Quote:
Originally Posted by №1
So, by your design, it is just fine for someone to challenge the authority of the police officer in order to defend his perceived violation of his rights but it isn't okay for everyone else to be protected from a possible armed felon wandering the street with a loaded weapon.
So, until homeboy goes nuts and opens fire on a crowd of innocent people and actually violates another's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness the officer should have no reason to have any interaction at all with this fine citizen? He should stand back and wait until the guy does something like that before he says word one to him?
In other words, it's fine for this gentleman to make sure his rights aren't violated and fuck everyone else who lives in the community because they don't see LEO with the same color glasses this asshole does?
|
Your entire argument is based on the hypothetical situation that a citizen carrying a gun WOULD CHALLENGE A POLICE OFFICER, which is a pretty powerful argument but in this case as in the najority of the cases, didn't happen in this video. The guy, did not at any moment challenge the officers, however, I recall the tough cop telling the kid "this can go two ways..."
Pretty threatening.
And to answer the question, yes, the police officer should stand back and wait for this fine citizen, mr homeboy to go nuts, THAT WOULD BE THE CRIME BEING COMMITTED WHICH IS WHAT GIVES POLICE OFFICERS A REASON TO INTERACT, its in the rules manual they should have learned back at the academy.
Until a lawful abiding citizen stops following the rules and commits a crime, the only way for cops to detain you is by violation of your rights, or in other words, by breaking the rules they are trying to uphold. Can you see the paradox? Do you know your rights? I bet you know them, but you would rather stay home and be safe.