[biggles1]

Now I've had a few arguments with these guys before, but this one really takes the cake. I'd like to hear your guys opinions on it. It's a bit of a long convo, but please try to read it all.

This video (more or less) was posted on a uni society page on facebook.


This is the conversation that followed. I've removed everyone elses names for obvious reasons.

Martin Squirrell: Can't stand people who stuff like this. They try to claim a ugh ground that doesn't exist at the waste of other people's time and energy.

D: Martin who are you referring to? the Officer or the Law Student?
With Regards to the officer, many police officers, especially the so called armed response 'experts' don't have a fucking clue. I was unfortunate enough to be sitting in a cafe in Heathrow when 2 armed response officers decided to come down for a sit, one placing his MP5 on the table pointing directly towards me. I politely asked the officer if he could stack his rifle upright, so that I didn't not have the muzzle of a loaded weapon pointing directly at me. The response, Fuck off, or we'll cause you trouble. Had a similar incident in the US (for some reason police like pointing guns at me) the officer couldn't have been anymore apologetic and gave his excuses for not looking to see who was on the table in front of him

Martin Squirrell: *high ground
the law student.he fails to use.common sense. There's a report of something, the police just do a few stop checks and ID checks, you show your stuff and move on. It's not complicated yet he insists on throwing out of context legal stuff at him to nobody's gain. He wastes time, and the officers time which could have been spent searching for the person they were looking for. The law is all well and good but it has to applied with a dash of common sense.
Plus D those incidents are completely different and are firearms safety issues rather than simple stop and check ones.

L: the person they were "looking for" was the law student..he was waling down the road carrying a firearm as is completely legal. He didn't want to give ID because he didn't feel as though they had a right to put him into the database under a police report, and according to law where he was, they did NOT have the right

Martin Squirrell In the UK if you carry a firearm you need to carry a license with you for this exact reason. I don't know of the law in that particular state so I won't comment on it. Nevertheless taking a minute to show he hasn't committed a crime and has ID and the legal right to do so isn't that difficult. No matter which way he dealt with it he was going to get logged, as all police incidents are logged.I personally had an incident a few years ago where I was spoken to by the police, but no charges were ever brought. During my license interview it was brought up, up and explained away in 30 seconds. Incidents like this are easily dealt with with the minimum of fuss and only become a problem when you make them a problem. Firearm safety issues are different and should be pointed out however, but this student and many others I have seen go about these sort of things in completely the wrong way.

L: As he said in the video, no its only required if you're a suspected felon. This is not the wrong way, he is standing up for his rights. The point is, he would have been logged as an individual, a "john doe" if you will but if he'd given ID he would have been put in full name and if ever there was another incident with law enforcement, they could just pull his name out with the previous event that would make him LOOK LIKE a gun criminal and use that to their advantage.

D: Martin you cannot give Governments and police forces a single liberty, they must obey the law themselves, something this officer was not doing. The officer himself was being obstructive, not giving decent reasons etc.
also my example is relevant, you missed the point, I was trying to demonstrate the arrogance law enforcement can have, not their lack of safety, which in itself is absolutely shocking

Martin Squirrell: Just because the officer didn't give particular reasons for everything doesn't mean he's doing wrong. How much stuff he have to deal with every day? He's a human being too and people seem to forget that. In any case if he had been a killer who was planing a mass attack, attack and the police hadn't stopped and searched him, the first words out of people's lips would have been that the police weren't doing a good enough job! People expect miracles from the police but don't give them the ability to do anything. Yes the police officer in this case was a bit of a twit, but his intent makes perfect sense to me. me The police these days are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

D: He's paid to do a job, and he should do it properly. Concealed Carry is not that an uncommon sight in the states and it is obvious that the student meant no harm as he easily handed his gun over. I have a lot of friends and family who are in the police and yes people make mistakes but that officer was not operating lawful procedure. You'll find there's a huge difference in style between local sheriffs, city cops (like this guy) and feds in the way they handle things.

Martin Squirrell: So he wasn't following exact procedure, fair enough, but trying to act all superior and throwing legal shit at him right then is not the way to deal with it.you cooperate, take his details, and file a complaint.

D: no you shouldn't be compliant if the procedure is wrong. It has happened here, several constabulary's have told FAC holders that they will turn up at random for spot checks, they have no right to do so, but people are compliant and give in, if it wasn't for the effort of the NRA and BASC it could have become procedure due to peoples compliance. Attitude here is if the police turn up at random to check your guns you tell them to go away and either return with an appointment or a warrant. The more ground we give them when they don't follow correct protocol the more they'll take

Martin Squirrell: What's wrong with random spot checks? If.you give.people warning you'll never spot problems before they occur. Just because someone obeys the law on the one day the police say they will turn up doesn't mean they are on any other day. Schools have spot checks, as do groups have spot checks from other protection groups (the names escape me at the moment). Obviously harassment is a different issue and certainly isn't acceptable, but if the police are not allowed to do.occasional random spot checks then how on earth how are they meant to do anything? So often you hear of criminals being caught out by random spot checks, how many would go unnoticed without them?

D: Seriously Martin? That's tantamount to a Police state, and sets the country up nicely to become one. There are over 50 offences you can commit with you firearms without even removing them from the cupboards. For example having a single round over your limit is enough to have your permits revoked. Look at the UK licensing system, 3 major spree shootings in 30 years, all caused by police fuck ups that spot checks wouldn't have done fuck all for. My home club, whilst I was on the committee tried to get rid of a member we felt was totally unsafe and unstable, didn't want to do it but he had become a genuine liability. We inform the police, they say thanks, ban him from the club we have a reason to take his guns, we get rid of him and the police say oh yh not our problem

Martin Squirrell: And I'm not saying that's something that doesn't need to be fixed, but assuming all police at evil and stopping them from doing half their job won't do anything. If you needed absolute evidence to do anything half the prisoners in jail wouldn't be there! You can't always wait for proof to do something otherwise it's often too late. You make it sound like I say everyone should be spot checked once a week which is absurd. Yes the system is flawed and it always will be, but forcing the police to sit back and do nothing most of the time will do nothing to help anyone. You are afraid of something that doesn't exist.

D: Martin our civil liberties have been eroded away over the last century due to the government fearing the people, more proposed 'snoopers bills' etc.. we need to make a stand on any encroachment that comes our way. For example Gwent police wanted to restrict the usage of ammo. Every shooter was to record the exact ammount of rounds fired per shoot, have it signed off by an RCO, if it didn't fit with his total then his license would come under review, it was stopped by one bloke, who started doing a version of this prematurely, sending in far too much paperwork, all hand written, in blue ink on green paper, so it couldn't be scanned properly, Gwent got the hint. The police aren't evil, they are a necessary part of society, but they must be controlled and checked. The fact the shooting community kept comprising is why we are in the shitty state we are in now. The police are a reactionary force, they are respond to the situation, but the CCW debate itself will be saved for another day, I have an essay to write and a daughter to take to nursery at 8am

Martin Squirrell: And indeed a rand will be.made when they go too far. I do not disagree with that. I do disagree with the idea that the police should be SO limited in that they have almost no power at all. Random spot checks are an essential Part of that, it keeps people on their feet. What's the point of having rules if they can never be properly enforced? If everyone always had time to prepare then those who fail to follow rules could never be caught. They would continue to flout the rules, and when an incident was caused because of that lack of attention to rules what then? Do we just say 'oh well' and move on? Say someone failed to store their firearms and ammo properly, leaving live firearms carelessly around.one day their young daughter picks it up and kills herself with it. All because the person had no reason to follow the rules. My example may be extreme, extremely it already happens. Failing to enforce rules is worse than having no rules at all.

A: Martin, just what is your problem with people's rights? Stop making arguments on topics you confess to knowning nothing about.
Just because someone made a law, it just not justify a police state to enfroce it, or in this case a police state to intimidate people into doing things which they are legally entitled to do.
A police officer is not just "a person" thier job is to suppress you!
How about you go about your buisness, and I'll go able mine and so long as I don't hurt you, leave my liberty alone!

Martin Squirrell: First of all, I never confessed to knowing nothing about any of the topics. I gladly point out that I do not always know the finer details about many situations, but then who does? Just because you don't know the finer points of Newtons theory of gravity, does not mean you don't understand that gravity works.
Secondly, lets look at the definition of a police state.
'Police state - Noun
A totalitarian state controlled by a political secret police force.'
'A police state is a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.'

I don't know about you, but last time I looked outside we were pretty free to do as we pleased within the law. The government does not control the police exclusively, nor do the police go knocking down peoples doors because they wrote a book on how smelly their local MP was. The Governments and Polices controls over everyday lives are, frankly, minimal. They do not care what we write, do or say to whom, within reason. There is no social control, no political control of the population (however shitty the political parties may be), and there is most certainly a distinction between the law and political power.

And I don't know about you, but last time I saw a police officer they were very much human beings. They have parents, families, hopes, dreams, and expectations of their own future, just like all of us. They do a difficult job for frankly not much pay, and get a lot of shit week in week out. I passed by multiple police officers today on my travels, and not one was doing the slightest amount of oppression to anyone. Yes we have rights, I support those rights, and there always people who forget their place and ignore those rights. But there are frankly much better ways to go about it than acting like a pretentious douche on youtube and wasting time that could be better spent on other ventures.

Try living in North Korea, China or Afghanistan for a while, THEN come back to me and tell me how much the UK is harassing your freedoms and liberties

D: Martin you are missing the point, no were are not a totalitarian state at the moment, neither A or I have claimed that, what we are trying to say though is that 'pretentious douches' like the guy in the video are needed to ensure that we do not become one. As it stands we are one of the most monitored populations in the world, certainly the most monitored of the western civilizations. Emails are already tracked, scanned and checked by GCHQ. The government are trying to pass more bills that will allow them to spy on us. We need to stop it and it's pretentious douches that help stop it by becoming a nuisance and highlighting where the law is being broken.

Martin Squirrell: "or in this case, a police state to intimidate..."
"Their job is to suppress you..."
^that certainly looks like he is.

And the problems you are talking about right now are ones with the government, with the people who write legislation. They are the ones you should be harassing to stop it. Not the local cops who are doing their day to day business.

Getting back to the original video, lets take a point by point look at what happened.

The police got a call about someone with a gun in the area. Who made this call we do not know, but all calls to the police are taken seriously. Who is this person? What are their intentions? Where are they headed? Are they even allowed to have a gun? So they go out and investigate.

The police officer spots someone with a gun, and stops them and searches them. What's he trying to do? he wants to know who they are, what their intentions are, ect. The easiest way to do that is an ID check and a gun license check (or whatever the local equivalent is). a clean pass on both means there is no problem, the person is allowed to go on their way with a casual warning to try and avoid raising alarm if possible. If there are discrepancies, they may get taken back to the station and questioned. Again if it all checks out, they are given an apology and sent on their way, at worst with a few hours wasted. If however this person were planning some sort of attack, or were an illegal gun holder, then the police investigation would likely spot this, and the person would be apprehended and a serious crime potentially avoided. Is this a bad thing? To occasionally at worst have a few hours wasted at the possibility of, for every hundred false alarms you find one criminal? The only people at threat of taking away your freedoms are the people in power. Take your problems to them, not the local people who spend most of their time doing paperwork nowadays.

 

D: This is the last I'm going to say on it, we've gone full circle, and frankly I'm now bored, The police are part of the Government and act as individuals, therefore are responsible for their own actions. I also would have a pop about the Government who write the legislature, but that was not the topic of conversation. The police do lobby for more power, and many take the attitude that the general public cannot be trusted with more than a eraser. The fact of the matter was the officer had no legal right to take that man's gun. He had no right to essentially detain him and withhold his property when he was doing nothing wrong. Half assed reply I know, but fuck it got better things to do

So yeah, and this is still ongoing. If you want to post your own thoughts I'd appreciate it.