If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Teenager in Aurora, Colorado trots around town carrying a shotgun, says he's free to do what he wants and to hell with everyone still concerned about the theater shooting; he has the Second Amendment on his side   (rawstory.com) divider line 1162
    More: Sick  
•       •       •

15073 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Aug 2014 at 6:11 AM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1162 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-04 12:16:09 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Headso: the shall not be infringed part isn't floating yer boat?

It doesn't give a person the civil right of being armed at all times.  If it did, then states wouldn't have the freedom to make laws determining if you can or can't legally.

But you go right on believing otherwise.


it does give the person that right, the courts have put restrictions on it as they have done with other rights but the verbiage as written seems to be saying that people need access to the tools that allow them to form effective militias so the government can't infringe on individual's rights to owning those tools.
 
2014-08-04 12:16:45 PM  

redmid17: room at the top: Nutsac_Jim: cryinoutloud: How come these open carry nuts don't carry around their guns in a sleeve or case? It would make the same point, if their point is that they should be allowed to carry guns openly. And it would protect the guns too, from all those accidental things that sometimes happen to valuable possessions.

How many crimes are committed annually by people while open carrying?

isn't any armed robbery in an open carry state committed while open carrying?

No. Armed robbery is breaking the law. Open carry is the legal carrying of a weapon in public, which precludes use in illegal activities by its very nature.


So it's a stupid question from Nutsac_Jim.  If once you commit a crime you are no longer open carrying, then you cannot commit a crime while open carrying.
 
2014-08-04 12:18:01 PM  
I used to carry a .22 when I was 12- in the late 70s- unloaded- on my 10 speed. Looking back, I can't believe my parents allowed me to bike on that US highway. I would set up targets at an old pit outside town.
 
2014-08-04 12:18:27 PM  

China White Tea: GameSprocket: No, I was claiming that there are a lot of times when people are required to produce papers for the authorities. Turns out that in the example I picked, you can just tell them to fark off.

That's the thing:  Most of the situations where people are told they're "required" to produce papers for the authorities, you can just tell them to fark off.  There really aren't a lot of times when you can be REQUIRED to produce papers for the authorities.  What there are, are a lot of times when they can claim you're required to produce papers.


Are you saying that despite the requirement to be 18 to open-carry he is not required to produce an ID to prove he is 18 and could tell the police to fark off?
 
2014-08-04 12:18:37 PM  

DrBenway: he should have busted out the camo gear.


Do they sell that at Casual Male XL?
 
2014-08-04 12:18:53 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Theaetetus: Actually, the rate of cops getting wounded or killed has been steadily decreasing since the 1970s. But if they're really so worried about not returning home that they need to abuse people's civil rights, then maybe they should switch to a less dangerous profession.

Umm, what civil right does one have to walk down the street armed?  And don't give me the 2nd Amendment, since nowhere does it state that you have the right to carry a weapon on your person at all times.


Colorado is an open carry state. It's entirely legal to carry a weapon on person at all times there, even if it does make you a bit of a nutbag.
And so if cops feel that they need to harass people who are doing something entirely legal, just to be safe, in spite of the fact that the rate has actually been decreasing and they have a lower than average chance of being wounded or killed, then maybe they need to switch to a different profession.
 
2014-08-04 12:19:06 PM  

I alone am best: 90% of the people in this thread didnt know you could do that so I will let you slide. You can do the same thing to the police unless you are detained or arrested. The issue in this case is the kid looks young so if he did go to court the judge will be the deciding factor on whether or not the police acted in a reasonable manner.


It doesn't help that they first tell him that the reason they want to know is that he's "causing alarm to people," and only come up with the age thing several minutes into the video.

He mentions "causing alarm" and "causing the general public to freak out" several times before anyone mentions that he looks young.
 
2014-08-04 12:19:38 PM  
Headso: I have no real clue about what the 2nd Amendment actually says, so I'll make shiat up to sound like I do.

Fixed.
 
2014-08-04 12:21:21 PM  

born_yesterday: How about the whole "regulated militia" part? How come that part always seems to get lopped off?


Because there's a comma somewhere in the 2nd amendment?  I always point that out too and I sometimes get that answer.  Like that's really an answer.
 
2014-08-04 12:24:22 PM  

room at the top: redmid17: room at the top: Nutsac_Jim: cryinoutloud: How come these open carry nuts don't carry around their guns in a sleeve or case? It would make the same point, if their point is that they should be allowed to carry guns openly. And it would protect the guns too, from all those accidental things that sometimes happen to valuable possessions.

How many crimes are committed annually by people while open carrying?

isn't any armed robbery in an open carry state committed while open carrying?

No. Armed robbery is breaking the law. Open carry is the legal carrying of a weapon in public, which precludes use in illegal activities by its very nature.

So it's a stupid question from Nutsac_Jim.  If once you commit a crime you are no longer open carrying, then you cannot commit a crime while open carrying.


No. If you are carrying with the intent to commit a crime, well you're not carrying legally.

If you're open carrying, get mad at someone, and then decide to pistol whip them, you were carrying legally until you decided to brandish your weapon and assault someone with it.

Open carry is often contingent upon having some kind of permit (hunting or ccw), so even the at itself isn't necessarily inherently legal. But like I mentioned in an earlier post, most of the crimes in states that track them for permit holders don't actually involve the weapon itself. It's usually something like DUI or public intoxication.
 
2014-08-04 12:25:43 PM  

Theaetetus: Jackpot777: Theaetetus: Jackpot777: Theaetetus: BeesNuts: You can walk to the bank. You can walk with a gun. You can walk into a bank WITH a gun. All that's kosher and should arouse no suspicion until the clown mask goes on and he fires a shell into the ceiling.

That's what he was implying you were saying. You're being very obtuse today Thae.

Nope, Bees, that is what I'm saying: it's legal to walk to the bank, even with a gun, and the police shouldn't be stopping people to interrogate them based on a legal activity.

For anyone that actually thinks this: you sweet innocent thing, you.
["guns not allowed in bank" sign]

That sign has nothing to do with the portion of my post you quoted. It has to do with the portion of my post you clipped, which I reproduce here:
As I said earlier, if the bank posts a sign that no firearms are allowed, then walking into the bank WITH the gun is trespassing.

Helpful tip- when quoting someone's post to disagree with them, make sure that the rest of their post doesn't actually agree with you. Then you just look like a troll.

So: just put that firearm in the firearm bin, situated outside the banks?!?

No, I have a better idea. Those little bushes.

[www.meyerandlundahl.com image 600x448]

You walk it TO the bank, then stick it in the bushes because this bank's an anomaly because it doesn't seem to have one of those firearm bins outside.

Or maybe the gun just magically disappears into thin air. Like matter does. Near banks.

 Sorry: you were saying something about "looking like a troll"?

I'm really not sure what you're trying to achieve here, Jackpot. I agreed with you. You responded to a post of mine in which I explicitly said the exact same thing you're saying. And yet you're still frothing at the mouth.

I'm going to go talk to other people now. You're weird.


Me: so, you walk to the bank. Where do you put the firearm.

You: you're foaming at the mouth. You're weird.

Okayyyyy...
 
2014-08-04 12:26:46 PM  
The other issue with something like this is that someone who is open carrying is actually demanding more rights than the average citizen.  They demand the right to be armed at all times, for no reason at all, and expect everyone to be a-ok with that (including law enforcement).  Even if they have no idea WHY the person is walking around with a 'possibly' loaded weapon, and have no idea if they are a danger or not.

But I guess those of us who choose not to be armed at all times, will never get it.  Or we'll be gunned down by someone taking advantage of the fact that no one knows if you are a 'good guy with a gun' or someone who wants to gun people down.
 
2014-08-04 12:27:03 PM  

monoski: Are you saying that despite the requirement to be 18 to open-carry he is not required to produce an ID to prove he is 18 and could tell the police to fark off?


No, what I'm saying is that your generic assertion that it is illegal to refuse to show the police ID was objectively incorrect.  While your attempts to revise what you actually said ex post facto are laudable, the internet is kind of a motherfarker in this regard.  Here's what you actually said:

monoski: It is not legal to refuse to show your ID to the police.


In short: Backpedal faster.

Furthermore, I've actually asked a few times in the thread for someone to produce the statute showing an open carry age of 18 for a long gun in Colorado. 

So far all I've found is a statute pertaining to hand guns, which also have a minimum possession age of 18.  opencarry.org is opposed to long-gun open carry, so doesn't maintain information on legality and restrictions.

AFAICT there is no explicit open carry statute in CO - it's simply not forbidden, which suggests that the minimum age to open carry a handgun is simply a function of the minimum age to possess a handgun, which doesn't exist for a long gun.
 
2014-08-04 12:29:40 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: The other issue with something like this is that someone who is open carrying is actually demanding more rights than the average citizen.  They demand the right to be armed at all times, for no reason at all, and expect everyone to be a-ok with that (including law enforcement).  Even if they have no idea WHY the person is walking around with a 'possibly' loaded weapon, and have no idea if they are a danger or not.

But I guess those of us who choose not to be armed at all times, will never get it.  Or we'll be gunned down by someone taking advantage of the fact that no one knows if you are a 'good guy with a gun' or someone who wants to gun people down.


That's stupid. You have the same rights.

If you're a mime, does everyone else have "more rights" than you do, just because they choose to speak?
 
2014-08-04 12:29:53 PM  

serfdood: born_yesterday: How about the whole "regulated militia" part? How come that part always seems to get lopped off?

Because there's a comma somewhere in the 2nd amendment?  I always point that out too and I sometimes get that answer.  Like that's really an answer.


Because grammatically, logically, and in historical context, it makes no sense for the founders of the government to limit the government's ability to seize weapons from members of a government-regulated militia?
 
2014-08-04 12:30:42 PM  

serfdood: born_yesterday: How about the whole "regulated militia" part? How come that part always seems to get lopped off?

Because there's a comma somewhere in the 2nd amendment?  I always point that out too and I sometimes get that answer.  Like that's really an answer.


http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

Feel free to read that.
 
2014-08-04 12:31:25 PM  
Well, I'm sure glad this patriot and all the others like him from coast to coast are protecting we the people from the evil, tyrannical government which would, if these brave patriots weren't holding them at bay, immediately come and take our freedoms from us.

Personally, I keep my freedoms in a dresser drawer and my gun is the only thing protecting them from being taken by the government.
 
2014-08-04 12:31:27 PM  

Theaetetus: serfdood: born_yesterday: How about the whole "regulated militia" part? How come that part always seems to get lopped off?

Because there's a comma somewhere in the 2nd amendment?  I always point that out too and I sometimes get that answer.  Like that's really an answer.

Because grammatically, logically, and in historical context, it makes no sense for the founders of the government to limit the government's ability to seize weapons from members of a government-regulated militia?


Yeah...that's completely wrong.  Are you honestly going to take the position that the Bill of Rights wasn't included as a protection of individuals and states against federal overreach?  Really?
 
2014-08-04 12:32:21 PM  

imfallen_angel: gotta love the dickless 'muricans with their guns.

I think it would be ironic and hilarious if because he had a shotgun, someone else feels threatened and blow his head off.  I know that personally, seeing a dumbass walking around with a firearm doesn't make anyone safe.

Maybe if he stopped eating and worked out and learn some defensive skills he wouldn't fell some afriad, but then again, it's the whole 'murican penis compensation thing, truly one of the most pathetic part of 'murica and those that are gun happy are too stupid to understand that.


Amazing how many people are wishing death and dismemberment on someone who, as far as I can tell, has shown no violent tendencies.

Be careful what you wish for guys, if we start killing people for being D-Bags you will all be dead.
 
2014-08-04 12:34:00 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
That boy is one successful attention whore.
 
2014-08-04 12:35:41 PM  

born_yesterday: Theaetetus: serfdood: born_yesterday: How about the whole "regulated militia" part? How come that part always seems to get lopped off?

Because there's a comma somewhere in the 2nd amendment?  I always point that out too and I sometimes get that answer.  Like that's really an answer.

Because grammatically, logically, and in historical context, it makes no sense for the founders of the government to limit the government's ability to seize weapons from members of a government-regulated militia?

Yeah...that's completely wrong.


No, it's completely right.

Are you honestly going to take the position that the Bill of Rights wasn't included as a protection of individuals and states against federal overreach?  Really?

Are you honestly going to take the position that that's not what I said?
 
2014-08-04 12:35:58 PM  

italie: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

You know what ~is~ a crime? Inciting a riot, interfering with a police investigation,  and disturbing the peace.

If the kid is going to play his little game, at least he can show some ID when asked. Why?

1 - Colorado has had its fair share of shootings. If you are doing this in the name of safety, cooperate with those protecting yours. The average Joe can't tell the difference between you, and some random psycho carting a gun down the street. Why traumatize an already frazzled population?

2 - You have admitted to being stopped for this TWELVE TIMES. This is briefly keeping officers off the street, officers that one day could be delayed getting to another mass shooting. Officers that handled the last one with speed and professionalism.


I'm all for carry laws. What I'm not for is being a dick, which this kid clearly is.


//Sorry officer,didn't mean to yell "Gun" in the theater. Just practicing my freedom of speech.


Except you can't incite a riot or disturb the peace for simply walking down the street performing a legal activity. He isn't waving the gun around or anything else. It's like someone holding up a protest sign and trying to claim that that is disturbing the peace simply because people are disagreeing with it.

In regards to interfering with a police investigation, the same could be said every time someone invokes their 5th amendment right and demands a lawyer. It's not interfering for not complying with an order that the police do not have authority to have. Something a lot of police agencies are learning to the tune of 5-6 figures when they order people to stop filming them (Suffolk County learned this to the tune of $200,000 for telling a photojournalist to "just leave" and then arresting him for not leaving far enough away). If he guy looked 30, there would be no legal reason to demand ID.
 
2014-08-04 12:36:02 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 272x186]
That boy is one successful attention whore.


So are people with tattoos. We should arrest them.
 
2014-08-04 12:37:13 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: The other issue with something like this is that someone who is open carrying is actually demanding more rights than the average citizen.  They demand the right to be armed at all times, for no reason at all, and expect everyone to be a-ok with that (including law enforcement).  Even if they have no idea WHY the person is walking around with a 'possibly' loaded weapon, and have no idea if they are a danger or not.

But I guess those of us who choose not to be armed at all times, will never get it.  Or we'll be gunned down by someone taking advantage of the fact that no one knows if you are a 'good guy with a gun' or someone who wants to gun people down.


No, they are not demanding more rights than anyone else. You have the right to open carry, choosing not to exercise that right doesn't mean that people who do are demanding or receiving more rights than you. That is a stupid thing to say and I hope you don't really believe that.

Furthermore, other people don't need to provide you, or anyone else, with a reason why they are exercising a right and it doesn't matter if you, or anyone else, is a-ok with it or not.
 
2014-08-04 12:37:22 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: rwdavis: If you see somebody with a hammer it is reasonable to assume that they are going to hit a nail into some wood, if you see somebody with a screwdriver it is reasonable to assume they are trying to get drunk. If you see somebody with a shotgun, it is reasonable to assume they're going to shoot something with it and there's not too many things in the middle of a peaceful city that are legal to shoot.

So police officers are just there to shoot people and we should all citizen's arrest them before the carnage starts?
Or do you mean, the police officer carry's one, just in case he needs it?


You're just being dense. There are reasons to carry a hammer or screwdriver outside of their primary purpose, just as you might carry a hammer from your car to your house because you just bought it, you might carry a gun because your job specifically involves you interacting with criminals. Aurora isn't a crime haven there's no reason for the general populous to go around carrying a weapon. An armed society is a violent lawless society.
 
2014-08-04 12:38:53 PM  
Here's to a concealed carrier feeling threatened by the punk and standing their ground.
 
2014-08-04 12:39:00 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Ow! That was my feelings!: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 272x186]
That boy is one successful attention whore.

So are people with tattoos. We should arrest them.


Someone should dress up like Bin Laden and visit ground zero with some toy airplanes. Then, just stand their playing with that airplanes pretending like they are colliding with the surrounding buildings. Hey, nothing illegal about playing with toys.

/can != should
 
2014-08-04 12:40:05 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Why play the detachment game like you do? You're the one who can't quite get those associative synapses to fire, to understand that your unreasonable fear of legal activities doesn't equate to reasonable suspicion.


I know you are but what am I? Really? That's what you're going with here?

Well, you tried.
 
2014-08-04 12:40:21 PM  
Ever have a d-bag older sibling that would wave his finger a hair's width away from your face while loudly shouting "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!"?  This kid is that douchebag.  In 20 years he'll be the d-bag who works for cash under the table so his psycho-biatch ex-wife can't steal his money for her bratty kids and shoe collection.  Doesn't make him a criminal, but he's still and insufferable d-bag.
 
2014-08-04 12:40:41 PM  

rwdavis: Nutsac_Jim: rwdavis: If you see somebody with a hammer it is reasonable to assume that they are going to hit a nail into some wood, if you see somebody with a screwdriver it is reasonable to assume they are trying to get drunk. If you see somebody with a shotgun, it is reasonable to assume they're going to shoot something with it and there's not too many things in the middle of a peaceful city that are legal to shoot.

So police officers are just there to shoot people and we should all citizen's arrest them before the carnage starts?
Or do you mean, the police officer carry's one, just in case he needs it?

You're just being dense. There are reasons to carry a hammer or screwdriver outside of their primary purpose, just as you might carry a hammer from your car to your house because you just bought it, you might carry a gun because your job specifically involves you interacting with criminals. Aurora isn't a crime haven there's no reason for the general populous to go around carrying a weapon. An armed society is a violent lawless society.


Yeah, not like there wasn't a bunch of people killed there or anything
 
2014-08-04 12:40:43 PM  

Alphakronik: Here's to a concealed carrier feeling threatened by the punk and standing their ground.


That person would likely be charged with 2nd degree murder and found guilty. Kind of strange to wish that on a person.
 
2014-08-04 12:41:04 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: The other issue with something like this is that someone who is open carrying is actually demanding more rights than the average citizen.


It's funny how the left goes apeshiat over guns the way the right goes apeshiat over gays.  And even uses the same tactics.
 
2014-08-04 12:42:14 PM  

skozlaw: Lenny_da_Hog: Why play the detachment game like you do? You're the one who can't quite get those associative synapses to fire, to understand that your unreasonable fear of legal activities doesn't equate to reasonable suspicion.

I know you are but what am I? Really? That's what you're going with here?

Well, you tried.


Well, he is right.
 
2014-08-04 12:43:01 PM  

zamboni: TuteTibiImperes: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

He wasn't cited for carrying the gun, he was cited for refusing to provide identification, which was a valid request as by his appearance it was not clear whether or not he was old enough to be legally carrying the weapon.

He has no grounds to stand on to sue.

You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

Scary


It is illegal to open carry if you are under 18. From the pictures, it would be completely reasonable to assume he's not old enough and to request proof. According to Scalia and company  you cannot refuse to produce ID when a cop asks you for it.

So conservatives hoist on their own petard, if you will. They want cops to enforce ID laws when it isn't pasty white men getting harassed, but get the damn vapors when it is one of the anointed getting carded.
 
2014-08-04 12:43:54 PM  

CheatCommando: zamboni: TuteTibiImperes: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

He wasn't cited for carrying the gun, he was cited for refusing to provide identification, which was a valid request as by his appearance it was not clear whether or not he was old enough to be legally carrying the weapon.

He has no grounds to stand on to sue.

You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

Scary

It is illegal to open carry if you are under 18. From the pictures, it would be completely reasonable to assume he's not old enough and to request proof. According to Scalia and company  you cannot refuse to produce ID when a cop asks you for it.

So conservatives hoist on their own petard, if you will. They want cops to enforce ID laws when it isn't pasty white men getting harassed, but get the damn vapors when it is one of the anointed getting carded.


You are wrong.
 
2014-08-04 12:44:07 PM  

paygun: AurizenDarkstar: The other issue with something like this is that someone who is open carrying is actually demanding more rights than the average citizen.

It's funny how the left goes apeshiat over guns the way the right goes apeshiat over gays.  And even uses the same tactics.


yep, gays can just marry a person of the opposite sex and everyone can just not carry a gun.
 
2014-08-04 12:45:32 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: Thunderpipes: rzrwiresunrise: Punchable face?
[www.rawstory.com image 615x345]

Yep.

Regarding stop and identify in CO

And I'm not surprised this kid's being a douche. It's something only some teenage males grow out of. The idea that one needs to carry guns around people to help them feel more comfortable around them is asinine. Take your ass to a place where guns are actually necessary: Somalia, South Sudan, Nigeria. Otherwise, shut up and enjoy your clean streets, running water and 30-day return on purchases.

All of which are here because a bunch of upstarts decided that owning guns, and taking on an oppressive government was important.

It is so comical, because you libs are so terrified of the law abiding gun owners, which don't really do much wrong. Yet the hordes of Obama voting thugs out on the street are perfectly okay.... the ones actually doing the crime.

So you don't like the 2nd amendment. Seems you don't like the 1st, the 4th either. What is next to go? A right is exactly that, a right. Doesn't matter if using it makes other people offended. Speech does that. Should we outlaw that, depending on what party is in power? You want people disarmed, to the IRS, liberal feds, EPA, heck even the Office of Social Security will be so much more heavily armed, they can do what they want and citizens won't even be able to backtalk.

This post has much poetential. CO has a stop and identify law that's perfectly constitutional, just as I linked. Carrying a weapon in public has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. I never said anything about disarming anyone.

There are a lot of people who've built themselves a mental maze to reinforce this exact kind of paranoia, tho...


The stop and identify law requires that the police have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has, is, or will be committed. At no time did the police officer articulate that a crime has, is, or will be committed. The "people are alarmed" or "it may be stolen," or "he may be a felon" are not reasonable articulable suspicions, and thus the law does not apply. He even requests directly what reasonable suspicion they have, and they just run around the issue and never provide a direct answer.  The police even state that he is within his legal rights to carry. It takes 5 minutes to get to the only leg they have to stand on, which is the age.

Heck, the police can't even directly answer the "am I being detained" question, which directly shows that they have no reasonable suspicion that a crime has, is, or will be committed.
 
2014-08-04 12:45:48 PM  

GameSprocket: Lenny_da_Hog: Ow! That was my feelings!: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 272x186]
That boy is one successful attention whore.

So are people with tattoos. We should arrest them.

Someone should dress up like Bin Laden and visit ground zero with some toy airplanes. Then, just stand their playing with that airplanes pretending like they are colliding with the surrounding buildings. Hey, nothing illegal about playing with toys.

/can != should


Can/should aside, you have a constitutional right to be a jerk without being harassed by the justice system just because people don't like you.

Trampling on a flag is completely legal. People hate that. It doesn't mean you get to put me in jail for doing it, and it's not reasonable to suspect me of a crime for doing it.

People hate me taking photographs in public. I've had the police called on me for doing so. They didn't mind before people in power told them that people with cameras were dangerous. It's not reasonable to demand my identification and run background checks on me for taking pictures of bees outside City Hall, just because someone is "freaking out" about it -- that's *their* unreasonable fear, not reasonable suspicion.
 
2014-08-04 12:46:16 PM  
Forever a Lohner
 
2014-08-04 12:46:28 PM  

paygun: AurizenDarkstar: The other issue with something like this is that someone who is open carrying is actually demanding more rights than the average citizen.

It's funny how the left goes apeshiat over guns the way the right goes apeshiat over gays.  And even uses the same tactics.


Well.. a lot of guns do have to come out of a closet before going out the door.


horrible humor, wonderful decongestants.  I wonder when I can take some more.
 
2014-08-04 12:47:06 PM  

skozlaw: Lenny_da_Hog: Why play the detachment game like you do? You're the one who can't quite get those associative synapses to fire, to understand that your unreasonable fear of legal activities doesn't equate to reasonable suspicion.

I know you are but what am I? Really? That's what you're going with here?

Well, you tried.


That's all you're doing. You were told by TV to have an unreasonable fear, and now you want the police to punish anyone who makes you clutch your pearls.
 
2014-08-04 12:47:43 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Yet another doughy pantload compensating for losing his penis in his pubes.

I'll bet it makes you feel like a real man to say that.


Look, Lenny, if you're going to channel ditty, do it right and cite Markley's Law. C'mon, get with the program!
 
2014-08-04 12:48:45 PM  

CheatCommando: zamboni: TuteTibiImperes: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

He wasn't cited for carrying the gun, he was cited for refusing to provide identification, which was a valid request as by his appearance it was not clear whether or not he was old enough to be legally carrying the weapon.

He has no grounds to stand on to sue.

You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

Scary

It is illegal to open carry if you are under 18. From the pictures, it would be completely reasonable to assume he's not old enough and to request proof. According to Scalia and company  you cannot refuse to produce ID when a cop asks you for it.

So conservatives hoist on their own petard, if you will. They want cops to enforce ID laws when it isn't pasty white men getting harassed, but get the damn vapors when it is one of the anointed getting carded.


No, you can't refuse to identify yourself. You can identify yourself without identification. There's no law requiring people to walk around with a state-issued ID*. If there were, shirtless joggers everywhere would be an oppressed minority.

* stating the obvious, driving != walking
 
2014-08-04 12:49:57 PM  

I alone am best: I am glad everyone in this thread is OK with stopping people and asking for ID based on their appearance. Just to make sure they are not breaking the law.

This should help us to clear up our immigration problem a little faster.


Asking for ID based on appearance is totally legal....if you are talking about perceived age. In Virginia, the standard for being carded for tobacco and booze is looking under 27. This has never been found to be discriminatory. The same thing applies to any activity that has an age minimum, like gun ownership.
 
2014-08-04 12:51:40 PM  

China White Tea: monoski: Are you saying that despite the requirement to be 18 to open-carry he is not required to produce an ID to prove he is 18 and could tell the police to fark off?

No, what I'm saying is that your generic assertion that it is illegal to refuse to show the police ID was objectively incorrect.  While your attempts to revise what you actually said ex post facto are laudable, the internet is kind of a motherfarker in this regard.  Here's what you actually said:

monoski: It is not legal to refuse to show your ID to the police.

In short: Backpedal faster.

Furthermore, I've actually asked a few times in the thread for someone to produce the statute showing an open carry age of 18 for a long gun in Colorado. 

So far all I've found is a statute pertaining to hand guns, which also have a minimum possession age of 18.  opencarry.org is opposed to long-gun open carry, so doesn't maintain information on legality and restrictions.

AFAICT there is no explicit open carry statute in CO - it's simply not forbidden, which suggests that the minimum age to open carry a handgun is simply a function of the minimum age to possess a handgun, which doesn't exist for a long gun.


From the article:
After asking Lohner if he's eighteen - the legal age in Colorado to bear a weapon - the officer asks Lohner for his ID to which Lohner refuses, asking if he's committed a crime.
 
2014-08-04 12:52:10 PM  

jshine: fusillade762: "For the defense of myself and those around me."

Sure, because a shotgun is such a precise weapon and could never hit a bystander by accident. And that's in the astronomically remote chance this idiot's fantasy played out.

His fantasy was to stir people up and cause a confrontation where he was technically in the right, and it played out *exactly* as he intended.


No, it didn't. Law enforcement couldn't determine his age. They had probable cause to suspect he was a minor criminally in possession of a firearm. He did not have a legal right to refuse to show his ID.

He is not technically in the right.
 
2014-08-04 12:52:46 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: That's all you're doing. You were told by TV to have an unreasonable fear, and now you want the police to punish anyone who makes you clutch your pearls.


That's a pretty specific conclusion you've drawn about something I haven't talked about. You must be psychic. Can you give me some winning lotto numbers?

I'll bet you honestly can't imagine, even after that last post, why I'm not taking you the least bit seriously here, can you? You seriously believe you have some sort of legitimate point to make and in all earnestness you think I'm just essentially rolling my eyes and condescending to you because you're just too smart for me, don't you?
 
2014-08-04 12:53:56 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: skozlaw: Lenny_da_Hog: Why play the detachment game like you do? You're the one who can't quite get those associative synapses to fire, to understand that your unreasonable fear of legal activities doesn't equate to reasonable suspicion.

I know you are but what am I? Really? That's what you're going with here?

Well, you tried.

That's all you're doing. You were told by TV to have an unreasonable fear, and now you want the police to punish anyone who makes you clutch your pearls.


showing ID is now considered punishment?
 
2014-08-04 12:54:32 PM  

Baz744: jshine: fusillade762: "For the defense of myself and those around me."

Sure, because a shotgun is such a precise weapon and could never hit a bystander by accident. And that's in the astronomically remote chance this idiot's fantasy played out.

His fantasy was to stir people up and cause a confrontation where he was technically in the right, and it played out *exactly* as he intended.

No, it didn't. Law enforcement couldn't determine his age. They had probable cause to suspect he was a minor criminally in possession of a firearm. He did not have a legal right to refuse to show his ID.

He is not technically in the right.


His opening sentence was "I just went to the gas station to buy a pack of cigarettes."
 
2014-08-04 12:54:49 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: That's stupid. You have the same rights.

If you're a mime, does everyone else have "more rights" than you do, just because they choose to speak?


Why is that stupid?

Case in point, had a guy here in VA who went into a local Kroger armed with an AR-15.  The cops were called, he was questioned, and in the end, his argument was "Why did someone call the police?  I was doing something completely legal".  And in fact, that argument seems to be used more & more by guns rights people.  Hell, I remember reading an article a few weeks ago where a gun's rights person posited that they should have the right to bring civil action against someone who called the police on them if they were 'open carry' (even if the person who called law enforcement had NO idea if they were a criminal or not).

So, you have people that feel they have the right to go anywhere, armed, without anyone else knowing if they are there to cause mayhem or are just shopping.  But they are the ones who have the same rights as anyone else (especially the ones demanding the right to file civil actions against a person if law enforcement is called on their actions)?
 
Displayed 50 of 1162 comments

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report