more BS for NY'rs inbound.

[Queequeg]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm asking you. You're a cop. You've given your answer, it's "c'est la vie", that's how it is folks. I've asked and seen responses from others like Paul 'oh you don't know the pressure...' the same guy who thinks people who got shot by cops should count themselves lucky to be alive and grateful... Don't give me that crap. You've said yourself there are bunch of cops who think "it won't happen to me" and so it's not pressure, it's being shit at your job.</div></div>

"oh you don't know the pressure..." When did I say this?

"the same guy who thinks people who got shot by cops should count themselves lucky to be alive and grateful...". WTF!!!! If you don't understand what someone writes, maybe you should ask for clarification. The 9 people that were shot are very lucky that they are alive. Meaning, it could have been worse. It doesn't matter who shot them. What matters is that they are alive and escaped with minor wounds.

If I'm explaining it wrong, I apologize. I know what I'm trying to say, but it may not be coming out right. </div></div>

Paul, I hoped it was just a touch of anger that caused you to write that last sentence about the injured people suing the city. I'm paraphrasing of course.

The irony was not lost on me however; since the injured would have had to rely on other sources of tort remedies had they been wounded by the murderer's, rather than the Police officers, rounds. The city has a more direct source of money to go after and thus will no doubt be paying for pain, suffering, loss of income, consortium, etc.

As to the other vitriolic back and forth through out this thread, carry on.

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm asking you. You're a cop. You've given your answer, it's "c'est la vie", that's how it is folks. I've asked and seen responses from others like Paul 'oh you don't know the pressure...' the same guy who thinks people who got shot by cops should count themselves lucky to be alive and grateful... Don't give me that crap. You've said yourself there are bunch of cops who think "it won't happen to me" and so it's not pressure, it's being shit at your job.</div></div>

"oh you don't know the pressure..." When did I say this?

"the same guy who thinks people who got shot by cops should count themselves lucky to be alive and grateful...". WTF!!!! If you don't understand what someone writes, maybe you should ask for clarification. The 9 people that were shot are very lucky that they are alive. Meaning, it could have been worse. It doesn't matter who shot them. What matters is that they are alive and escaped with minor wounds.

If I'm explaining it wrong, I apologize. I know what I'm trying to say, but it may not be coming out right. </div></div>

Paul, I hoped it was just a touch of anger that caused you to write that last sentence about the injured people suing the city. I'm paraphrasing of course.

The irony was not lost on me however; since the injured would have had to rely on other sources of tort remedies had they been wounded by the murderer's, rather than the Police officers, rounds. The city has a more direct source of money to go after and thus will no doubt be paying for pain, suffering, loss of income, consortium, etc.

As to the other vitriolic back and forth through out this thread, carry on. </div></div>

It was definitely a touch of anger. If you knew the shit that people sued for, you'd understand where my comment came from. I'm all for justice and when someone, even a cop messes up, I don't blame someone for suing, but when I see people sue when they were the ones that were wrong, that doesn't fly with me.

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Slapchop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Event is the last guy anyone should be apologizing to. He's not dumb. He knew exactly what you meant but he likes to feign stupidity and spin things out of context in order to carry his argument.

Talk about weak and pathetic. </div></div>

I was just trying to be nice and give him the benefit of the doubt. I'll try to go back into hiatus again.

 

[EventHorizon]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

I didnt feign anything. If you think I'm the only one who 'missed' your noble intent then refer to Chiller's comments.

You think people who were shot carelessly by the cops are not entitled to compensation? You think they should have to pay for their medical expenses? Not everyone enjoys 100% medical coverage. But you Paul would rather they choke on their money.

Yeah, I'm the one with an agenda. Evil me.

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I didnt feign anything. If you think I'm the only one who 'missed' your noble intent then refer to Chiller's comments.

You think people who were shot carelessly by the cops are not entitled to compensation? You think they should have to pay for their medical expenses? Not everyone enjoys 100% medical coverage. But you Paul would rather they choke on their money.

Yeah, I'm the one with an agenda. Evil me. </div></div>

I'm pretty sure the city will take care of the medical bills. But you know damn well they will be suing for Millions.

 

[Queequeg]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

It was definitely a touch of anger. If you knew the shit that people sued for, you'd understand where my comment came from. I'm all for justice and when someone, even a cop messes up, I don't blame someone for suing, but <span style="text-decoration: underline">when I see people sue when they were the ones that were wrong, that doesn't fly with me.</span> </div></div>

And my understanding is that you do not intend the underlined sentence to apply to those injured by the errant shots, ricochets or fragments fired by the responding officers.

 

[EventHorizon]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

Where's the confusion?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The problem is that you are making it sound like they shot the innocent people on purpose. Put yourself in their place and see how you would feel if you were trying your best and accidentally shot innocent people. I don't understand why that is so hard to understand. Those 9 people should be thankful to be alive, but instead they will get lawyers and sue the hell out of the city. I hope they choke on that money if they sue. </div></div>

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

It was definitely a touch of anger. If you knew the shit that people sued for, you'd understand where my comment came from. I'm all for justice and when someone, even a cop messes up, I don't blame someone for suing, but <span style="text-decoration: underline">when I see people sue when they were the ones that were wrong, that doesn't fly with me.</span> </div></div>

And my understanding is that you do not intend the underlined sentence to apply to those injured by the errant shots, ricochets or fragments fired by the responding officers. </div></div>

I wouldn't sue.. If they want to sue, they have the right to do so. I'll just leave it at that.

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where's the confusion?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The problem is that you are making it sound like they shot the innocent people on purpose. Put yourself in their place and see how you would feel if you were trying your best and accidentally shot innocent people. I don't understand why that is so hard to understand. Those 9 people should be thankful to be alive, but instead they will get lawyers and sue the hell out of the city. I hope they choke on that money if they sue. </div></div>

</div></div>

I thought I explained it in the above reply. If that isn't enough, then there is nothing else to discuss, so let's end it here. We'll agree to disagree.

 

[Queequeg]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where's the confusion?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The problem is that you are making it sound like they shot the innocent people on purpose. Put yourself in their place and see how you would feel if you were trying your best and accidentally shot innocent people. I don't understand why that is so hard to understand. Those 9 people should be thankful to be alive, but instead they will get lawyers and sue the hell out of the city. I hope they choke on that money if they sue. </div></div>

</div></div>

I'm not confused.

I believe the last sentence is wrong but feel inclined to allow Paul the benefit of the fact that he is not a professional writer and will not hold him to an unfair standard. I try to be cautious about what I put into print but sometimes I throw a bomb that might cost me one day.

The people wounded by last week will need treatment. Some may require physical therapy, be permanently maimed, lose work and have other problems that our only remedy for is compensation. I recognize that the very compensation they will likely receive would not be forthcoming had those same injuries come exclusively from the hand of the murderer. That is Zen of the matter.

On another note, "spirited discussion" is one of my favorite draws to this forum and I feel we are suffering as a nation because of the unbelievable swiftness in which people take insult.

I'm a life long construction guy: Non union! I like to think I have a thick skin. I wish more people did.

 

[Maggot]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm asking you. You're a cop. You've given your answer, it's "c'est la vie", that's how it is folks. I've asked and seen responses from others like Paul 'oh you don't know the pressure...' the same guy who thinks people who got shot by cops should count themselves lucky to be alive and grateful... Don't give me that crap. You've said yourself there are bunch of cops who think "it won't happen to me" and so it's not pressure, it's being shit at your job.</div></div>

"oh you don't know the pressure..." When did I say this?

"the same guy who thinks people who got shot by cops should count themselves lucky to be alive and grateful...". WTF!!!! If you don't understand what someone writes, maybe you should ask for clarification. The 9 people that were shot are very lucky that they are alive. Meaning, it could have been worse. It doesn't matter who shot them. What matters is that they are alive and escaped with minor wounds.

If I'm explaining it wrong, I apologize. I know what I'm trying to say, but it may not be coming out right. </div></div>

Paul, I hoped it was just a touch of anger that caused you to write that last sentence about the injured people suing the city. I'm paraphrasing of course.

The irony was not lost on me however; since the injured would have had to rely on other sources of tort remedies had they been wounded by the murderer's, rather than the Police officers, rounds. The city has a more direct source of money to go after and thus will no doubt be paying for pain, suffering, loss of income, consortium, etc.

As to the other vitriolic back and forth through out this thread, carry on. </div></div>

It was definitely a touch of anger. <span style="color: #CC0000">If you knew the shit that people sued for, you'd understand where my comment came from </span> . I'm all for justice and when someone, even a cop messes up, I don't blame someone for suing, but when I see people sue when they were the ones that were wrong, that doesn't fly with me. </div></div>Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants,[1] also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, is a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the U.S. over tort reform after a jury awarded $160,000[2] to cover medical expenses and compensatory damages (in addition to $2.7 million in punitive damages) to Stella Liebeck who suffered 3rd degree burns in her pelvic region when she spilled hot coffee purchased from fast food restaurant McDonald's. The trial judge reduced the final verdict, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided. The case was noted by some as an example of frivolous litigation;[3] ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits",[4] while Myron Levin of LA Times stated that the claim was "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit".[5]

Liebeck's attorneys argued that McDonald's coffee was "defective", claiming it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. Moreover, McDonald's had refused several prior opportunities to settle for less than the $640,000 ultimately awarded.[6] Supporters of “tort reform" claim that the popular perception of the case was materially accurate, claim that the vast majority of judges who consider similar cases dismiss them before they get to a jury,[7] and argue that McDonald's refusal to offer more than an $800 settlement for the $10,500 in medical bills reflects the meritless nature of the suit based on the fact that Liebeck spilled the coffee on herself rather than any wrongdoing on the

 

[Maggot]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Where's the confusion?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The problem is that you are making it sound like they shot the innocent people on purpose. Put yourself in their place and see how you would feel if you were trying your best and accidentally shot innocent people. I don't understand why that is so hard to understand. Those 9 people should be thankful to be alive, but instead they will get lawyers and sue the hell out of the city. I hope they choke on that money if they sue. </div></div>

</div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">I'm not confused. </span>

I believe the last sentence is wrong but feel inclined to allow Paul the benefit of the fact that he is not a professional writer and will not hold him to an unfair standard. I try to be cautious about what I put into print but sometimes I throw a bomb that might cost me one day.

The people wounded by last week will need treatment. Some may require physical therapy, be permanently maimed, lose work and have other problems that our only remedy for is compensation. I recognize that the very compensation they will likely receive would not be forthcoming had those same injuries come exclusively from the hand of the murderer. That is Zen of the matter.

On another note, "spirited discussion" is one of my favorite draws to this forum and I feel we are suffering as a nation because of the unbelievable swiftness in which people take insult.

I'm a life long construction guy: Non union! I like to think I have a thick skin. I wish more people did.

</div></div>

Thats debateable

 

[sharac]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

It's amazing really... In the other thread about good actions there is a cry to "stop baiting and acting an ass around LEOs" and some much worse comments of what doing something completely legal albeit in a rude way should bring to the "perp" doing it...

And here COPS SHOOT 9 PEOPLE ON ACCIDENT and yet every single cop on the forum finds an excuse for their colleagues. In every thread you've done nothing but claim of few bad apples and omg how people are unfair and they are just evil cop haters and yet here clearly something went horribly horribly wrong YOU SPIN it in every other direction but guilt of cops.

It appears the rot is not limited to one apple from the bunch....


PS:It's also clear that police (everywhere not just US) is more and more used to protect and to serve public officials and those who screw people)and less and less for the safety of public. Basically i pity you, can't even be mad on a trained dog not knowing more than its masters will allow.

 

[EventHorizon]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

I'm wondering what the police/DA position would be if a civilian tried to stop the shooter with the same results as the police - i.e. 9 innocents injured.

Would the civilian get the benefit of "he was trying to do the right thing, under extreme pressure"

or...?

 

[Guy Montag]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm wondering what the police/DA position would be if a civilian tried to stop the shooter with the same results as the police - i.e. 9 innocents injured.

Would the civilian get the benefit of "he was trying to do the right thing, under extreme pressure"

or...? </div></div>


Without the badge, in NYS you'd already be in jail facing multiple felonies, and NEVER see your permit again.

 

[EventHorizon]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guy Montag</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm wondering what the police/DA position would be if a civilian tried to stop the shooter with the same results as the police - i.e. 9 innocents injured.

Would the civilian get the benefit of "he was trying to do the right thing, under extreme pressure"

or...? </div></div>

Without the badge, in NYS you'd already be in jail facing multiple felonies, and NEVER see your permit again.
</div></div>

That's what I'm expecting but wondering if it's the case.

 

[kraigWY]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> every single cop on the forum finds an excuse for their colleagues.</div></div>

Not every cop,

No Sir, at least not this retired cop.

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm wondering what the police/DA position would be if a civilian tried to stop the shooter with the same results as the police - i.e. 9 innocents injured.

Would the civilian get the benefit of "he was trying to do the right thing, under extreme pressure"

or...? </div></div>

This makes no sense in so many ways. First, we don't even know what is going to happen to these officers, so how can anyone speculate what would happen to a regular citizen when we don't even know what will happen to these officers. And last time I checked, NY has strict gun laws and just getting caught with a gun will land you in jail. Remember Plaxico Burress?

 

[sharac]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

Of course not everyone, got carried away.

My apologies to all who don't condone and disapprove "cover ass at all costs" practice between police officers.

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sharac</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's amazing really... In the other thread about good actions there is a cry to "stop baiting and acting an ass around LEOs" and some much worse comments of what doing something completely legal albeit in a rude way should bring to the "perp" doing it...

And here COPS SHOOT 9 PEOPLE ON ACCIDENT and yet every single cop on the forum finds an excuse for their colleagues. In every thread you've done nothing but claim of few bad apples and omg how people are unfair and they are just evil cop haters and yet here clearly something went horribly horribly wrong YOU SPIN it in every other direction but guilt of cops.

It appears the rot is not limited to one apple from the bunch....


PS:It's also clear that police (everywhere not just US) is more and more used to protect and to serve public officials and those who screw people)and less and less for the safety of public. Basically i pity you, can't even be mad on a trained dog not knowing more than its masters will allow. </div></div>

How can anyone have any intelligent discussions when simple reading comprehension doesn't exist with so many of you guys. We aren't making excuses. Just asking to wait until all the facts are out before passing judgement. Funny how so many of you cop haters will sit here and complain about eveything that we do and want us to start policing like we did 50 years ago, yet something as fundamental as innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to you guys when it involves cops. Then you guys wonder why there is an "us vs them" mentality. There's only so much that we can put up with getting kicked in the balls from both sides (liberals and right wing gun nuts), before we get sick and tired of it. Some of you guys take it out on the cops, but you fail to realize that the real problem is the law makers and the politicians that you guys elect (sorry, but I don't vote). And to some extent, the brass who have no choice to do what they are told to do by the politicians or because they just suck.

 

[Force_Multiplier]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm wondering what the police/DA position would be if a civilian tried to stop the shooter with the same results as the police - i.e. 9 innocents injured.

Would the civilian get the benefit of "he was trying to do the right thing, under extreme pressure"

or...? </div></div>

This makes no sense in so many ways. First, we don't even know what is going to happen to these officers, so how can anyone speculate what would happen to a regular citizen when we don't even know what will happen to these officers. And last time I checked, NY has strict gun laws and just getting caught with a gun will land you in jail. Remember Plaxico Burress?</div></div>

this is his WHOLE point....

if "regular citizens"... even if by they, by some miracle, had a legal firearm... would have gone to jail instantly, and that's NOT speculation... I'll speculate that even private security would have.

because these two idiots are "cops", at worst, they're on PAID leave right now... again I'll speculate, they'll never see a day in jail, keep their jobs, and probably get commendations.

how you guys up in NY and NJ think it's ok for:

1: LE to have weapons, while citizens can't.

2: NOT go to jail when they step on their dicks w/ said weapons.

3: get rewarded, in fact, for said fuck up.

4: and it's all ok, because they have a tough job and the city can't possibly train them enough.

all that's just beyond me...

the reason the VAST majority of LE gets grouped in with them/you is the same

ask LE how they feel about citizens having weapons... a LOT will say "I don't have a problem with that"...

ask about carrying those weapons, you'll start to get " well, they need to be trained"... "there's no reason to carry a weapons, that's what LE is for"

now ask about full auto, suppressors, sbs, sbr... you'll start to get more and more " I don't see why "civilians" need that"

then ask what they think about two CCW holders shooting NINE bystanders, while trying to stop a threat vs these two LEO... if you get honest answers... MOST LE will say that the CCW guys should burn, that's why they shouldn't have had firearms in the first place... but they'll say exactly what you are about LE.... "well, it was a bad situation, it's a tough job, MAYBE they should have more training, nobody could have done better", etc, etc...

I'm really glad it was LE instead of a CCW holder that did this... proves, to me anyway, something I've been saying for a LONG time... LE isn't any better than the average citizen... but if this HAD been a CCW holder, it would have set us back on 2A tremendously.

I remember a video that was posted on here last month or so.. old guy shoots two armed robbers in an internet cafe or something... hits them both, in a crowded cafe, doesn't hit any bystanders, runs them out of the cafe, locks the door and secures the scene... people, a LOT of whom were LE IIRC, criticized his decision to engage, and he didn't hurt anyone except two armed felons... but these two LEOs get a pass, "because it's a tough job"

 

[Force_Multiplier]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sharac</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's amazing really... In the other thread about good actions there is a cry to "stop baiting and acting an ass around LEOs" and some much worse comments of what doing something completely legal albeit in a rude way should bring to the "perp" doing it...

And here COPS SHOOT 9 PEOPLE ON ACCIDENT and yet every single cop on the forum finds an excuse for their colleagues. In every thread you've done nothing but claim of few bad apples and omg how people are unfair and they are just evil cop haters and yet here clearly something went horribly horribly wrong YOU SPIN it in every other direction but guilt of cops.

It appears the rot is not limited to one apple from the bunch....


PS:It's also clear that police (everywhere not just US) is more and more used to protect and to serve public officials and those who screw people)and less and less for the safety of public. Basically i pity you, can't even be mad on a trained dog not knowing more than its masters will allow. </div></div>

How can anyone have any intelligent discussions when simple reading comprehension doesn't exist with so many of you guys. We aren't making excuses. Just asking to wait until all the facts are out before passing judgement. Funny how so many of you cop haters will sit here and complain about eveything that we do and want us to start policing like we did 50 years ago, yet something as fundamental as innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to you guys when it involves cops. Then you guys wonder why there is an "us vs them" mentality. There's only so much that we can put up with getting kicked in the balls from both sides (liberals and right wing gun nuts), before we get sick and tired of it. Some of you guys take it out on the cops, but you fail to realize that the real problem is the law makers and the politicians that you guys elect (sorry, but I don't vote). And to some extent, the brass who have no choice to do what they are told to do by the politicians or because they just suck.</div></div>

yeah George Zimmerman got the benefit of the doubt huh... anyone heard anything about that case lately...

no?

wonder why?

because evidence started coming out that he wasn't some blood thirsty racist, but that Treyvon was a worthless POS?

ya think, maybe?

but I remember some LEOs on here calling for his head.

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm wondering what the police/DA position would be if a civilian tried to stop the shooter with the same results as the police - i.e. 9 innocents injured.

Would the civilian get the benefit of "he was trying to do the right thing, under extreme pressure"

or...? </div></div>

This makes no sense in so many ways. First, we don't even know what is going to happen to these officers, so how can anyone speculate what would happen to a regular citizen when we don't even know what will happen to these officers. And last time I checked, NY has strict gun laws and just getting caught with a gun will land you in jail. Remember Plaxico Burress?</div></div>

this is his WHOLE point....

if "regular citizens"... even if by they, by some miracle, had a legal firearm... would have gone to jail instantly, and that's NOT speculation... I'll speculate that even private security would have.

because these two idiots are "cops", at worst, they're on PAID leave right now... again I'll speculate, they'll never see a day in jail, keep their jobs, and probably get commendations.

how you guys up in NY and NJ think it's ok for:

1: LE to have weapons, while citizens can't.

2: NOT go to jail when they step on their dicks w/ said weapons.

3: get rewarded, in fact, for said fuck up.

4: and it's all ok, because they have a tough job and the city can't possibly train them enough.

all that's just beyond me...

the reason the VAST majority of LE gets grouped in with them/you is the same

ask LE how they feel about citizens having weapons... a LOT will say "I don't have a problem with that"...

ask about carrying those weapons, you'll start to get " well, they need to be trained"... "there's no reason to carry a weapons, that's what LE is for"

now ask about full auto, suppressors, sbs, sbr... you'll start to get more and more " I don't see why "civilians" need that"

then ask what they think about two CCW holders shooting NINE bystanders, while trying to stop a threat vs these two LEO... if you get honest answers... MOST LE will say that the CCW guys should burn, that's why they shouldn't have had firearms in the first place... but they'll say exactly what you are about LE.... "well, it was a bad situation, it's a tough job, MAYBE they should have more training, nobody could have done better", etc, etc...

I'm really glad it was LE instead of a CCW holder that did this... proves, to me anyway, something I've been saying for a LONG time... LE isn't any better than the average citizen... but if this HAD been a CCW holder, it would have set us back on 2A tremendously.

I remember a video that was posted on here last month or so.. old guy shoots two armed robbers in an internet cafe or something... hits them both, in a crowded cafe, doesn't hit any bystanders, runs them out of the cafe, locks the door and secures the scene... people, a LOT of whom were LE IIRC, criticized his decision to engage, and he didn't hurt anyone except two armed felons... but these two LEOs get a pass, "because it's a tough job" </div></div>

I have absolutely no problem with bystanders getting involved and they should be treated the same way that an officer would in the same situation. I applaud that old man in the cafe.

You think gun laws in NY and NJ are stupid, guess what, so do we. When it comes to personally owned weapons, I have to follow the same rules as every other citizen does. Than means I can't have suppresses, flash hiders, collapsible sticks, high capacity magazines, etc. And honestly, with the amount of nutjobs we have in NY and NJ, I seriously doubt the laws will ever change, which sucks for the decent people that live here.

 

[-Nick-]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

 

[Graham]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It was definitely a touch of anger. <span style="color: #CC0000">If you knew the shit that people sued for, you'd understand where my comment came from </span>. I'm all for justice and when someone, even a cop messes up, I don't blame someone for suing, but when I see people sue when they were the ones that were wrong, that doesn't fly with me. </div></div>I know the 'shit' that people sue for. But I don't understand the logic of your comment: Are you saying that only people that are at first judged to be 'in the right' should be allowed to exercise their rights and sue in the first place; or are you saying that people who did something (or anything) wrong in a given situation should be prevented from suing? Because neither one 'flies' according the principles of our judicial system.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants,[1] also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, is a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the U.S. over tort reform after a jury awarded $160,000[2] to cover medical expenses and compensatory damages (in addition to $2.7 million in punitive damages) to Stella Liebeck who suffered 3rd degree burns...</div></div>Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. The verdict in that case was the result of corporate arrogance and corporate negligence: The Plaintiff proved it to recover her damages. So often cited by laypeople as a case that shows the folly of the system, it is in fact an example of the justice system working properly, to include the function of remittitur so desired by tort reformers.

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sharac</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's amazing really... In the other thread about good actions there is a cry to "stop baiting and acting an ass around LEOs" and some much worse comments of what doing something completely legal albeit in a rude way should bring to the "perp" doing it...

And here COPS SHOOT 9 PEOPLE ON ACCIDENT and yet every single cop on the forum finds an excuse for their colleagues. In every thread you've done nothing but claim of few bad apples and omg how people are unfair and they are just evil cop haters and yet here clearly something went horribly horribly wrong YOU SPIN it in every other direction but guilt of cops.

It appears the rot is not limited to one apple from the bunch....


PS:It's also clear that police (everywhere not just US) is more and more used to protect and to serve public officials and those who screw people)and less and less for the safety of public. Basically i pity you, can't even be mad on a trained dog not knowing more than its masters will allow. </div></div>

How can anyone have any intelligent discussions when simple reading comprehension doesn't exist with so many of you guys. We aren't making excuses. Just asking to wait until all the facts are out before passing judgement. Funny how so many of you cop haters will sit here and complain about eveything that we do and want us to start policing like we did 50 years ago, yet something as fundamental as innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to you guys when it involves cops. Then you guys wonder why there is an "us vs them" mentality. There's only so much that we can put up with getting kicked in the balls from both sides (liberals and right wing gun nuts), before we get sick and tired of it. Some of you guys take it out on the cops, but you fail to realize that the real problem is the law makers and the politicians that you guys elect (sorry, but I don't vote). And to some extent, the brass who have no choice to do what they are told to do by the politicians or because they just suck.</div></div>

yeah George Zimmerman got the benefit of the doubt huh... anyone heard anything about that case lately...

no?

wonder why?

because evidence started coming out that he wasn't some blood thirsty racist, but that Treyvon was a worthless POS?

ya think, maybe?

but I remember some LEOs on here calling for his head. </div></div>

That's what happens when politicians get involved. If you remember correctly, initially he wasn't charged with anything. Then politics got involved and all of a sudden he was arrested. As far as the in ident itself, I'll let the courts deal with it. I wasn't there and don't want to be a hypocrite and speculate.

 

[Force_Multiplier]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm wondering what the police/DA position would be if a civilian tried to stop the shooter with the same results as the police - i.e. 9 innocents injured.

Would the civilian get the benefit of "he was trying to do the right thing, under extreme pressure"

or...? </div></div>


This makes no sense in so many ways. First, we don't even know what is going to happen to these officers, so how can anyone speculate what would happen to a regular citizen when we don't even know what will happen to these officers. And last time I checked, NY has strict gun laws and just getting caught with a gun will land you in jail. Remember Plaxico Burress?</div></div>

this is his WHOLE point....

if "regular citizens"... even if by they, by some miracle, had a legal firearm... would have gone to jail instantly, and that's NOT speculation... I'll speculate that even private security would have.

because these two idiots are "cops", at worst, they're on PAID leave right now... again I'll speculate, they'll never see a day in jail, keep their jobs, and probably get commendations.

how you guys up in NY and NJ think it's ok for:

1: LE to have weapons, while citizens can't.

2: NOT go to jail when they step on their dicks w/ said weapons.

3: get rewarded, in fact, for said fuck up.

4: and it's all ok, because they have a tough job and the city can't possibly train them enough.

all that's just beyond me...

the reason the VAST majority of LE gets grouped in with them/you is the same

ask LE how they feel about citizens having weapons... a LOT will say "I don't have a problem with that"...

ask about carrying those weapons, you'll start to get " well, they need to be trained"... "there's no reason to carry a weapons, that's what LE is for"

now ask about full auto, suppressors, sbs, sbr... you'll start to get more and more " I don't see why "civilians" need that"

then ask what they think about two CCW holders shooting NINE bystanders, while trying to stop a threat vs these two LEO... if you get honest answers... MOST LE will say that the CCW guys should burn, that's why they shouldn't have had firearms in the first place... but they'll say exactly what you are about LE.... "well, it was a bad situation, it's a tough job, MAYBE they should have more training, nobody could have done better", etc, etc...

I'm really glad it was LE instead of a CCW holder that did this... proves, to me anyway, something I've been saying for a LONG time... LE isn't any better than the average citizen... but if this HAD been a CCW holder, it would have set us back on 2A tremendously.

I remember a video that was posted on here last month or so.. old guy shoots two armed robbers in an internet cafe or something... hits them both, in a crowded cafe, doesn't hit any bystanders, runs them out of the cafe, locks the door and secures the scene... people, a LOT of whom were LE IIRC, criticized his decision to engage, and he didn't hurt anyone except two armed felons... but these two LEOs get a pass, "because it's a tough job" </div></div>

I have absolutely no problem with bystanders getting involved and they should be treated the same way that an officer would in the same situation. I applaud that old man in the cafe.

You think gun laws in NY and NJ are stupid, guess what, so do we. When it comes to personally owned weapons, I have to follow the same rules as every other citizen does. Than means I can't have suppresses, flash hiders, collapsible sticks, high capacity magazines, etc. And honestly, with the amount of nutjobs we have in NY and NJ, I seriously doubt the laws will ever change, which sucks for the decent people that live here.</div></div>

Paul...

I'm not talking about "personally owned weapons"... I said weapons, the fact is, it doesn't matter if you own them or a department does, YOU still have them, when an average citizen can't.... and IMHO, that's exactly what the 2A was meant to prevent

 

[-Nick-]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. The verdict in that case was the result of corporate arrogance and corporate negligence: The Plaintiff proved it to recover her damages. So often cited by laypeople as a case that shows the folly of the system, it is in fact an example of the justice system working properly, to include the function of remittitur so desired by tort reformers. </div></div>

What are you an Attorney or something?! Lol...

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Paul...

I'm not talking about "personally owned weapons"... I said weapons, the fact is, it doesn't matter if you own them or a department does, YOU still have them, when an average citizen can't.... and IMHO, that's exactly what the 2A was meant to prevent </div></div>

Cops don't make the laws. We are supposed to enforce them and I can tell you that we try our best not to enforce the retarded gun laws that exist here.

And as far as the gun laws go, the laws in NY and NJ are the way they are because that is what the majority of the people want. I don't agree with them, but I have to live with them until I retire and move to a gun friendly state.

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It was definitely a touch of anger. <span style="color: #CC0000">If you knew the shit that people sued for, you'd understand where my comment came from </span>. I'm all for justice and when someone, even a cop messes up, I don't blame someone for suing, but when I see people sue when they were the ones that were wrong, that doesn't fly with me. </div></div>I know the 'shit' that people sue for. But I don't understand the logic of your comment: Are you saying that only people that are at first judged to be 'in the right' should be allowed to exercise their rights and sue in the first place; or are you saying that people who did something (or anything) wrong in a given situation should be prevented from suing? Because neither one 'flies' according the principles of our judicial system.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants,[1] also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, is a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the U.S. over tort reform after a jury awarded $160,000[2] to cover medical expenses and compensatory damages (in addition to $2.7 million in punitive damages) to Stella Liebeck who suffered 3rd degree burns...</div></div>Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. The verdict in that case was the result of corporate arrogance and corporate negligence: The Plaintiff proved it to recover her damages. So often cited by laypeople as a case that shows the folly of the system, it is in fact an example of the justice system working properly, to include the function of remittitur so desired by tort reformers. </div></div>

Come on man, are you serious? There are legitimate lawsuits and there are bullshut ones. You know that.

 

[Guy Montag]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Come on man, are you serious? There are legitimate lawsuits and there are bullshut ones. You know that. </div></div>

Why the concern over a few innocent people being compensated for being caught up in NYPD's free fire zone.

Do the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of New Yorkers who're currently suing the City for wiping their arses with Constitution have a "legitimate" suit in your estimation?

 

[kraigWY]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Funny how so many of you cop haters will sit here and complain about eveything that we do and want us to start policing like we did 50 years ago</div></div>

I'm certainly not a cop hater, but I for one, in some ways would like to see policing to go back in time.

Back when cops looked like cops instead of some sort of para-military outfit. Back when cops were on the street interacting with citizens. Showing the public we are human and compassionet as are the people we police.

Back when kids needed help they run to cops not away from them.

Back before the black military combat uniforms, back to where we wore ties (clip on of course) and back before tasers,

Yes I said it, back when we had to result to police work and people skills instead of tasers and pepper spray.

Never worked with tasers but they gave us pepper spray. I never used it but I got it used on me by other cops in scuffles. I bet more cops go pepper sprayed then bandits.

I may have been a shitty cop, because I did choose what laws I inforced and what I didn't. We didn't have CCW permits in Alaska when I worked there. But in my 20 years I never charged any one with the possission of a firearm unless there was another crime involved, then it was for the crime itself, not the gun. (This excludes possission of a stolen firearm, The constitution doesn't guarantee your right to steel firearms.

Hell I got into a pissing contest with IRS because I refused to help them serve a "admimistrative" warrant, You know, the presigned copy where you fill in the name and address, NOT signed by a judge.

I retired in '94, it was getting bad then but I don't think I could work as a cop today.

I know I'm just a dumb ass has been but one thing I did, and still do is take any oath I take seriously, be it LE or Military.

 

[sharac]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I retired in '94, it was getting bad then but I don't think I could work as a cop today.</div></div>

Amen i truly wonder how an honest person can function in today's law enforcement systems it must be one hell of a suffer.

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guy Montag</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Come on man, are you serious? There are legitimate lawsuits and there are bullshut ones. You know that. </div></div>

Why the concern over a few innocent people being compensated for being caught up in NYPD's free fire zone.

Do the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of New Yorkers who're currently suing the City for wiping their arses with Constitution have a "legitimate" suit in your estimation? </div></div>

Have you ever been sued? Have you ever been sued for something you didn't do? Have you ever been sued for something you didn't do and the whole incident was recorded on video? I have and while I won, it still dragged out for 2 years. The worst part is that we tried to turn around and sue the bitch civilly and I was told by 3 separate lawyers that I was wasting my time because people sue departments and officers all the time just to see if they could get money because they know that most cities will just settle instead of fighting it.

If those 9 people have legitimate cases, then they should sue, but I'm going to guess that they will get compensated so it won't even go to court.

 

[Force_Multiplier]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

Paul,

That's all fine and well, wasn't really my point, my point was that LEOs have been taught, again this is MY opinion based of MY experience as an officer, trainer, and trainer of trainers, to think that they are above the average citizen...

now I won't claim to be an expert on much, but I do think I understand a few things more than the average Joe...

but here's what I have seen in the last 20ish years, no scratch that, the last 30ish years. I revised that because I'm counting even before I was directly involved in LE...

I was third generation LE, longer if you count corrections, which in at least some cases fully counts...

My Grandfather retired Asst Chief for a PD, his twin, my great uncle was a deputy sheriff, retired as the undersheriff ( Chief Deputy to some people ), my Dad started as a deputy for one SO, ended as a detective for a larger PD....

I started as an MP in the Army at 17yo, went to a SO, went to the Ok Dept of Corrections as a commissioned police officer, went to a Native American Tribal LE Agency as Chief, then back to the Dept of Corrections until I retired last year, after I retired from the Army Reserves....

the reason I'm telling you all this is to establish a time line of what I've seen....

when I was a kid my Grandfather had retired, Dad and Uncle Ray were still working, I thought it was all about driving fast and kicking ass. Then I joined the Army, got what I still consider the best training and experience of my career, the MP motto being "of the troops, for the troops". We were trained that while we always needed a "command presence" and that we were always in charge (except another MP) on a scene (everyone in the Army, back then anyway, had heard the phrase "never confuse your rank with my authority")... but in fact, we often dealt with people who outranked us, so we learned to say "sir.ma'am" a LOT, we learned interpersonal communications skills, we learned to write reports perfectly (not every MP, there were plenty that got out after their first enlistment, if they even made it that long), we also knew that we were VERY equal to every other soldier of equal rank. MPs generally can't carry off duty, the law allows it often, but Command will issue a "lawful order" against it. MPs don't get special weapons, on a base any shooter might have FA, all he had to do was snap w/ a military weapon in his hand.

so that set the tone for MY ideals

then I come home, start really hearing things about my family, not from them, from guys that worked with them, or people who dealt with them... I'd heard stories from them all my life, except my grandpa and his brother strangely enough...

so here I'd heard about Dad, some cousins and such, and family friends basically being cowboys, drive fast and kick ass, modern day gunslinger bullshit...

now I start to hear about all the times my Grandpa truely served the community, driving people home at night if he saw them walking, checking on little old ladies, checking people's house when they were out of town... I start thinking "hey, that's how we did it in the Army" everyone seems to love the guys from Gramp's era and HATE the cowboys... I want to be like Grandpa and Uncle Ray, so I do...

still seeing cowboys at this point, that last...

then more and more we get video, cell phones, etc... cowboys stop lasting, but still a LOT of guys that want to be cowboys... just afraid to, so they get pissed, start hating the public for holding them to a higher standard, hating "rats" for holding them to the standard... finally most are just lazy, can't get in trouble if you don't do shit, so they don't, or don't even know how, to teach the new guys... then we end up w/ a whole generation of officers that just know how to bitch and not do shit...

things I remember doing are unheard of now... see a car parked on the side of the road, stop and ask if they need assistance... see someone walking down a deserted street at night in a fast food uniform, ask if he needs a ride home, he's probably coming from work after all.. stop and help a lady change a tire... if someone asks for directions, say "hey, I'll show you, just follow me".... know the people where you work, stop and talk to them

now I hear guys saying shit like "dumbass should call a wrecker"... "I'm a cop, not a taxi driver"... "bitch can call AAA, I'm not getting my uniform dirty"... "I don't have time to tell them, much less show them"... and the best "I don't want the shitheads where I work to know a damn thing about me, those fuckers are dangerous"

and it's not limited to cops, it's people, but I hold cops to a higher standard, they're paid to "protect and SERVE" or some version there of...

what you guys don't seem to understand is that a good relationship with the public that you serve, makes the job SO much easier... that guy you gave a ride home may hear something about a robbery, that lady who's tire you changed may see a dope house's traffic and tell you... those people you talk to everyday might be the bystanders that are around when you have to fight a true asshole.

that armed security guard you look down on, might actually be your only fucking back up when bullets start flying, he's damn sure bored and probably happy to keep an eye out on the street he works on, let you know what's going on.

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Funny how so many of you cop haters will sit here and complain about eveything that we do and want us to start policing like we did 50 years ago</div></div>

I'm certainly not a cop hater, but I for one, in some ways would like to see policing to go back in time.

Back when cops looked like cops instead of some sort of para-military outfit. Back when cops were on the street interacting with citizens. Showing the public we are human and compassionet as are the people we police.

Back when kids needed help they run to cops not away from them.

Back before the black military combat uniforms, back to where we wore ties (clip on of course) and back before tasers,

Yes I said it, back when we had to result to police work and people skills instead of tasers and pepper spray.

Never worked with tasers but they gave us pepper spray. I never used it but I got it used on me by other cops in scuffles. I bet more cops go pepper sprayed then bandits.

I may have been a shitty cop, because I did choose what laws I inforced and what I didn't. We didn't have CCW permits in Alaska when I worked there. But in my 20 years I never charged any one with the possission of a firearm unless there was another crime involved, then it was for the crime itself, not the gun. (This excludes possission of a stolen firearm, The constitution doesn't guarantee your right to steel firearms.

Hell I got into a pissing contest with IRS because I refused to help them serve a "admimistrative" warrant, You know, the presigned copy where you fill in the name and address, NOT signed by a judge.

I retired in '94, it was getting bad then but I don't think I could work as a cop today.

I know I'm just a dumb ass has been but one thing I did, and still do is take any oath I take seriously, be it LE or Military. </div></div>

Wow, obviously by your comments, you don't know a fucking thing about LE in NJ because pretty much everything you wrote, we are still doing here in NJ. We still don't have tasers, although we are supposed to be getting them, but most of us don't want them. We have youth programs every summer, we have a walking beat, and we wear uniforms that haven't changed in over God knows how long. And this applies to a lot of towns around here. Matter of fact, they teach COMMUNITY POLICING in academies again since 2000.

 

[EventHorizon]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Paul...

I'm not talking about "personally owned weapons"... I said weapons, the fact is, it doesn't matter if you own them or a department does, YOU still have them, when an average citizen can't.... and IMHO, that's exactly what the 2A was meant to prevent </div></div>

Cops don't make the laws. We are supposed to enforce them and I can tell you that we try our best not to enforce the retarded gun laws that exist here.

And as far as the gun laws go, the laws in NY and NJ are the way they are because that is what the majority of the people want. I don't agree with them, but I have to live with them until I retire and move to a gun friendly state. </div></div>

Does hypocrisy like this hurt? I would assume not given how easily and shamelessly you write about it. You ought to be forced to live by the laws you enforce.

As for your use of the term 'cop haters'. I hate ineptitude, I hate apologists for ineptitude and those who look the other way to wrongdoing yet think their uniform bestows upon them a respect they haven't earned. I don't believe all cops are like that.

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

Kraig, I can tell you that I work with some shithead cops that say and do some of those things that you wrote, but I can honestly say that the majority of the officers that I work with would and do give people a ride, help them change tires, do MV Lockouts, and we even have a program where we install child seats.

I never had any family members who were cops, so I have no one to compare with. All I can say is that I've been a cop since 2000 and I feel like a second class citizen. I wish I could share with you a voice mail that one of the local right wing gun nuts left me this year. I don't share much with my wife about my job, but I actually let her listen to this message and my wife actually felt so bad that she started crying because she never thought that anyone would say that to anyone, especially an officer. And my wife is not the emotional type.

 

[kraigWY]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

I will agree that the so called "shithead" cops are a miniorty, but I will add that its our (or when I was working) responsibility to police our own. If we we fail in this we are no better then those "shitheads".

We need to police our selves before we should consider policing others.

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Paul...

I'm not talking about "personally owned weapons"... I said weapons, the fact is, it doesn't matter if you own them or a department does, YOU still have them, when an average citizen can't.... and IMHO, that's exactly what the 2A was meant to prevent </div></div>

Cops don't make the laws. We are supposed to enforce them and I can tell you that we try our best not to enforce the retarded gun laws that exist here.

And as far as the gun laws go, the laws in NY and NJ are the way they are because that is what the majority of the people want. I don't agree with them, but I have to live with them until I retire and move to a gun friendly state. </div></div>

Does hypocrisy like this hurt? I would assume not given how easily and shamelessly you write about it. You ought to be forced to live by the laws you enforce.

As for your use of the term 'cop haters'. I hate ineptitude, I hate apologists for ineptitude and those who look the other way to wrongdoing yet think their uniform bestows upon them a respect they haven't earned. I don't believe all cops are like that. </div></div>

WTF are you talking about? Where did I say that I shouldn't be forced to live by the laws I enforce? Your problem is that you think that every cop is crocked and works for the man. You turn one bad apple into every cop is a piece of shit.

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will agree that the so called "shithead" cops are a miniorty, but I will add that its our (or when I was working) responsibility to police our own. If we we fail in this we are no better then those "shitheads".

We need to police our selves before we should consider policing others. </div></div>

From the stories I've heard, I think it is safe to say that there were more cops back in the day doing fucked up shit than there are today. Most of the old retired guys said that they should have been fired for a lot of shit they did back in the day. Most cops nowadays aren't doing too much of that stupid shit and when they do, they get fired.

 

[Force_Multiplier]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

Paul...

of the cops on here that I tend to disagree with... you're probably the one I like the best... I really don't think you're a bad guy, probably an above average cop... I just think you have a very narrow view of LE, based on your training (which I think was probably flawed) and your experience (which I think is all in an area of the country that represses citizen's rights)... none of this is your fault, I just don't think you know how or what to try to change...

now Slappy on the other hand... I think he LIKES being a shithead

 

[-Nick-]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

 

[Force_Multiplier]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

pants down group hug?

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Paul...

of the cops on here that I tend to disagree with... you're probably the one I like the best... I really don't think you're a bad guy, probably an above average cop... I just think you have a very narrow view of LE, based on your training (which I think was probably flawed) and your experience (which I think is all in an area of the country that represses citizen's rights)... none of this is your fault, I just don't think you know how or what to try to change...

now Slappy on the other hand... I think he LIKES being a shithead </div></div>

I find it funny that you guys think NJ is this evil state that violates and represses everyone's rights, when the reality is that we have so many laws that prevent us from that and on we have cameras in the cars to prevent us from it. You can drive through NJ trafficking every illegal thing you can imagine and the chances of you getting caught or stopped are very slim.

As far as our training, compared to other states, you may not believe it, but I can honestly say that we are some of the best trained. And that is because they don't want us to get sued, so we go to all kinds of schools.

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Broker</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

</div></div>

That is just wrong on so many fronts. LOL.

 

[kraigWY]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">From the stories I've heard, I think it is safe to say that there were more cops back in the day doing fucked up shit than there are today</div></div>

That doesn't negate what I posted. Just because we did wrong in the past, doesn't make us, doing, right today.

 

[Graham]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Come on man, are you serious? There are legitimate lawsuits and there are bullshut ones. You know that. </div></div>Instead of answering the question you're changing the subject. The issue we were discussing was never whether the two types exist; the issue was whether you could distinguish the difference between them.

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">From the stories I've heard, I think it is safe to say that there were more cops back in the day doing fucked up shit than there are today</div></div>

That doesn't negate what I posted. Just because we did wrong in the past, doesn't make us, doing, right today. </div></div>

Maybe I worded it wrong. We aren't doing half the stuff that guys were doing generations ago. The difference now is that anytime one of us messes up, it either makes the newspaper or on YouTube.

 

[paulo_santos]

Re: more BS for NY'rs inbound.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: paulosantos</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Come on man, are you serious? There are legitimate lawsuits and there are bullshut ones. You know that. </div></div>Instead of answering the question you're changing the subject. The issue we were discussing was never whether the two types exist; the issue was whether you could distinguish the difference between them. </div></div>

The only people that know if the lawsuits are legit or bullshit are the individuals that are suing. So the truth is that it is very hard to distinguish the two, but there are some that just leaves you shaking your head, like the burglar who sued the homeowner who hadn't shoveled the snow and he fell, got hurt and was caught. LOL.