Soju

I think number 3 is even more relevant than number 4. No idea who the initial aggressor was. But in a road rage incident where both parties pull over and exchange words, almost always involves parties on both sides provoking each other. I'm also unclear. Did the vehicles collide or was there an accident of sorts? If so, he has a better chance of a valid self defense claim, under MD law. If not, I think he will be hard pressed to make a valid argument that he pulled over and entered into this confrontation with good intentions and not because of 'road rage'. Sounds a lot like both men were provoking each other this shooting is the unfortunate result. The other thing that makes it more questionable, is that I'm reading they (him or his wife) said they saw the guy flash a firearm at them while both were driving. Why would you pull over to confront someone you think is armed, while your family is with you, and not try and remove yourself and get away from a potentially armed and dangerous individual, and call 911 if you felt he was in fact dangerous? Lots of problems and MD law appears to not be so forgiving in situations where you intentionally put yourself in bad situations instead of avoiding them, if possible.

Yes, it is the same thing as judging a book by it's cover. Perceptions are just that, perceptions, that may or may not be true. Truth rarely matters when it comes to government, politics, and authority. But self-perception is just as relevant. Lots of jokes get made about mall ninjas at the range and whatnot. Decked out in gear, thinking they are badass. Based off of some recent events of some police officers going Rambo on innocent civilians, it is apparent they often think the same. (See LA police lighting up a truck with 2 innocent women, Boston, etc). You have LEO's on this forum, on the news, and on film making statements that reflect an attitude of omnipotent control and authority by force. That only gets substantiated when the gear they have and uniforms they wear make them appear to be a storm trooper. This isn't just my view. It is the view of many and there have been psychological studies on this, and on police-citizen interaction. I posted before I read this. This is exactly what I am talking about. Police treat everyone as if they are a criminal. This is a systemic issue, as RubberBullets mentioned. Police are taught to protect themselves first at all costs. The rights and safety of others always comes second, even when dealing with just one, clearly non-threating individual as your story shows. I bet that was pretty intimidating? Now imagine you are a young impressionable female, and that cop is dressed in fatigues and tactical gear. Is she going to ask him for directions? How is he perceived? I bet not like a peace officer..

Fair points. Maybe that is a normal conversation for him though.

Of course not. But far more people see police then actually deal with them personally. When you only have to go by looks, and they look like a combat soldier, that is the perception. That is my point. The uniform shouldn't dictate the person, but on some levels, it absolutely does. Whether it is a good or a bad thing, true or false, people form perceptions and mindsets based on appearance. Dressing like that gives people the impression that LEO's are no longer peace officers here to help but military types out to control. This is by design, and that is coming straight from the horses mouth. If you want to be perceived as a peace officer who's job is to maintain the peace, enforce laws, and deal with bad guys, you can't dress like you are about to raid a village. It doesn't have to be true for it to be reality.

Looks clearly have to do with it. Perception is reality. Do you really think it matters to someone who sees a cop in camouflage fatigues and a drop holster why they are dressed like that? Good reason, okay reason, bad reason? Irrelevant. They look more like a soldier going into battle then the friendly neighborhood officer. Whether it is a good thing or not, the reality is there is a militarization of police in many aspects. Denying that is ignorant.

Yes...trying too hard is the issue. Also, learning laws on the interwebs is another problem. Because nobody here talks on or learns about laws on the interwebs. So despite your own admission that you have open carried a rifle or to prove a point, and despite that I know for a fact you spend time on the internet learning about laws, you take issue with someone else doing the same? I can't help but find that hypocritical. I'm sorry, but not everybody acts exactly the same or handles situations in the same manner as you. In fact, you don't even have to agree with or like those actions. I know I wouldn't act the same way as him in a like situation, but I fail to see how it is a problem. It isn't like he is being aggressive and violent.

+1

Absolutely not. Only police can be trusted with guns and are responsible enough to do the right thing. If we let regular people carry guns in places like schools and other gun-free zones, there will be needless shootings by overreacting mall ninjas. Do you really want Joe Shmoe the janitor pulling out his pistol with children around?

Unfortunately democrats are already suggesting the federal government bail Detroit out again. I mean, the democrats that caused Detroits bankruptcy are the best people to come up with a 'solution' (like one even exists) to solve the problems. They are also already blaming republicans and libertarians, oddly enough. What is amazing is people will actually listen and think it's true.

In the court room where everyone can see? Wow!

A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire But since that is the name of the game I suppose; It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle But I'm also a fan of Mark Twain.

Nothing to see bere.

Traffic tickets are almost entirely a scam. There are of course some exceptions. I mean, over the last couple of years, in most places the cost of tickets for the same offense has doubled or more. If you just pay, it is usually a 'no contest' plea. If you go to court and lose (which you will), you are now guilty. Often just paying incurs no points, where taking it to court does. And when you take it to court, you know get these added court and administrative fees added on. This is done to discourage fighting tickets. Also, they often give you the option for a lesser charge...at a HIGHER cost. Why? Because it isn't about safety. It is about money. If it was really about safety, people who get DUI's wouldn't be back on the road shortly with a valid license. But they are, because repeat offenders pay more. I absolutely believe your friend turned on a green and got a ticket. After all, for traffic tickets, no proof is required, just the officers word. Out-of-staters usually can't bother fighting tickets, so it is easy money.

I seem to recall you having defended public display of buffoonery also, so in that case, excellent point. +1 for irony.

I'm not sure you're talking about the same thing as everyone else...

Well good thing he did that on his property where nobody was around. Do you usually make such awful points?

I feel for you. That is a crappy situation. I'm glad you understand. That exact same thing can happen to any of us, all on the word of someone. It is an equally as crappy situation. That is because the system sucks. Real crime doesn't pay, so making a plea is usually easy. I have a problem with that just as much as you. I think I've been around for 1 Christmas in the last 6 years, so I don't really know. If you were just asking to ask, then thank you. If you were trying to make a point on how difficult the job of an LEO is, make another. Lots of people miss out on holidays and family time due to their job. That is far from unique. There is an expression, something about a small violin, that may be applicable.

Anyone ever notice how all the blue uniforms and blue and white police cars that were once the standard seem to be all black now? Notice how what would once have just been a normal conversation often becomes a request for ID or a lecture? Ever hear something like "just comply if you've done nothing wrong"? Well that seems to be the directions things are going, and I can only imagine it is by design. As someone else pointed out, there is no longer a balance of power. There is a monopoly on it. And it isn't on the side of the citizens. Until there is some actual accountability, equal enforcement, and no more of this hypocritical attitude that certain people should be able to do things but others absolutely cannot without being a criminal, you will continue to see the divide becoming larger. Look at the post above mine. I'm honestly not sure if it is satire or not. "Don't question us, it is for public safety" "I work in a prison, but I need to be in jungle camouflage" "I don't know who you are, but you are already a criminal to me and will be treated as such." "I know you didn't ask, but I'm going to need to protect and serve the crap out of you unless you prove your innocence."

Where are you moving to? I thought you could take any currently owned firearms, assuming legal in both states, to your new home. I'm sure NYC, Chicago, and DC probably have some other requirements, but entire states?

This is ridiculous and not because the ruling is wrong. Miranda rights are a joke to begin with. How about instead of police having to read you your rights, and instead of people having to explicitly request their rights...ones rights are just followed in the first place? But that would just be too easy, make too much sense, and restrict or prevent the use of dishonest tactics by law enforcement in regards to the 5th.

I read this yesterday. The article and who situation is hilarious! "I went and got her a towel, she dried off and all of a sudden she was soaking wet again. I escorted her outside and invited her to church, but she said she didn't have time for that, she wasn't ready for that," HAHAHAHAHA.

Sounds like she was a Ninja, Batman, Macgyver, Cruella de Vil, and Sara Goldfarb from 'Requiem for a Dream', all rolled into one.

Which part of the definition of treason is he guilty of? Are you suggesting the citizens of the US are also the enemies of the US or that he is levying war?

You are a peculiar person. First, I don't nor do I have any desire to 'ingest' marijuana. But I am capable of comprehending reasons that people want too. Apparently you don't possess the ability to comprehend such things. Disagreement doesn't usually prevent being able to understand things, but maybe it does. Second, I'm pretty sure Kokesh is very much against Obama, so grouping them together (and even more oddly and out of left field, with Manson), is pretty pointless. Nice logically fallacy too.