RANT: A Rebuttal

Today I wanted to comment on something I read from a friend of ours from Wisconsin, known on YouTube as chuckley54494

He shared this post from a police officer:
a rebuttal

In my usual style, I’ll be addressing this point-for-point.

“People like this uses the system just to be assholes…”

Not so… in fact we’re not ‘using’ the ‘system’ at all… we’re mostly disgusted with it. I’d be interested to hear what evidence you have beyond your own emotions to support this assessment. For now, its just an assumption, and you know what they say about when you assume…

“I had an encounter with one a few weeks ago we had a concerned citizen calling in reference to a man walking down the street with what appeared to a automatic weapon .”

Again, I wonder what criteria you’re using to suggest that it ‘appeared to be an automatic weapon.’ Whether or not a weapon is automatic is a mechanical property, not a cosmetic one. A GT40 kit car may look like a GT40, but to say that it looks like a V8, or that it looks like its all-wheel-drive would be a sort of ridiculous assertion. Pulling someone over because their vehicle looks like it might be breaking emissions laws, or looks like it is beyond street-legal horsepower, or ‘looks like’ it has any other cosmetically ambiguous internal functionality is a cop-out [pun-intended], and a way for you to attempt to assert your incorrectly perceived authority, but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny or logic.

“I saw a weapon and it did look like a AK 47.”

Not surprising. Its the most imitated/copied/produced firearm in the world. And if you were to have diarrhea in a glass it might look like chocolate milk, but if you find it on the counter and didn’t see it get poured that would be a rather shitty assumption, wouldn’t it? [oh, more puns!]

“He asked me if he was being detained I stated yes he was while I was inspecting the weapon…”

While you’re inspecting the weapon? You need reasonable articulable suspicion that the weapon is illegal, if the weapon is your reason, and ‘it looks like its fully automatic’ is just not strong enough, as discussed above. If you can’t articulate the crime you believe is being committed, and your reasonable observations as to why you believe that crime is being committed, you can’t detain us.

“…and course he wanted to quote Constitution to me…”

Of course. And if a taxi driver was purposely taking the wrong way around town just to run the meter up, his passenger dare not say anything to him because, damn it, he’s a professional.

“At that time I stopped him , and informed him I was giving him lawful command to stretch his arms out for the side and turn around I was going to seize his weapon for inspection.”

You know, just because you say the command is lawful doesn’t make it so. If you want to prove me wrong, I have a glass of chocolate milk for you.

“He stated he was going to sue that was fine I was still going to inspect his weapon. there is something called reasonable suspicion and I explain that to him.”

You’re right, there is something called reasonable suspicion. There’s something called a million dollars too. So far I haven’t seen either one. Even if you did have reasonable suspicion, however, unfortunately for you the standard for detainment is ‘reasonable articulable suspicion’. If you can’t articulate it, then tough shit, that’s called a ‘hunch’, and we don’t have time to cater to your superstitions.

“I explained to him I had reasonable suspicion to assume his weapon could have been fully automatic which he would need a stamp etc at that time he shut his mouth because he knew I was right.”

This was discussed above… you did not have any reason to assume that the weapon was fully automatic. In fact, you had a legal obligation to assume it wasn’t unless you have some specific evidence indicating otherwise.

He did not shut his mouth because he knew you were right, he shut his mouth because he’s smart, and he knows that sociopaths like you look for any reason to fine or kidnap an otherwise normal person, possibly ruining their entire lives, just because your personal opinion is in disagreement with theirs.

“I expected the weapon and it was in fact a semi automatic. I gave his weapon backs and informed him he was no longer detained and was free to go.”

You expected what? Oh, I assume you meant ‘inspected’. Although… with the way you’ve articulated this post I doubt you would have noticed if it had ‘fully automatic’ stamped on the side of the receiver. Truth is, as discussed above, he was ‘free to go’ the entire time… but you would have killed him for it.

“to all the officers looking at this video keep that in mind go take some courses there are a few things on our side.”

There are only two sides, Liberty or Statist Tyranny. If you were on the correct side, we would be on the same side, and this wouldn’t be an issue to begin with.

“Don’t be afraid to do your job if you have concerned citizens your number one job is to see to it that they are protected and safe.”

Don’t be afraid to do your job, even if it is in violation of the very principles you took an oath to stand for? I think your moral compass needs recalibrating.

I agree that your number one job is to see to it that concerned citizens are protected and safe, but I think you and I have a different idea about what that means. You see, we people who you are detaining are also citizens, and we are concerned that you do not have any concern for our rights, or regard for us as people. We are concerned that you immediately take the side of the person calling against us, without observing the situation for yourself. Ensuring that concerned citizens are protected and safe means observing us, realizing we are not a threat, and that we have the means to protect ourselves, and going about your business.

“It’s going to be people like these people that are going to ruin it for everyone once the government decides to make these laws even stricter.”

As if that’s an inevitability, right? Well guess what… you’ll be more to blame than us. If the government does decide to further trample on our civil liberties, they cannot possibly do so if the police refuse to enforce the unjust regulations. But I have a feeling you’ll be right there with them, or else you wouldn’t be so resigned to your outlook.

“I don’t understand what’s the need of walking down the street was an AK when you can easily carry you a nice concealable weapon and not drawing attention.”

You can have the element of surprise, or you can have the element of deterrent. Both are valuable.

In terms of liberty activism… most of the time people are happy to hear the things we have to tell them about their liberties, but a concealed weapon would not instigate those conversations. A firearm is a tool, like any other. However, like any other tool, there are many ways to use them, and to many differing ends. Don’t be so closed-minded.

“soon one of these activist are going to be shot and killed by a citizen for someone suffering from post traumatic stress, or by some thug wanting to take a his weapon.”

Always a possibility, although in the former scenario lack of a firearm is not likely to prevent that, and even if it were the larger issue there is the way our medical system treats mentally ill individuals. The latter scenario, while possible, has been shown to be unlikely by almost all of the hard numbers available on gun ownership and carry vs violent crime.

It is possible for you to be killed by your seatbelt in a car accident, depending on the scenario. It may be 100 times less likely than a person being killed because they were NOT wearing a seatbelt, sure, but it’s possible. It has happened. Would you force people not to wear seatbelts because of that possibility?

“they don’t realize they’re making themselves a target.”

…for cops apparently.

“I’m a gun in fanatics and when off duty I do carry two weapons in fact.”

Good for you. When you’re on duty, however, that seems to be a different story. I’m not a gun fanatic, I’m a Liberty fanatic, and let me tell you… it’s a full time affair.

“But 90% of the time I’m concealed it’s all about the element of surprise”

That’s a nice unqualified opinion, and you’re entitled to that, just as we all are. However, it doesn’t give you any legal authority over those who disagree with you.

The element of surprise is great for waiting for a crime to happen and being able to shoot the perpetrator. However, I’d rather deter the crime from happening. Sadly there aren’t statistics for that because it is impossible to document all the times a crime does NOT happen or the times someone is NOT shot.

You are just another citizen. You are another person on the street. You will receive as much respect as the next person by default. However, understand that when you detain me for something you know is legal, that default level drops immediately. “It could be fully automatic” is really just your way of saying “I’d love to bust you for something.” You knew it wasn’t.

If you truly want to see to it that us citizens are protected and safe, then stop making us unsafe by stopping us and pointing guns at us and threatening our livelihood and our freedom and our lives, and illegally enforcing your opinions under color of law.



Greetings dear readers.

Just a few things…

1: I know we haven’t posted an article in a few weeks. I’m working on it, but we’ve been really busy with boots-on-the-ground activism and how to help Liberty make a bigger splash.

2: I am very sorry, but I’ve been forced [due to the amount of spam we’ve been getting] to require users to be registered and logged in to post comments. Please do not let that deter you! We love to hear your feedback!

Email support@michigancarries.org if you have any questions.