TexasCHLforum.com

Let's use context, shall we:

I don't care what patch you wear or what you dress like. If you're in this country, you get the honor of being equal treatment and protection under the law thanks to the actions of people who fought and died for our country. That includes people with lifestyles and views that I don't like.

Mojo indicates that this is contrary to:

If I'm coming off as immune to bias or threat detection, that's not my intention. And certainly I'm not immune. I've got my own set of profiling issues - I think it's part of human nature. Like I said before I take issue not with giving people of a certain "look" additional scrutiny or heightened situational awareness, but I do have a significant issue with those that think they should be rounded up just based on how they look. When we start rounding people up and locking them up, without due process, based on how they look or who they may have associated with, what does that sound like to you?
To answer specifically, I'd have increased situational awareness. That dress does set of my threat detection. I have bias.

Are these contradictory statements?

Mojo - I understand why you though I was contracting myself. I don't agree with you, but I see the basis for it. My apologize for indicating that you were intentionally saying something completely untrue. I'd just ask that you consider context.

mojo84 wrote:Here you go. Your first sentence of the second paragraph says you don't care what people wear.

How is that remotely the same as saying that I'm free of bias? I indicated that I'm for equal protection and treatment under the law.. I said nothing of being free of suspicion or increased care. I think it's a stretch, but thanks for telling me where you got it.

MONGOOSE, To be fair, I did say that I didn't care what people wore. I didn't say that I'm bias free and don't take proper care around things that make me suspicious. Those are different things to me. Mojo is implying that I'm contradicting myself. I don't think that I am, but I at least understand why he said what he did.

mojo84 wrote: Now it's your turn to quote me where I said someone should be arrested solely for what they are wearing.

Again, Show me where I said that. I asked you what you thought. I didnt reference something that you didn't say.

mojo84 wrote: In other words, you would make a judgement based on what someone is wearing contrary to what you said in prior posts. Why would a cop not do the same?

Mojo, I'm going to call you out here: You're not telling the truth. Please quote me where I said that - meaning the contrary statements. I've said quite the opposite and can quote it. If I said it, I'll be accountable for it.

I'm willing to discuss whatever with you, but there has to be reasonable level of respectful disagreement. Indicating that I said things that I did not is not a reasonable way to frame a debate. Maybe it's a misunderstanding, but you'll have to point it out by quoting me.

Thanks for answering my question.

mojo84 wrote: In other words, you would make a judgement based on what someone is wearing contrary to what you said in prior posts. Why would a cop not do the same?

Please quote me. I believe I agreed that increased situational awareness is warranted. I do not agree with stop or arrest based on clothing alone.

If you wouldn't mind, provide me a little fair play by answering my prior question:
Do you think it's reasonable to arrest or detain people simply based on what they are wearing?

Again, I'm going to keep this on topic and not discuss Waco here. Post on that thread and I'll follow up.

mojo84 wrote:I also like how you qualified your statement by saying "if you knew it was" me dressed as a gangmember.

I "dug it up" because that's the situation that you presented:

mojo84 wrote:If me and my buddies were all dressed in saggy pants...

The "if I knew it was you" answer was an attempt at humor because I assumed that's not the question that you wanted answered. I didn't want to be derogatory toward you personally so I chose a reasonable explanation.. I answered it as plainly as possible both ways not really knowing if you wanted me to consider "you" in the picture or not. That's really the best I've got mojo... I'm probably a little behind the curve in terms of being able to read into exactly what you're after if I didn't cover it above - again, I answered it both ways trying to be complete. I'll try more plainly: I have my own biases. Doesn't matter what the situation is, I've got biases.

In regard to Waco, I've never ignored the fact that OMC members were there. In regard to the shootout, it's unclear to me who started the shooting and honestly I don't trust version of events portrayed by Waco PD or the media. I have no judgement to give you there other than to agree that it was a dangerous situation. My assertion has been - and I don't know this factually - that some people who were not involved in organized crime and may not have been associated with a criminal gang were rounded up and essentially denied bail for simply being at that event. Furthermore, I've said that I can understand the reasonableness of rounding up everyone immediately, but I can't fathom the reasonableness of holding them essentially indefinitely without presenting evidence about individuals. But you're switching threads on me. I'll respond on that thread if you want to post, but I'm going to drop that debate here.


Do you think it's reasonable to arrest or detain people simply based on what they are wearing? I'm not talking about Waco.

mojo84 wrote: You still did not answer my question about me and my buddy's standing out on the street dressed like gang members. Are you going to?

Sure. With the understanding that you provide me with the same courtesy in the future... I was following your pick and choose lead.

mojo84 wrote: If me and my buddies were all dressed in saggy pants down around our lower bottom cheeks with our boxers exposed, wearing a wifebeater shirt, sporting gang colored headbands and flashing gang signs at people driving by, what would your assumption be about us? Would you stereotype us? If it were night time and there were 20 or so of us and you were unarmed and we were eyeballing you, would you be concerned or scared?

If I knew it was you and your buddies, I wouldn't be worried about it. I'd assume you were on the way to costume party. That's not your point. If I'm coming off as immune to bias or threat detection, that's not my intention. And certainly I'm not immune. I've got my own set of profiling issues - I think it's part of human nature. Like I said before I take issue not with giving people of a certain "look" additional scrutiny or heightened situational awareness, but I do have a significant issue with those that think they should be rounded up just based on how they look. When we start rounding people up and locking them up, without due process, based on how they look or who they may have associated with, what does that sound like to you?

To answer specifically, I'd have increased situational awareness. That dress does set of my threat detection. I have bias.

And look - if there was legitimate intelligence that a specific biker gang was involved in organized criminal activity - say like the Hells Angels decades before, rounding up based on evidence and intelligence can be accomplished through a judicial process. No problem with that either.

There are lots of people who think that anyone carrying a firearm is a threat. That might be true of some subset of those people, but it's certainly not true for all...

Another example, is that I go to a church where everyone is allowed as long as they're not dressed in a "disruptive" way. That's a nice way of saying that the church can pick and choose who gets let in based on the clothes on their back. I take issue with that too. It's really a nod to the more conservative members who provide most of the underlying funding. The pastor has to balance losing that membership with allowing a more open and modern membership base.. I don't envy his position.

VoiceofReason wrote: By the way this is just another way of getting around a warrant. If someone is arrested, let’s say for DWI. Their car is towed and everything is “inventoried”.

DWI is a different animal. It carries a pretty strict procedure within each department for making the arrest. That is, tests have to be given, and typically blood or breath have to be drawn. It would probably be hot water to have those tests pass, blood/breath net zero, and still make an arrest.

However, using a traffic stop doesn't have that burden. It's a much more simple way to affect a search/seizure without raising legal questions (thanks, Supreme Court) - I can't imagine that it's good policy, but it's much more liability proof. Course, we're hearing one side of it. It could have been an "attitude" arrest and the bike was released to another party, which is usually an "optional" event. They could have had it towed and impounded, which again, runs up the punitive fees.

mojo84 wrote: Your patriotic liberty lecture was unnecessary. I'm not saying the guy should have been arrested or that his gun should have been confiscated. However, I do understand the cops giving him hightened scrutiny.

I've got zero beef with heightened security also. And I really don't have an issue with using a traffic violation as an arrest - it's legal. It's bad policy, but it's legal. The more LEOs use it to engage in what really is an unlawful search, the more likely it is that it won't stay legal, so I say let 'em go to town.

The patriotic lecture is necessary for those that think they can round up criminals based on what they dress like. I think we should promote those people to a position called the Director of State Police. They can drive around, arrest people on sight based on their appearance. I'm sure they will successfully bag some bad guys. I'm also sure that they'll successfully bag some good guys. Other countries have done it, so why not here?

This is a place where we don't have to all dress the same way, behave the same way, and can believe in different things. That's scary for some people.

I'm not professing that all biker gangs are innocent, but a Harley and a cut does not make one a criminal. Nor does a 1% patch. I'm simply saying that rounding up on sight based on "what you dress like" is a big step toward a very very dark path and I find it ironic that people who are so supportive of our 2nd amendment rights could ignore large portions of the rest of the constitution. (Mojo, I'm not talking about you)

Mojo: What should I think about the kids that run around my town in caravans of lifted trucks flying confederate flags? Maybe they should be stopped and arrested for traffic violations?

I don't care what patch you wear or what you dress like. If you're in this country, you get the honor of being equal treatment and protection under the law thanks to the actions of people who fought and died for our country. That includes people with lifestyles and views that I don't like.

Many on this forum point to Waco as a group of "thugs" that were dressing the wrong way and got what they deserved. That may be true for some of them, but those same people gloss over the fact that some of them were CHL holders with zero criminal history and normal jobs. I think the lack of credible evidence out of that whole situation is like crickets chirping and it's going to cost that city and county a fortune, but that's just a prediction.

I may not agree a particular choice of dress, but I'm glad I live in a country where you can offend me. Mainly because I want to retain the right to offend you with my views. None of us want to be told what to thing, right? Hopefully we can agree on that.

In regard to your situation, it's unfortunate, but it sounds like they walked the thin line. The supreme court has established that LEOs can arrest for traffic offenses (Atwater vs Lago Vista), but I'd certainly lodge a complaint with the department as it may violate departmental policy.

If you find that it's typical to be treated that way, I'd find a way to even the playing field - mainly a camera or other recording device that leaves no doubt as to what happened.

PS: Use your turn signals... Or arm signals in the MC case.

Safe riding.