Terrorists In WI Assault Citizens With Violence And Extortion

reply to post by MikeNice81


From the source you posted in reply to my asking for a reputable source. This is found just below where you quoted from:

The Missouri research does not prove that civilians are more competent than police in armed confrontations. Civilians can often choose whether or not to intervene in a crime in progress, whereas police officers are required to intervene. Being forced to intervene in all cases, police officers would naturally be expected to have a lower success rate, and to make more mistakes. Attorney Jeffrey Snyder elaborates:


Rape, robbery, and attempted murder are not typically actions rife with ambiguity or subtlety, requiring special powers of observation and great book-learning to discern. When a man pulls a knife on a woman and says, "You're coming with me," her judgment that a crime is being committed is not likely to be in error. There is little chance that she is going to shoot the wrong person. It is the police, because they are rarely at the scene of the crime when it occurs, who are more likely to find themselves in circumstances where guilt and innocence are not so clear-cut, and in which the probability for mistakes is higher. [146]
In addition, the Missouri study was not restricted to "carry" situations, but also included self-defense in the home. Persons using a gun to defend their own home, who know its layout much better than does an intruder, might be expected to have a higher success rate than would persons using a gun in a less familiar public setting.

rkba.org...

reply to post by slinger


OR a smart drug dealer would just open carry in Wisconsin because apparently the police can not approach someone and verify if they are allowed to carry a firearm.

reply to post by Nivcharah


Welcome back!

I disagree. This whole event could have been avoided if everyone would open carry.

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by hippomchippo
Personally, I don't think we should bring ANY weapons to a family restaurant.
Do you really think these guys just brought their guns by accident?
There is NO reason for them to bring guns here, so I'm thinking that it was to try to get a response.

I personally think we should ban democrats.

Of course, since democrats have a right to believe what they believe and do what they do, what I believe is fairly pointless.

I'm free to believe that, as long as I don't use force against democrats or have the government use force against them on my behalf.

edit on 27-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

I take it you're assuming i'm a democrat then, right?
Because I'm not, lol.

I still haven't gotten an answer for why someone would bring weapons to a family restaurant other than to invoke a response.

To defend yourself, obviously.
But something less obvious is that you may not have to defend yourself at all.
Someone comes into rob the place, they might turn right back around and leave.

See, most murderers and thieves aren't used to guns and are nearly afraid of them like you might be.
So that tells you quite a bit.
You might think to yourself that sort of thing will never happen to you, but I've seen it happen, and many others have.
It DOES happen. And the chances are pretty high that you, some time in your life, will run into an issue, like, for example, being held at gunpoint.

Maybe you'll be prepared, maybe not.
On the bright side, as I've said before, maybe you'll get stabbed or hit by another car instead.
Car wrecks happen quite often.

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum

I didn't know I went anywhere?

I disagree. These entire situations would be completely avoided if no one carried weapons and if it was a cosmic law that no one could do harm in any manner, shape or form to anyone at anytime under any circumstances.

We need to strive to attain and maintain a peaceful state of mind without having a piece.

Using a piece to force peace is done under the guise of control when it is truly fear.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by areyouserious2010

 

I actually listened to the 911 call the lady made.

The dispatcher actually told her open carry was legal, and then the caller out-right apologized for calling and emphatically stated the men were doing nothing wrong and she didn't want to get them in trouble or waste the cops time.

The cops, knowing full well that no one was threatened and that the men were engaging in completely legal activity, persisted in violating the probable cause clause of the Terry ruling.

The cops, with the full knowledge that no crime had been committed, persisted in aggression against peaceful law abiding citizens - forcefully and illegally disarming them - and then illegally searching them for identification.

After illegally disarming the men, illegally searching the men, the cops then trumped up completely baseless charges against the men.

All in all, the cops in this case were a bunch of *****ers

Not only should the charges against the men be dropped immediately, charges should be filed against the cops for violating terry, violating 4th amendment protocol, and filing false charges.

edit on 28-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

You need to reread the first post again you clearly stated when carrying onto private property you need permission from the property owner to carry on his property. Apparently these guys failed to do this and so they were in violation of the law. So the cops were not in the wrong here those guys were for not following the law. After all restaurants are private property not public property.

reply to post by buster2010


You need to read through a little more of the thread.

Even on private property, someone is allowed to enter said property lawfully. You are required to have no trespassing signs and the like. This is the same sort of theory on things like breaking and entering. It is like a locked door policy. You must post a sign that no guns are allowed or the owner must state that do not want the guns on their property. Tell me, can a Police Officer enter the property, they carry guns.

Remember, as a business you are kind of a public access entity. You have the right to refuse service, but you cannot just assume that other's individual rights are null and void as they enter your property.

It is kind of convoluted. But did you notice that the owner's viewpoint was not mentioned in the article? The owner did not mind that these individuals were armed. That is why it was never mentioned.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


I thinks its funny that American businesses want to argue their rights and how to operate their business such as restricting the basic American right to carry and possess firearms on their property, yet, in many states, bars, restaurants, and other private businesses open to the public, are restricted from allowing customers to smoke. Even against the owner's wishes. Smoking in public isn't even a basic right, but I don't hear too many business owners whining about that as much as firearms.

So, I believe, and its only my opinion, you want to do business with Americans? Then respect their basic rights to their own safety and defense with firearms. If not, go overseas where its more "comfortable"

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."--Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1952)

Originally posted by Nivcharah
Originally posted by AdAbsurdum

I didn't know I went anywhere?

These entire situations would be completely avoided if no one carried weapons and if it was a cosmic law that no one could do harm in any manner, shape or form to anyone at anytime under any circumstances.

The LA city council recently banned murder.

I haven't heard if that worked out for them or not.

laist.com...

reply to post by AzoriaCorp


I think I posted earlier in this thread that I wished I could open a business and post a list on my window.

No liberals allowed
No tree huggers allowed
No unarmed civilians allowed
No non smokers allowed
etc
etc
etc

Might cut down on customers, but at least I would not have to worry about having a bunch of whiners or attempted robberies for that matter.

Originally posted by Curiousisall

Originally posted by slinger
" Shall not be abridged" means no law can be made to remove said right!

Always leaving out the "well regulated militia" part for some reason. Why do all the 2nd ammendment cheerleaders keep quoting PART of it?

5 men that want something to eat may or may not be a well regulated militia but then I gues they would have some form of regulations I could look at.

edit on 29-9-2010 by Curiousisall because: (no reason given)

the militia is separated buy a comma! then it says the right of the people as in the common man,the militia is the right of the states to protect them self from the federal government! so the two are not the same it is telling you the state has a right to a militia and the people have a right to bear arms to protect them self! the comma between the two is not just some pause,it is meant to be specific in its wording! If not why do we have the national guard? And for so many years do we have people carrying guns cause it our right!!!!!!!! So what next you going to tell me freedom of speech is only long as what I say don't offend you! get real

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


I want to open my own restaurant and only allow access to individuals who are openly carrying a sidearm.

How cool would that be.

Originally posted by Curiousisall

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by Curiousisall

 

Just answer the question. If you have the right to bear arms, why can you not open carry. How does it not allow you that right? Answer the question.

It is a false question because it is not based on what I actually said. Show me where it specifies the right to OPEN carry or move along.

The second amendment says the right to bear arms, end of story bear meaning carry your gun bear to have,to carry, can it be any more plain as day than to bear? you can not open carry in some places because of UNCONSTUTIONAL laws! SHALL NOT ABRIDGE MEANS TO NEVER HINDER OR LIMIT THAT RIGHT!

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

 

I want to open my own restaurant and only allow access to individuals who are openly carrying a sidearm.

How cool would that be.

Give me the address I will go out of my way to eat there! You'll get rich

Originally posted by mnemeth1

The LA city council recently banned murder.

I was speaking of Cosmic (aka: Universal) laws not city laws. City, County, State, Federal laws are created by people. Cosmic laws cannot not be bent, much less broken.

Originally posted by Nivcharah

Originally posted by mnemeth1

The LA city council recently banned murder.

I was speaking of Cosmic (aka: Universal) laws not city laws. City, County, State, Federal laws are created by people. Cosmic laws cannot not be bent, much less broken.

I see you are a minister.

You should ask God to fix that for us.

Of course, if God did fix that little problem, we couldn't have government welfare programs either - since those require violent robbery of the middle class.

reply to post by mnemeth1


That would be great, and it could be again. If we as a nation just shut down the idiots.

Private property. I guess folks do not understand that component anymore.

Like the groups that are religious, being told they have to allow non religious in.

Or tobacco shops being told they cannot have smoking in them.

Or men only clubs told they are not allowed to be men only.

Wait a minute though, there are a couple type private businesses that are allowed to be only clubs. Private golf club memberships. Where they require 100k per yer fees. I wonder if anyone ever attempted to go after that?

That would be funnnny!

Originally posted by mnemeth1

I see you are a minister. You should ask God to fix that for us.

Of course, if God did fix that little problem, we couldn't have government welfare programs either - since those require violent robbery of the middle class.

I've been asking The Divine Architect for many years. The plan is in progress.

IF this were a perfect world, Then there would bo no need for govt welfare programs since everyone would be a productive member of a society that willingly assisted those temporarily down on their luck.

Unfortunately, we are far from a Utopia and only stand to be further removed from such a happy ending as humans become more violent, greedy, selfish and barbaric in general. Some day, this too shall pass.

reply to post by areyouserious2010


I agree with the numbers of the study. The numbers are tangible and verifiable. I do not agree with the justification. Many people don't realize this but cops are not allowed to use lethal force unless there is a certain escelation of force, and they are in imminet fear that they or a civilian will suffer serious injury.

The ambiguity of their right to use force is no greater than a civilian's. Maybe it was different when the study was done. However, that is the way it is now. So, really if there is any great deal of ambiguity the cop is supposed to use less than lethal force. To me the justification sounds like a way to forgive cops.

That is my bias and I realize that. It may shade the way I take the info, but that is the way I read things.

reply to post by Nivcharah


But we don't live in a perfect world. When live in this one and in this one I think it would be best if everyone took personal responsibility for their own personal defense.

If everyone open carried there wouldn't be calls like this and criminals would think long and hard before trying anything since any type of offense would likely cost them their lives.