property. From the tip of that arm to my property, measured by Google maps is 432 yards.

So she was right, I am actually 68 yards inside the no shooting zone.

Guess she should have called the Sherrif and had a citation issued against me, according to the thought process of some posters here.
 
I wouldnt call but I might call campus security. Really?

You're right, now that I reconsider it, I wouldn't. (i.e. they'd probably just call the police to deal with it)
 
Last edited:
Guess she should have called the Sherrif and had a citation issued against me, according to the thought process of some posters here.

Thats awfully presumptuous. I can't speak for others but i don't see much threat or likelihood of nefarious intent from a person target shooting on their own property. How you equate that to walking down a city street with a weapon condusive to mass carnage is beyond me. Given the numer of times people have gone on rampages it is quite easy to see why it is a bad idea to do the latter.
 
I would at least call the cops. When the Law states no carry on campus, then it is illegal to have any firearms of any kind on campus.

If I am required to comply with the Law, then so is everyone else.

p.s., about how it's more likely that someone with criminal intentions would not carry a firearm openly: Yes, they would. Look up how many people have openly carried a firearm into a school and/or Government building in just the past ten years. And I can recall a day when a local guy walked in to a bank with a loaded deer rifle in his hand -- and used that rifle to rob the bank. The bank is still there, but now the locals will likely call the cops when they see anyone walk down the street openly carrying a rifle -- whether on the sidewalk or not.
 
Last edited:
i don't see much threat or likelihood of nefarious intent from a person target shooting on their own property. How you equate that to walking down a city street with a weapon
The person has shown no unusual behaviour or shown any intent to do harm. He is just there,apparently just passing through. So just having the rifle in itself makes him dangerous?
walking down a city street with a weapon condusive to mass carnage
"con·du·cive (k n-d s v, -dy -). adj. Tending to cause or bring about." So it's the rifle that should be reported?
 
Back to the OP...

You live in a state that doesn't allow carry on a college campus. Do you call the cops?

Divorce your answer from obligations to report a crime in progress.
Can't divorce my answer.

This guy has either decided deliberately to disobey the law, in which case I can conclude he either has mens rea, or is prepared for arrest in the name of civil disobedience; or he is so clueless and reckless that he hasn't decided to bother with checking on state rules...so he might not have any clue on the rules of safe gun-handling either.

So, he's breaking the law. Because he's either a criminal (so arrest him), a protester willing to be arrested (so arrest him) or unbelievably negligent.

So arrest him. Doesn't mean I agree with the law; and if such carry of a long gun on campus was legal in this hypothetical state, my answer would be opposite.
the OP has not returned to the thread
Oh, well! I have assumed the road is on campus.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
i don't see much threat or likelihood of nefarious intent from a person target shooting on their own property. How you equate that to walking down a city street with a weapon

The person has shown no unusual behaviour or shown any intent to do harm. He is just there,apparently just passing through. So just having the rifle in itself makes him dangerous?

Come on! carrying an AR15 over one's shoulder on a city street is simply not usual behaviour in today's society. We're not talking about Somalia. As has already been illustrated in depth by other highly suspiscous behaviours you don't have to know for a fact a person is dangerous to be justified in calling the police. If the warning signs are strong enough i'm calling the cops and they can determine if he is or isn't dangerous.

"con·du·cive (k n-d s v, -dy -). adj. Tending to cause or bring about." So it's the rifle that should be reported?

Let's not sink to silly word games. Arguing semantics and taking commonly understood phrases to be literal just to be difficult does nothing to help one's position in a debate. Its beyond obvious that i am saying the weapon enables the person to create carnage.
 
Unfortunately, you seem to fail to be able to separate the "armed" from the "abnormal behavior in public".

EXACTLY MY POINT. I have yet to find an incident where an unarmed person shot a bunch of people on a school campus.

Gotta have both armed and abnormal to get me to call the police. Merely abnormal MIGHT make it - like running naked on the freeway. Merely armed in an area where that is normal won't, but that's not the scenario here.

If you back time up 15 years, I'd have said no - I wouldn't call the cops. Unfortunately for all concerned, our world has changed since then. Our expectations of behavior have changed, making acts that were at one time commonplace now abnormal. I have to weigh my decisions with awareness of the environment, not in a vacuum.

The act of carrying a gun is like any other - there are times and circumstances where it is not appropriate. If it's REALLY innappropriate, is can be illegal to some degree. Take marriage - most everyone agrees it is OK between a man and a woman, but not a man and a 10 year old girl, or a woman and a 10 year old boy. The law is changing re 2 men or 2 women, but it's still pretty firm on one man and 2+ women...

We can argue philosophy and the Constitution forever, or we can work toward repealing laws that limit our freedoms.
 
Last edited:
Teachu2, I've yet to hear of an unarmed person shooting anybody either. Hey, they should ban guns from everybody. Unarmed people can't shoot people. Its for the safety of our kids.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top