Bear thinks charges should be filed against the people who made the police report. [More]
I typically apply the "me" test. What's not clear is how far away the guy with the stupid tat who elected to make sure it was seen was from the workers, how long they saw him, and how much he was moving.
Having been stumped before watching "Brain Games," I have to wonder what my reaction would have been, and what the typical reaction would be, just based on the way we're wired.
Reactions may vary, but I've never shot anyone out of fear of their tattoo (yeah, I've seen these gun tats).
ReplyDeleteAs for Smith's actions, I'll note that even the cops apparently couldn't get "reckless conduct" or "disturbing the peace", nor any other CYA charge to justify their "assault rifle" response.
David , as much s I admire your work , I have to say the "stupid tat" comment was a bit much . To each their own , as free men are allowed .
ReplyDeleteAs far as this case , I can understand the issue the guy had . Being a night shift worker myself , I get why he told them to take a hike . Prior notice is not that hard to give .
As people have posted elsewhere , it is perfectly legal to carry , not brandish, a firearm , especially on your own property . The police reaction was way overboard , as well as the tree crew . Unless the individual threatens harm , there is no crime , no foul . I think it was more about retribution than fear on the part of the tree crew .
"To each their own , as free men are allowed . "
ReplyDeleteI said nothing about allowing. If someone has to give permission, a man is not free.
Yes, by all means, to each his own, and I think it's a stupid tat, for a number of reasons. I'm "allowed" to express opinions on my own blog.
Even if the tat was a real gun, there was no reason to call out a SWAT team.. "The guy with a gun on his hip is not your problem, the guy with a gun pointed at you is your problem." If it isn't being in hand or pointed, no problem. Put on your big girl panties.
ReplyDelete