TexasCHLforum.com

I (meaning myself) don't (meaning do not) believe (meaning have confidence that this is the truth) that you (meaning Liberty) really (meaning as apposed to what was posted earlier) want (meaning desire) to go down this road (meaning to take this course of action).

The English language often provides contextual clues to the meaning of words. Sometimes those clues are the speaker, words spoken (or written) with it, or even the intended audience. I disagree with the actions of the officers, but going after a professional for using the language as he was trained to do is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. I have this bad habit of calling things like I see them, and in this case anyone who tries to make a federal case over the use of the word subject(s) really needs to find better material for a debate.

I am going after this guy not because of his language, but because he represents the abusive ruling class, in both his actions and words.
I don't think I would like anyone calling me a subject. Regardless of the context. its roots and meaning is loaded with disrespect. The training might be such that it is OK to use in describing free citizens, but the chief need to understands that he is supposed to be subject to the the citizens whom he is supposed to protect. Liberals get to define words that are politically incorrect, Shouldn't the freedom loving peoples? Any chief that supports oppression of those who legally gather and arm themselves obviously thinks of the citizens as peoples to to be subjugated, his choice words are inline with his actions.

It seems he has been a part of the training that has allowed his troopers to think its alright to arrest people even if they have broken no laws. His language surely reflects this. Maybe if he stops referring to those of whom he is charged to protect and serve as subjects, might be a good start towards demonstrating respect towards law abiding citizens.

I hate to break it to you if you have ever had any official dealings (Traffic stop, reporting something, ect) with law enforcement then you have been referred to as a subject. In fact, when the DPS handled your CHL packet they probably referred to you as .... a subject. The officers in the story were wrong in their actions, no question about it, but to take them to task over using the word subject as they have been trained is pointless when there are bigger issues. You want something done about it, then go all politically correct on them and see how much success you have.

And I didn't even know about this. The police could have shot all these guys if they moved at all. Sure glad the Supreme Court ruled that all subjects have a right to bear arms. Seems no one listened. I hope they get a lot of money.

philip964 wrote:And I didn't even know about this. The police could have shot all these guys if they moved at all. Sure glad the Supreme Court ruled that all subjects have a right to bear arms. Seems no one listened. I hope they get a lot of money.

At this time the United States Supreme Court has only ruled on the right to keep arms, although it has strongly indicated how it will rule when the right to bear arms comes before it.

Dragonfighter wrote:Sounds like a thousand other inquiry type calls to 911, "Is this normal, acceptable, legal, etc.?"

Again, this assumes they have a functioning non-emergency number. At least back in 2001, Dallas didn't answer the police/fire/etc. non-emergency numbers outside of 8-5 M-F. A minor code violation at 6PM or a loud party anytime parties get loud had to go through 911, unless you wanted to leave a voicemail for them to come deal with it the next business day.

G.A. Heath wrote:I hate to break it to you if you have ever had any official dealings (Traffic stop, reporting something, ect) with law enforcement then you have been referred to as a subject. In fact, when the DPS handled your CHL packet they probably referred to you as .... a subject. The officers in the story were wrong in their actions, no question about it, but to take them to task over using the word subject as they have been trained is pointless when there are bigger issues. You want something done about it, then go all politically correct on them and see how much success you have.

The lack of respect, The common usage of the word doesn't make it right, I remember when the N word was commonly used, It has become socially unacceptable in almost any social setting. If we as citizens accept the lack of of respect that authorities have for us it becomes acceptable. As long as we accept being referred to as subjects the practice will continue.

I do agree there are bigger fish to fry, when it comes to respecting the citizen, and we are working on that. We can get to to the local levels later.


I understand that I'm geting off topic, and picking nits. `nuff said from me.

The one thing that will play big into this that no one has really picked up on is the 911 operator's statement to the lady that the State Attorney General has stated it is legal for people to open carry. The tone on the 911 call of both the operator and the caller will be a tell-tale for how this incident went down, and the fact the Chief wanted to trump up charges that were no factual. Bottom line, I hope the people in this case push the matter and file a 1983 civil rights suit. The more case law there in in these matters, the better it fairs for others who are unfairly singled out and wrongly accused for doing something within their legal rights.

Did I miss the part where the Federal government is suing the state of Wisconsin because their police arrest and otherwise harrass law abiding people who fail to produce "papers"? Maybe they only sue Arizona for that particular practice.

Katygunnut wrote:Did I miss the part where the Federal government is suing the state of Wisconsin because their police arrest and otherwise harrass law abiding people who fail to produce "papers"? Maybe they only sue Arizona for that particular practice.

The difference is the guys in Wisconsin were not breaking the law, but illegal aliens do. That's why Obama is on their side. They remind him of his cabinet and other political appointees.

Ameer wrote:

Katygunnut wrote:Did I miss the part where the Federal government is suing the state of Wisconsin because their police arrest and otherwise harrass law abiding people who fail to produce "papers"? Maybe they only sue Arizona for that particular practice.

The difference is the guys in Wisconsin were not breaking the law, but illegal aliens do. That's why Obama is on their side. They remind him of his cabinet and other political appointees.

Got it. I'm still hoping to become properly "enlightened" at some point. My Neanderthal brain keeps getting in the way. It's a good thing that I have leaders like Pelosi, Reid, and of course our Dear Leader himself on hand to show me the error of my ways.

Beating the dead horse here . . .

"Subject" doesn't necessarily have to mean one who is ruled over. If someone is being investigated, they are the subject of the investigation. I think it's fair to say that the police were, at least, sent to investigate. If you're taking a class, you are studying a subject. If you are doing some sort of experiment, you may have subjects of the experiment, which may be people. It's not automatically negative, though I agree that it can be. In the way police use it, I think it's pretty neutral here. Instead of "this guy," or "the armed individual" or "the person who was just pulled over for speeding," all of those are abbreviated to "the subject(s)." No harm, no foul.

I am NOT making excuses for the arrests of lawfully armed citizens who have done nothing wrong. Just chiming in on the subject subject.

The problem is that they did not go to just investigate. They went to subjugate.

Based on the 911 call, they should not have gone in the first place.

mgood wrote:Beating the dead horse here . . .

"Subject" doesn't necessarily have to mean one who is ruled over. If someone is being investigated, they are the subject of the investigation. I think it's fair to say that the police were, at least, sent to investigate. If you're taking a class, you are studying a subject. If you are doing some sort of experiment, you may have subjects of the experiment, which may be people. It's not automatically negative, though I agree that it can be. In the way police use it, I think it's pretty neutral here. Instead of "this guy," or "the armed individual" or "the person who was just pulled over for speeding," all of those are abbreviated to "the subject(s)." No harm, no foul.

I am NOT making excuses for the arrests of lawfully armed citizens who have done nothing wrong. Just chiming in on the subject subject.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subject lists 16 definitions for "subject" as a noun. Only three of them relate to the meaning being assumed here.

The caller gives her phone number.
Hmmmmm.
I wonder if she's answering right now....

KD5NRH wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:Sounds like a thousand other inquiry type calls to 911, "Is this normal, acceptable, legal, etc.?"

Again, this assumes they have a functioning non-emergency number. At least back in 2001, Dallas didn't answer the police/fire/etc. non-emergency numbers outside of 8-5 M-F. A minor code violation at 6PM or a loud party anytime parties get loud had to go through 911, unless you wanted to leave a voicemail for them to come deal with it the next business day.

3-1-1 is 24/7 now, though the 9-1-1 calls take priority and during peak hours 3-1-1 may go to voice mail and be addressed the next day. That said on any given 24 hour period the Fire Dept Dispatch answers an average dozen "non-emergency" 9-1-1 calls, I have no barometer on what the PD answers. They are typically introduced as "non-emergency" by the 9-1-1 operator. They range in scope from, "Where did the rescue take my (fill in relation)?" to, "Is it legal for a barbecue grill to be used in (XYZ) situation?" Sometimes it is, "We can't complete this call now," when it is too busy.

I would not encourage using 9-1-1 to make inquiries but if needed just tell the operator you have a "non-emergency" for police or fire and it will be handled as such.

This I believe is what the lady calling was up to and how the 9-1-1 operator addressed it. What the PD did was just rogue. I hope a chief is fired and or prosecuted for setting this policy in place.