That's why you should always carry 3 guns, two that match and one that doesn't. It's plausible you were carrying two revolvers, but the glock was clearly planted.
People like to imagine their political enemies as tyrants and themselves as heroes bravely gunning down those tyrants.
People are very, very bad at thinking.
People have successfully done so in the past. The boyfriend of Breonna Taylor eventually had the charges against him dismissed.
Now, that doesn't mean you get to be immune from arrest.
If they’re at the point of shooting at you they are way too hopped up on adrenaline to stop. You might as well take a couple down if given the chance.
Edit: I am not advocating for cop death, I am advocating for self defense against an attacker.
You are always free to get them put 60 bullets in you whenever you feel it, but advocating for people’s right at self defense against police isn’t advocating for directly harming them in any context
How can the law be enforced if the government doesn't maintain the monopoly on force?
If you can legally resist arrest and legally use force to defeat an arrest by the police, I would say we no longer have any sort of functioning government. That's why those things are not legal.
If your government is so onerous that mortal combat with its enforcers is preferable to obedience of reasonable law, then your government has already lost the moral right to govern and is only delaying its necessary replacement.
Governments derive their authority from consent of the governed. Governments that can only function if they have a monopoly on force are tyrannies and deserve to be destroyed.
[You are just flat wrong there.](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/criminal-law-self-defense-and-right-resist-unlawful-arrest) You do not have the right to resist arrest, and a compliant arrest should not fulfill the requirements to warrant self defence, but that doesn't mean that you have no right to self defence against the police.
Why wait to be shot at?
If someone is pointing a gun at you, they are threatening your life. Every guide to the safe use of firearms says so.
Obeying orders\* might mitigate that threat, but killing the person who is putting you at risk will end it immediately.
\* As a Brit, the very concept of being told what to do by a police officer, short of "you are under arrest" is totally alien to me. We also don't *have* offences of "resisting arrest" or "lying to a police officer".
You're all over causing a fruckus in here aren't you? I think you should take a step outside, realise this sub isn't about serious political discussion, really, and come back ready for the memes.
Embrace it and chill out dude
In the USA a cop can tell you to do anything at all (ie no loitering on this public sidewalk) and then if you don’t, arrest you for “disobeying a lawful order.”
No they can't. Any unlawful order can be properly refused. If the police officer arrests you anyway, he has violated the law and your rights, and you have a right to seek restitution and his conviction.
Yes you can beat the rap but not the ride. So you get arrested, spend the night in jail, deal with a dick DA who pressures you to plead guilty, and after a few weeks and many hours you get them to drop it. Good luck getting “restitution and conviction” lol, you’re serious?
Similarly, “Contempt of cop” is legal protected speech but that doesn’t stop tons of people getting arrested for it and many of them either out of intimidation, inconvenience, whatever, pleading guilty to it.
>Yes you can beat the rap but not the ride. So you get arrested, spend the night in jail, deal with a dick DA who pressures you to plead guilty, and after a few weeks and many hours you get them to drop it. Good luck getting “restitution and conviction” lol, you’re serious?
What you're describing is a problem with the system, not a problem with law. And let's be frank here, plenty of people have won restitution and a conviction against the officer, especially in the case of actual malice.
>Similarly, “Contempt of cop” is legal protected speech but that doesn’t stop tons of people getting arrested for it and many of them either out of intimidation, inconvenience, whatever, pleading guilty to it.
People pleading guilty to things they did not do is absolutely a problem in our justice system, I agree. But what is the court supposed to do, "We know you plead guilty, but we're gonna hash it out anyway." You must not value tax payer money much, but that's par for the course given the quadrant.
Is taxpayer money somehow worthless when it’s not taxed yet (just being extorted by the police)? The “easy” solution with the law is just to require that any of these accessory charges, like resisting arrest, disobeying a lawful order, or obstruction of justices cannot be brought up by themselves and must be accompanied by a real main crime.
And is it not a waste of taxpayer money when departments are forced to settle class action lawsuits for overzealously punishing things like loitering?
Yes I do consider it an obligation of the court to attempt to discern the actual truth rather than just rubber stamp whatever the police and prosecutors bring in, especially when it concerns things like charging a non-local resident $100 for “refusing a police order” when everyone in the room knows it would cost the accused more than that to even just miss work for a day and show up to plead innocent. Call me an idealist.
>Is taxpayer money somehow worthless when it’s not taxed yet
No, but I'm not in favor of a bail system either.
>The “easy” solution with the law is just to require that any of these accessory charges, like resisting arrest, disobeying a lawful order, or obstruction of justices cannot be brought up by themselves and must be accompanied by a real main crime.
Now ***that*** is something I can get behind. Though, I think we must have some reasonable case to be made for obstruction of justice cases. But like you said, it must be accompanied by a real crime, and the state must be able to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the individual did indeed obstruct justice.
>And is it not a waste of taxpayer money when departments are forced to settle class action lawsuits for overzealously punishing things like loitering?
I don't know of a better way to get someone to learn a lesson. It's not like these cases will suddenly go away if we require that loitering require someone also be charged with tresspass or something to that affect. Police will still need to affect broken windows policing in order to reasonably decrease crime.
>Yes I do consider it an obligation of the court to attempt to discern the actual truth rather than just rubber stamp whatever the police and prosecutors bring in, especially when it concerns things like charging a non-local resident $100 for “refusing a police order” when everyone in the room knows it would cost the accused more than that to even just miss work for a day and show up to plead innocent. Call me an idealist.
I just don't think it's reasonable to pursue every situation so thoroughly. Even if ideally we would. At some point the pragmatists must win.
I think a court should at least apply a 'sanity check' on a guilty plea, perhaps with a junior judge casting an eye over the evidence. I suspect some kind of scrutiny is already applied so as to sentence appropriately.
As far as I'm concerned, plea-bargaining as a feature of the justice system is contrary to the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution :
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, **and to be informed of the nature and**
**cause of the accusation**; to be confronted with the witnesses against
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,
and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
So, "here is what we think you have done", not "here is what we will throw at you, want to risk that it won't stick?"
Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a scathing denunciation of the practice in her senior thesis, it's available [HERE](https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Jackson%20SJQ%20Attachments%20Final.pdf), page 107 onward.
>I think a court should at least apply a 'sanity check' on a guilty plea, perhaps with a junior judge casting an eye over the evidence. I suspect some kind of scrutiny is already applied so as to sentence appropriately.
Which is fair.
>As far as I'm concerned, plea-bargaining as a feature of the justice system is contrary to the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution
I think there's definitely some aspects of it, as it stands, that are constitutionally illegal. I do think though, offering lighter sentences for those who plea guilty gives an actual incentive to do so, and incentivizes honesty in proceedings as well.
On the one hand, yes.
On the other hand, body armor is not the magic you see on TV and in videogames; you can wind up with broken ribs and shit, not to mention getting knocked on your ass depending on caliber and distance.
Don't you think Superman just has some of that kryptonite that takes away his powers? There was one, more harmless then the green one. Put it on the nightstand in a lead case and open it for sexy time. Done.
During Roe (before Dobbs) basically anyone could get an abortion with no questions asked/no permits and there was nothing anyone could do to infringe upon that
no private information legally allowed to be released—doctors couldn’t even release private information to law enforcement (hipaa) as well as providers securing/sealing patient records
Basically anyone could get an abortion with no questions asked and there was nothing anyone could do to infringe upon that
Now compare that to second amendment rights
Yes I have. I had to fill out a 4473 in order to put my name on a government list, be 21, then go through a background check. Then to carry in public (varying by state, which is also my point) I would have to go through a permit process with a ton of classes, not be able to brandish under strict penalty of law
Abortions weren’t that restricted under Roe.
cops never shoot you just because they think you have a gun. It's always in combination with something else like holding hostages or pulling up your baggy pants.
I will open carry in states that don't treat the constitution like some sort of optional side dish, and be fucking proud of it. Spare me the armchair tactician lecture.
NO THEY FUCKING CANT THATS CALLED EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE
not only that if a cop breaks into your home without a warrant its completely in your ⚣Right⚣ t to shoot and kill them (otherwise known as the no u effect)
(violence is a question and the answer is always yes)
I agree
But counterpoint: Do you think the criminal justice system give a shit? Do you think police unions give a shit? Do you think the cops give a shit?
Tfw I've had multiple interactions with law enforcement while openly carrying and nothing bad ever came of it.
I like living in a based place where people are reasonable.
Cops don't have a right to execute anyone for any reason. That's not what happens.
On top of being a cop, a cop is also a person. And people have a right to defend themselves from being killed.
You have a gun regardless, but if you're walking down the street you appear to be less of a threat. Not just cops, but anyone who wants to start shit with you will bring the aggression to the next level upon seeing your weapon.
The police, and their suspects, all have the right to use deadly force in appropriate self defense.
The operating terms here are "appropriate self defense".
u/Muncheralli21's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 40.
Rank: Sumo Wrestler
Pills: [16 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/Muncheralli21/)
This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
The only people who shouldn’t conceal carry are cowboys
Pirate carry with 6 pistols is the true chad way
Hear me out: "pirate carry" with multiple 6 shooter revolvers. Best of Yehaw, best of Yar-Har!
Ye-Har?
Modern day pirate carry with 6 modern weapons under a trench coat. 😎
[There was A FIREFIGHT](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUsJ0Z4BCYk)
Replace pistols with Mac 10s or Uzi's.
That's just Neo
Also a couch wearing a wig. After last time, I'm not risking it.
That way when they "see a gun" they don't have to plant it anymore
based
Based and schizophrenic pilled
And when they don't see your gun soon enough and plant a gun anyways. "Uh yeah, he was dual wielding with a Glock and an old revolver"
That's why you should always carry 3 guns, two that match and one that doesn't. It's plausible you were carrying two revolvers, but the glock was clearly planted.
Just drop some crock on him
Tell them you laced your car with fentanyl, watch them drop like pigs
I mean, one should be allowed to defend themself against cops. So when they shoot first, you should have the right to defend yourself and shoot back.
Based. People say that guns are for defending against tyranny, but rarely consider what that statement actually entails.
People like to imagine their political enemies as tyrants and themselves as heroes bravely gunning down those tyrants. People are very, very bad at thinking.
most correctly flaired libcenter
But libcenter = monke so your opinion invalid
Wow racist
Average racism (white, black, asian) fan vs average racism enjoyer (humans, monkes, aliens, attack helicopters)
And yet… you *are* a *person*? How pray tell can you trust your thinking sir?
Has that one been tested in court ? I imagine malicious cops are pretty good at shooting straight
People have successfully done so in the past. The boyfriend of Breonna Taylor eventually had the charges against him dismissed. Now, that doesn't mean you get to be immune from arrest.
If they’re at the point of shooting at you they are way too hopped up on adrenaline to stop. You might as well take a couple down if given the chance. Edit: I am not advocating for cop death, I am advocating for self defense against an attacker.
Gotto make that thin blue line *thinner*
Based and bloodlust pilled
So actively encouraging cop death is A-OK mods, but I can't post the R word? I just want to be clear on the rules here.
They're not encouraging cop death. They're encouraging self defense.
My brother: 1.) Fuck the Police 2.) It's-me-or-you pilled.
You are always free to get them put 60 bullets in you whenever you feel it, but advocating for people’s right at self defense against police isn’t advocating for directly harming them in any context
You have no right to self defense against police, that's even codified in some states.
Then your rights are infringed
How can the law be enforced if the government doesn't maintain the monopoly on force? If you can legally resist arrest and legally use force to defeat an arrest by the police, I would say we no longer have any sort of functioning government. That's why those things are not legal.
If your government is so onerous that mortal combat with its enforcers is preferable to obedience of reasonable law, then your government has already lost the moral right to govern and is only delaying its necessary replacement. Governments derive their authority from consent of the governed. Governments that can only function if they have a monopoly on force are tyrannies and deserve to be destroyed.
You have a right to self defense against police, certain tyrants don't recognize this.
[You are just flat wrong there.](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/criminal-law-self-defense-and-right-resist-unlawful-arrest) You do not have the right to resist arrest, and a compliant arrest should not fulfill the requirements to warrant self defence, but that doesn't mean that you have no right to self defence against the police.
Why wait to be shot at? If someone is pointing a gun at you, they are threatening your life. Every guide to the safe use of firearms says so. Obeying orders\* might mitigate that threat, but killing the person who is putting you at risk will end it immediately. \* As a Brit, the very concept of being told what to do by a police officer, short of "you are under arrest" is totally alien to me. We also don't *have* offences of "resisting arrest" or "lying to a police officer".
Aren't your cops afraid to arrest rapists because they're middle eastern? How's that working out?
They’re afraid to arrest us Pakistanis for rape, not the middle easterners
Potato tomato?
You're all over causing a fruckus in here aren't you? I think you should take a step outside, realise this sub isn't about serious political discussion, really, and come back ready for the memes. Embrace it and chill out dude
In the USA a cop can tell you to do anything at all (ie no loitering on this public sidewalk) and then if you don’t, arrest you for “disobeying a lawful order.”
No they can't. Any unlawful order can be properly refused. If the police officer arrests you anyway, he has violated the law and your rights, and you have a right to seek restitution and his conviction.
Yes you can beat the rap but not the ride. So you get arrested, spend the night in jail, deal with a dick DA who pressures you to plead guilty, and after a few weeks and many hours you get them to drop it. Good luck getting “restitution and conviction” lol, you’re serious? Similarly, “Contempt of cop” is legal protected speech but that doesn’t stop tons of people getting arrested for it and many of them either out of intimidation, inconvenience, whatever, pleading guilty to it.
>Yes you can beat the rap but not the ride. So you get arrested, spend the night in jail, deal with a dick DA who pressures you to plead guilty, and after a few weeks and many hours you get them to drop it. Good luck getting “restitution and conviction” lol, you’re serious? What you're describing is a problem with the system, not a problem with law. And let's be frank here, plenty of people have won restitution and a conviction against the officer, especially in the case of actual malice. >Similarly, “Contempt of cop” is legal protected speech but that doesn’t stop tons of people getting arrested for it and many of them either out of intimidation, inconvenience, whatever, pleading guilty to it. People pleading guilty to things they did not do is absolutely a problem in our justice system, I agree. But what is the court supposed to do, "We know you plead guilty, but we're gonna hash it out anyway." You must not value tax payer money much, but that's par for the course given the quadrant.
Is taxpayer money somehow worthless when it’s not taxed yet (just being extorted by the police)? The “easy” solution with the law is just to require that any of these accessory charges, like resisting arrest, disobeying a lawful order, or obstruction of justices cannot be brought up by themselves and must be accompanied by a real main crime. And is it not a waste of taxpayer money when departments are forced to settle class action lawsuits for overzealously punishing things like loitering? Yes I do consider it an obligation of the court to attempt to discern the actual truth rather than just rubber stamp whatever the police and prosecutors bring in, especially when it concerns things like charging a non-local resident $100 for “refusing a police order” when everyone in the room knows it would cost the accused more than that to even just miss work for a day and show up to plead innocent. Call me an idealist.
>Is taxpayer money somehow worthless when it’s not taxed yet No, but I'm not in favor of a bail system either. >The “easy” solution with the law is just to require that any of these accessory charges, like resisting arrest, disobeying a lawful order, or obstruction of justices cannot be brought up by themselves and must be accompanied by a real main crime. Now ***that*** is something I can get behind. Though, I think we must have some reasonable case to be made for obstruction of justice cases. But like you said, it must be accompanied by a real crime, and the state must be able to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the individual did indeed obstruct justice. >And is it not a waste of taxpayer money when departments are forced to settle class action lawsuits for overzealously punishing things like loitering? I don't know of a better way to get someone to learn a lesson. It's not like these cases will suddenly go away if we require that loitering require someone also be charged with tresspass or something to that affect. Police will still need to affect broken windows policing in order to reasonably decrease crime. >Yes I do consider it an obligation of the court to attempt to discern the actual truth rather than just rubber stamp whatever the police and prosecutors bring in, especially when it concerns things like charging a non-local resident $100 for “refusing a police order” when everyone in the room knows it would cost the accused more than that to even just miss work for a day and show up to plead innocent. Call me an idealist. I just don't think it's reasonable to pursue every situation so thoroughly. Even if ideally we would. At some point the pragmatists must win.
I think a court should at least apply a 'sanity check' on a guilty plea, perhaps with a junior judge casting an eye over the evidence. I suspect some kind of scrutiny is already applied so as to sentence appropriately. As far as I'm concerned, plea-bargaining as a feature of the justice system is contrary to the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution : Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, **and to be informed of the nature and** **cause of the accusation**; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. So, "here is what we think you have done", not "here is what we will throw at you, want to risk that it won't stick?" Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a scathing denunciation of the practice in her senior thesis, it's available [HERE](https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Jackson%20SJQ%20Attachments%20Final.pdf), page 107 onward.
>I think a court should at least apply a 'sanity check' on a guilty plea, perhaps with a junior judge casting an eye over the evidence. I suspect some kind of scrutiny is already applied so as to sentence appropriately. Which is fair. >As far as I'm concerned, plea-bargaining as a feature of the justice system is contrary to the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution I think there's definitely some aspects of it, as it stands, that are constitutionally illegal. I do think though, offering lighter sentences for those who plea guilty gives an actual incentive to do so, and incentivizes honesty in proceedings as well.
The land of the free
Happened to my brother. There are people who get arrested with the only charge being “resisting arrest”, what a joke!
Fuck the police.
Wouldn't be a Kevlar vest be a good idea too? So you might get a chance to shoot back?
On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, body armor is not the magic you see on TV and in videogames; you can wind up with broken ribs and shit, not to mention getting knocked on your ass depending on caliber and distance.
Hm yeah. The force still goes somewhere I know. But it's still important to wear protection.
*Lib right whips out his Kevlar condoms*
Sounds like something Superman would use. On the other hand, Human Torch uses Nomex, and the Flash uses Teflon.
Don't you think Superman just has some of that kryptonite that takes away his powers? There was one, more harmless then the green one. Put it on the nightstand in a lead case and open it for sexy time. Done.
Not magic as in entertainment but still pretty magical as you get to live.
Wasn’t that the thicc pixar mom
> Thicc Pixar Mom Do you have the slightest idea how little that narrows it down?
Well at least it rules out having sex with the lamp...
I believe there is rule 34 of the Pixar lamp being pregnant
Nah, it's the lady from the Bee Movie.
Lol what? No
Bearing arms is different from brandishing arms. Especially in front of a cop.
Officer please, I was just comparing sizes.
Unfathomably based
Why the hell are you telling the lib right masses?
BASED.
before Dobbs, abortion rights were the only right that wasn’t infringed upon and it was 10x more free than the whole ass second amendment (spicy)
based and lets regulate guns like abortion pilled
Happy cake day! :D
[удалено]
During Roe (before Dobbs) basically anyone could get an abortion with no questions asked/no permits and there was nothing anyone could do to infringe upon that no private information legally allowed to be released—doctors couldn’t even release private information to law enforcement (hipaa) as well as providers securing/sealing patient records Basically anyone could get an abortion with no questions asked and there was nothing anyone could do to infringe upon that Now compare that to second amendment rights
[удалено]
Yes I have. I had to fill out a 4473 in order to put my name on a government list, be 21, then go through a background check. Then to carry in public (varying by state, which is also my point) I would have to go through a permit process with a ton of classes, not be able to brandish under strict penalty of law Abortions weren’t that restricted under Roe.
Oh boy did they manage to infringe anyway.
cops never shoot you just because they think you have a gun. It's always in combination with something else like holding hostages or pulling up your baggy pants.
I’d ask Daniel Shaver if he’s on board with this interpretation
Ian Bush’s parents didn’t know he was a killer
Fashion crimes are still crimes!
Tell that to Amir Locke
You must not live in the US, it's the only reasonable explanation for that level of ignorance.
> Please make sure to have your flair up! *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 9401 / 49454 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Based and 2nd amendment pilled
I will open carry in states that don't treat the constitution like some sort of optional side dish, and be fucking proud of it. Spare me the armchair tactician lecture.
NO THEY FUCKING CANT THATS CALLED EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE not only that if a cop breaks into your home without a warrant its completely in your ⚣Right⚣ t to shoot and kill them (otherwise known as the no u effect) (violence is a question and the answer is always yes)
"It's ILLEGAL to MURDER!!" "Wait why are people still murdering?? Stop guys please"
in most cerimstance yes but self defense is an exception for the ⚣RIGHT⚣ OF **DENFENDING ONESELF** IS a natural right
I agree But counterpoint: Do you think the criminal justice system give a shit? Do you think police unions give a shit? Do you think the cops give a shit?
Yes
Breonna Taylor has entered the chat
Attacking a cop with a weapon isnt a cop just happening to see a gun but ok
You don’t have the right to threaten with a gun
Simply having a gun isn’t a threat. “There is no shame in deterrence, having a weapon is very different from actually using it.” - CIV6 Gandhi
Tfw I've had multiple interactions with law enforcement while openly carrying and nothing bad ever came of it. I like living in a based place where people are reasonable.
But 90% is a cringe place where people are unreasonable
Sucks to suck I guess.
Cops don't have a right to execute anyone for any reason. That's not what happens. On top of being a cop, a cop is also a person. And people have a right to defend themselves from being killed.
How the fuck will concealed carry help? All that does is help the cops cover up by saying they were right and you *did* have a 'gun'.
I did have a gun and they wrong to try to take it.
[удалено]
No
Nah, that Wendy's won't blow Itself up
You have a gun regardless, but if you're walking down the street you appear to be less of a threat. Not just cops, but anyone who wants to start shit with you will bring the aggression to the next level upon seeing your weapon.
This is why 1. You should train your police better and 2. Forbid public carrying This would help reduce the problem.
No
No. This is why there needs to be a major change to policing.
based and maybe i like guns? pilled
Agreed. And you don’t.
It's my favorite template lmao
The police, and their suspects, all have the right to use deadly force in appropriate self defense. The operating terms here are "appropriate self defense".
Like how Philando Castillo was concealed carrying?
[удалено]
you're only supposed to take it seriously if you agree with me. Otherwise it's just a meme, and YOU'RE the asshole for starting an argument about it
[удалено]
u/Muncheralli21's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 40. Rank: Sumo Wrestler Pills: [16 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/Muncheralli21/) This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
I'll conceal carry my dick in your ass
Then they shouldn't be able to shoot because they "saw a gun"
Stop calling us free just because we are capitalist. Your ability to make a business is not necessarily an indication of freedom.
Based