what happens to these citizens right to self defense? the police have effectively and without provocation, initiated hostile action, both physically drawing weapons and verbally threatening bodily harm. they are displaying both intent and means to do the citizens harm. wouldnt this constitute justifiable stand your ground clean shoot scenario under pretty much anybody's definition for armed self defense....but then thats right, pigs are above the law i forgot sorry.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Peace Officers respond to open carry
- Thread starter xdpatriot
- Start date
what happens to these citizens right to self defense? the police have effectively and without provocation, initiated hostile action, both physically drawing weapons and verbally threatening bodily harm. they are displaying both intent and means to do the citizens harm. wouldnt this constitute justifiable stand your ground clean shoot scenario under pretty much anybody's definition for armed self defense....but then thats right, pigs are above the law i forgot sorry.
It's really sad in cases like this because you don't know who's side to be on. On one hand I support OC even though I'm a CCW holder and OC don't apply to me, but on the other hand I can't stand these attention seeking whores who are using OC as a means to make viral vids on YouTube. It's idiots like that that made OC illegal here in CA. The guy is walking around with a very noticeable gun on his shoulder in a heavily populated area and just happens to have a cam with him and ready for when he's stopped. This is the EXACT type of person who is clearly abusing OC just to make a name for himself on the net and it's downright sickening. So in this case I am on neither side. The guy knew exactly what he was doing being an attention whore and the cops shouldn't haven't even bothered with him because they clearly have run into his type before judging from how they were reacting to his answers he was giving them.
I do no accept the idea that these stops are unconstitutional. They are doing an investigatory stop. This is a tough situation either way. Nobody likes to be in this, however it happens. If you don't know the law, how can you call it unconstitutional? Amazing...
marduk185 said:
There was a prior concerned citizen call, therefore an officer responded. Look back in this thread before you spout nonsense. This has been covered. Welcome to the party. Please explain what hostile action is happening in that video here? A sworn officer drawing a weapon is hostile action? You wouldn't last a minute on the stand, son. Intent? you're lost in the sauce. Glad you like to use your 1A rights, shame you can't use your head too.
I agree with you up until the part about the cops should not bother with him. That's the job of the officer. HE is to question what is out of the ordinary in his AOR. This also has been covered and maybe should be addressed again for the slower people on here like mardumb185: There is no way to tell if this is a dude open carrying because he wants to, or a crazy that escaped and thinks he's on an African Safari, or a dude about to go into a school and shoot people. Maybe his tactic is to keep it unloaded until he gets there so thwart off any officer stopping him because "he is just a douche wanting attention".
At the end of the day, would you want to be the officer that could have stopped him and didn't, only to find out he shot up your kid's school? Or how about the cop that should have backed up another and didn't because you thought this was nothing, and your buddy dies? There are too many crazies in the world today. It's so easy to say the PIGS should just leave him alone, yea I wish it were that way too.
You get all these older gents that can remember a time you carried a rifle to school...loaded! Well times have changed and it's indifference of decent men that have ruined this for us. Get mad at the politicians, teachers, liberals....PIGS THAT ARE ABOVE THE LAW....whoever you want to blame but in the end it was the good, law-abiding men that stood around and did nothing....The sooner we figure this out the sooner we can make it better.
Last edited:
I wasn't meaning they should just drive right past him, I was meaning that once they talked to him and figured out he's an attention whore, they should have just denied him the attention he wanted for his YouTube channel. There was no reason to detain him and his friend that long. It was pointless.
Whats "reasonable"?
The "reasonableness standard" should apply.
Assume this - Open carry is legal in this locality and the officers are aware of that.
Assume this - Though open carry is on the books it is not a common occurence
Assume this - The officer/public reads and watches the sensational media and is aware of events, that though relatively infrequent, get reporting that would condition the average person to belive threats are imminent or could be imminent.
So whats reasonable?
In my opinion it would be reasonable for the officer to approach the open carry party and investigate their intentions.
Granted officer safety is a huge concern but assuming risk is why a PO can get paid the big bucks. Much of the pay is based on the assumption of risk. Much of the risk is mere potential. The greatest risk is not going to be the man with the gun but more likely getting crushed by another vehicle while working on the side of the road.
I wouldnt have approached these guys without backup but I would never have started my investigation with "Ill shoot you in the head" either.
Under the assumptions made above this is at minimum a two man approach. Cover officer gets to be as safe as he can be. Contact officer eats a shit sandwich and has to assume some risk in order to do his job and abide by his oath. Sure your obligation is to make it home to your family but not at the expense of the Constitution or your oath.
In this case the investigation should have been short and professional with info provided to the desk officer to inform callers that its just a couple of fools out to gain attention. If the callers dont like people acting in asccordance with the laws than they need to elect people to change the laws (lets hope they dont).
If you can remain "reasonable" and articulate why your actions are reasonable than you should avoid being the subject of a Youtube video.
Unfortunately our laws are often in contradiction to reason and every once in a while the subject of the invest is that dangerous person that wants to be unreasonable.
The "reasonableness standard" should apply.
Assume this - Open carry is legal in this locality and the officers are aware of that.
Assume this - Though open carry is on the books it is not a common occurence
Assume this - The officer/public reads and watches the sensational media and is aware of events, that though relatively infrequent, get reporting that would condition the average person to belive threats are imminent or could be imminent.
So whats reasonable?
In my opinion it would be reasonable for the officer to approach the open carry party and investigate their intentions.
Granted officer safety is a huge concern but assuming risk is why a PO can get paid the big bucks. Much of the pay is based on the assumption of risk. Much of the risk is mere potential. The greatest risk is not going to be the man with the gun but more likely getting crushed by another vehicle while working on the side of the road.
I wouldnt have approached these guys without backup but I would never have started my investigation with "Ill shoot you in the head" either.
Under the assumptions made above this is at minimum a two man approach. Cover officer gets to be as safe as he can be. Contact officer eats a shit sandwich and has to assume some risk in order to do his job and abide by his oath. Sure your obligation is to make it home to your family but not at the expense of the Constitution or your oath.
In this case the investigation should have been short and professional with info provided to the desk officer to inform callers that its just a couple of fools out to gain attention. If the callers dont like people acting in asccordance with the laws than they need to elect people to change the laws (lets hope they dont).
If you can remain "reasonable" and articulate why your actions are reasonable than you should avoid being the subject of a Youtube video.
Unfortunately our laws are often in contradiction to reason and every once in a while the subject of the invest is that dangerous person that wants to be unreasonable.
investigatory to what reasonable cause? a wussy worried about the belongings of passers by calling someone to come protect him from the scary gun people isnt probable cause.
the hostile action is that two armed police officers are weilding weapons and threatening violence against two seemingly innocent pedestrians...that hostile action, aimed squarely against all of our 2nd amendment rights. some of you clowns are so conditioned by lifetimes of lib propaganda and de-education that you drink the koolaid and assume its correct and constitutional. sad
Last edited:
Again....clueless.
1) you do not need probable cause in order to make contact with people out on the street. In this situation, there was a concerned citizen call. "The scary gun people" could have been brandishing it. You, me, and the cops didn't/ don't know this. Therefore there was a LEGAL investigatory stop made.
2) So you're saying that when an officer pulls a weapon that is a hostile action? Why are there not more lawsuits then on just that idea altogether?(if your conjured up joke of an idea is even remotely correct)
You are the one assuming you know how this works. Not me. My recommendation, and I assume this will not be heeded, is that you figure out what law you are standing behind and then present some decent facts as well as look up some of the big words and phrases you are throwing around before using them. Otherwise quit murking up the waters for everyone else.
Nobody said they enjoy seeing this kind of thing happen, and it should not have to come to this, but this is the world we live in. Vote with your dollars and ballots. Not your stupidity on an internet forum...
wrong answer, police do legally require probable cause to stop citizens on the street, question them or search them. the law im standing on in this instance is the 4th amendment to the us constitution. they used to teach it in 8th grade. sorry your generations education is lacking.
an officer drawing a weapon is a direct precursor to use of deadly force and yes, is a hostile action that when taken against non agressors constitutes assault and threat of bodily harm. any good lawyer would point this out had these gentlemen sought representation to sue the department or individual officers for such misdeeds.
this instance in the video was no friendly chat...the officers were making threats and barking orders. this equates to illegal detainment with no probable cause or justification beyond a martial law us vs. them mentality instigated by gun hating liberal callers(supposedly.) i seriously doubt anyone called them.
im not sure who died and made you the expert overseer of this thread but my take on this is based on several years of instructing deadly force classes for various military and law enforcement entities as well as ccw classes and as i mentioned elementery study of the us constitution that i took oath to.
Wrong answer marduk185, Police require reasonable suspicion to stop and detain someone, that is a standard below probable cause. A simple google search would answer that quickly and concisely.
However, based on your previous posts and considering additional evidence such as your cleverly written sig line, I would say an argument with you with about issues of legality are going to be less than productive. But what do I know, I am just a stupid pig.
Thanks for playing.
ETA- I just read all of your stellar above post and now I have to know what law enforcement agencies you taught deadly force at. Someone so clearly educated in the 4th ammendment must surely know the difference in Reasonable suspicion and Probable cause, right?
However, based on your previous posts and considering additional evidence such as your cleverly written sig line, I would say an argument with you with about issues of legality are going to be less than productive. But what do I know, I am just a stupid pig.
Thanks for playing.
ETA- I just read all of your stellar above post and now I have to know what law enforcement agencies you taught deadly force at. Someone so clearly educated in the 4th ammendment must surely know the difference in Reasonable suspicion and Probable cause, right?
Last edited:
I stopped entraining you because I learned a long time ago that you're nothing but a troll who likes to bait people into ridiculous arguments. But now you've clearly gone from trolling to blatant lying. I highly doubt you "teach" anyone or anything. You're too stupid to realize that this forum is full of people who actually know a thing or two about what you think you know. Probable cause is needed for arrest (as in taken into custody and charged with a crime). Resonable suspicion is all that's needed to detain and investigate in order to establish probable cause or lack thereof.
The notion of you training anyone much less cops is laughable. Your disdain and contempt for law enforcement is made clear in just about everything you post. If by some far stretch of the imagination you actually have instructed Mil/LE in anything then you're just another hypocrite who lacks the backbone to stand behind your beliefs and convictions. But I already knew that after you stated you wouldn't be posting here anymore because you weren't able to abide by the rules. You got banned, yet here you are again. Contributing nothing and always pushing the envelop.
Now go ahead and feel free to call me a jack booted thug, pig or whatever other names you can conjure up.
Last edited:
ahh yes you are correct sir , i mispoke(not a lawyer) but i would note that the pigs in the video had neither and absolutely no justification for drawing arms or making threats. that was my point not legalese minutia.
jack booted thug...lol.
sorry no lying or hypocrisy for the record and ive never been banned here...ever, ask lowlight. i did decide not to post or login for awhile because of the turn the hide was taking, but ive recently taken it up again.
not to fill in my dossier here for you but to answer your curiosity, the experience in things "deadly force" i refer to is as a member of a range cadre while serving in the military and we jointly trained/hosted several mil/le groups on mare island(where they film mythbusters now)during my time there. never a lawyer or a cop but as i noted above, the bill of rights is elementery school stuff.
I would say that depending on the circumstance (all of which we do not know) they could have had reasonable suspicion to detain him.
Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the reasonable person or reasonable officer standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; it depends upon the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous.
So we only know what the video has shown. There may be additional facts which are unknown to us. What could make an officer believe a person open carrying a rifle has been, is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity? What if he was walking up to the front door of a bank? Would it then be reasonable to think he may be about to be involved in criminal activity? Or if he was in front of a school? Or if he was wearing gang colors and walking through a rival gang's neighborhood? What if there had been a call from a spouse stating her husband was intending to take revenge for an affair?
I know we are playing the what if game, but there are many possibilities and circumstances which could easily have established Reasonable Suspicion, which would then be a basis for a legal detainment.
ETA- I forgot to say- just the thoughts of a pig...
Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the reasonable person or reasonable officer standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; it depends upon the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous.
So we only know what the video has shown. There may be additional facts which are unknown to us. What could make an officer believe a person open carrying a rifle has been, is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity? What if he was walking up to the front door of a bank? Would it then be reasonable to think he may be about to be involved in criminal activity? Or if he was in front of a school? Or if he was wearing gang colors and walking through a rival gang's neighborhood? What if there had been a call from a spouse stating her husband was intending to take revenge for an affair?
I know we are playing the what if game, but there are many possibilities and circumstances which could easily have established Reasonable Suspicion, which would then be a basis for a legal detainment.
ETA- I forgot to say- just the thoughts of a pig...
Now you are twisting what I said, but, par for the course... not sure where there was ever a search done in the video, and therefore your SINGLE generic citation does not apply here (specifically the search part there hillbilly, lets not get all excited too quick). And I will point out again, you DO NOT need PC in order to make contact with anyone. IF you do not have PC and they do not want to talk, so be it, that's as far as police can go. HOWEVER, this was not the case here.
Show me a case law or any law that states a police officer drawing down on someone is not at officer discretion. Also show me a case law or any kind of law for this scenario that specifically defines detainment. That is still a very gray area. Again, not the best way to handle this, I agree, but there is no case law on it yet so its all just a big pilot program for now. Therefore we have to use what we have, and hope for the best.
Yes drawing a deadly weapon is a precursor to deadly force, just like a yellow light is a precursor to a red one! Pretty much irrelevant here. That's the beauty of the fluidity of the use of force model. With that line of thinking, you must believe that in all raw justice that the dude with the rifle would have (based on your high degree of intellect) been justified to shoot the police officers, since after all , it was an illegal stop, seizure, search, harassment, slander, battery, assault, and all the horrible, horrible things the officers did, up to and including the dastardly PRECURSOR TO DEADLY FORCE to these poor harmless gentlemen that like to ruffle the feathers of everyone and set back gun rights just that much more. Doesn't work like that.
Surely I'm not an "overseer" of this thread, just one willing (not sure why) to suffer people like you.
You can "seriously doubt" anything you want, even rule of law. But this is an argument about what we see in the video. THEREFORE, we are unable to conclude intelligently, if such call was made. You are trying to make this into something it is not.
If you want, we can compare sticks too...at the end of the day, the rule of law is still in effect, good, bad, or indifferent. I hope for your such broad range of clientele's sake, they went home and fact-checked you and your instruction if this is anything remotely close to what you teach...you're not the only one with an oath and duty and courses of instruction under your belt. Why even throw that around on an internet forum? Rarely do I, and presumably most on here hold much value to that, especially when logic (read: ignorance) like this is spewed everywhere.
I have no problem with open carrying as I stated in previous posts in this thread. I would only add that though we do have certain rights, it doesn't always mean that they are the best way to get our point across. Just because we can doesn't mean we should.
For example- I can legally walk around any public place wearing nothing more than a hot pink thong, provided I don't show the twig, berries or brown star. I can legally walk around in front of elementary school wearing this outfit and it is a protected right. My intention may be to bring awareness to the plight of bald men with excessive body hair who love thongs, and yet that may not be the best way to get my point across.
Again, open carry, it doesn't bother me, even as a pig as noted above. But don't expect that this legal expression will suddenly win the day, especially when most people, regardless of political affiliation, are educated by TMZ, MSNBC and the like.
For example- I can legally walk around any public place wearing nothing more than a hot pink thong, provided I don't show the twig, berries or brown star. I can legally walk around in front of elementary school wearing this outfit and it is a protected right. My intention may be to bring awareness to the plight of bald men with excessive body hair who love thongs, and yet that may not be the best way to get my point across.
Again, open carry, it doesn't bother me, even as a pig as noted above. But don't expect that this legal expression will suddenly win the day, especially when most people, regardless of political affiliation, are educated by TMZ, MSNBC and the like.
So if a civilian points a gun at a cop, it's considered a hostile action, and should be responded to by immediate lethal force. Everyone knows this... right?
Yet when a cop points a gun at an innocent civilian, it's not a hostile action? If someone is pointing a gun at me, they are a threat and I will respond with lethal force. I don't give a shit what their JOB is or why they are doing it.
Yet when a cop points a gun at an innocent civilian, it's not a hostile action? If someone is pointing a gun at me, they are a threat and I will respond with lethal force. I don't give a shit what their JOB is or why they are doing it.
I watched most of the video and didn't see the female officer pointing her gun at anyone, looked to me like she was at the low ready, not up on her sights. This probably won't give anyone here who thinks this is inappropriate the warm and fuzzies. I admit I didn't watch all 17 minutes of it though, so there could have been something I missed.
I don't exactly disagree, I know where you are coming from, But the gist I was going for was that is not enough for the citizen to "defend himself"
This is kind of interesting:
Reasonableness and Reaction Time
J. Pete Blair [email protected] Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA
Joycelyn Pollock Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA
Don Montague Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA
Terry Nichols Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA
John Curnutt Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA
David Burns Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA
Abstract
When the police use deadly force, their actions are judged by the reasonableness standard. This article seeks to inform the reasonableness standard by examining the ability of police officers to respond to armed suspects. The results of a reaction time experiment are presented. In this experiment, police officers encountered a suspect armed with a gun, pointing down and not at the police officer. The police officer had his gun aimed at the suspect and ordered the suspect to drop the gun. The suspect then either surrendered or attempted to shoot the officer. The speed with which the officer fired if the suspect chose to shoot was assessed. Results suggest that the officers were generally not able to fire before the suspect. Implications for the reasonableness standard and policy are discussed.
This tells me, although not official, that it is reasonable for an officer to aim a weapon at a guy that has one slung. Yes I know that this test was with a guy holding one and the video was one slung, but again we don't know what kind of report was on the call, and if the officer can articulate why he felt compelled to draw (self defense). At the end of the day nothing hostile was accomplished. Know what I mean?
And again, its what a reasonable officer would do. If this was at shot show, then it is a totally different set of rules because that is the community norm. And I would be here burning the officers for that too. But this is in the middle of a town where it is at least decently unreasonable for a regular Joe to be hauling firepower like that. Don't think its wrong, just abnormal and at the end of the day, everyone survived. Just a product of the times and I fear it will get worse before it gets better.
yes in all probability at least one officer dies with those two armed with rifles had they decided to off the cops. which means cops should never aproach armed citizens unless they have probable cause that a crime is being committed. worst case, its likely to be a losing proposition for them, and in the best case a grievous abuse of our civil rights.
There is no point there! Officers do not have more rights than people but they have been given certain powers and responsibilities. What part of that can you people not understand? Go draw down on a cop and I would hope his training and sense of self-defense kicks in and "shoots you in the head" The objective reasonableness works both ways. The average Joe will not, in any environment walk up to a cop and point a weapon at him. Therefore, standing on that, the officer is more than legally covered to waste you.
But this has nothing to do with this video.
You and Orkan go start a pig-hating thread for that. In the meantime, stick to the topic or please, point a gun at a cop...maybe some field experimenting is necessary for this topic!
I see... so because I am willing to defend my life if someone points a gun at me, I'm a "pig hater?"
Grow the fuck up.
You say cops should be able to draw on civilians in some circumstances, but civilians should never be allowed to draw on cops. Bullshit. How many instances in the last year alone have there been where some shitbag dresses up to LOOK LIKE a cop and goes on a crime spree? If cops do their jobs properly all the time, situations like these hypotheticals would never happen.
Let me clue you in: Cops aren't flawless. Point in fact they screw up regularly.
Botched Paramilitary Police Raids | Cato Institute
What exactly gives them the right to protect their OWN lives, but precludes me from protecting mine?
Grow the fuck up.
You say cops should be able to draw on civilians in some circumstances, but civilians should never be allowed to draw on cops. Bullshit. How many instances in the last year alone have there been where some shitbag dresses up to LOOK LIKE a cop and goes on a crime spree? If cops do their jobs properly all the time, situations like these hypotheticals would never happen.
Let me clue you in: Cops aren't flawless. Point in fact they screw up regularly.
Botched Paramilitary Police Raids | Cato Institute
What exactly gives them the right to protect their OWN lives, but precludes me from protecting mine?
'yes in all probability at least one officer dies with those two armed with rifles had they decided to off the cops. which means cops should never aproach armed citizens unless they have probable cause that a crime is being committed. worst case, its likely to be a losing proposition for them, and in the best case a grievous abuse of our civil rights. "
Dumbest line of thought I have ever seen on Sniper's Hide...please read Terry v. Ohio
Here is the bottom line: How Should the Police Respond to a Report of a Man with a Gun? « North Carolina Criminal Law This page is definitely intriguing, and surely will be misused by some here. But there is a lot to glean from this.
Legality of open carry. From media reports and statements made by the officer during the stop, there appears to be no question that open carry is legal in Wisconsin. In fact, it seems that during a recent revision of its disorderly conduct statute, Wisconsin changed the law to protect open carry. Wis. Stat. § 947.01(2) (“Unless other facts and circumstances indicate a criminal or malicious intent . . . a person is not in violation of . . . this section for loading, carrying, or going armed with a firearm, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or is concealed or openly carried.”))
This basically rehashes what I said earlier. We do not know the content of the call that was allegedly made. THEREFORE we cannot Monday-morning quarterback this.
» United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531 (4th Cir. 2013) (“[W]here a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention.”) --Again, the call determines the legality of the stop
At the end of the day, it is still what a reasonable officer would have done. There is no way to crucify these cops for the video alone. Too many mitigating circumstances and unknowns. Therefore I still hold the position, where I was when I was a cop, I would have drawn down on them too. I hold the officers not liable in the court of Hesco, however, I remark with contempt on how long the stop was. That is the only thing I might say was wrong, judging by what little evidence we have.
Dumbest line of thought I have ever seen on Sniper's Hide...please read Terry v. Ohio
Here is the bottom line: How Should the Police Respond to a Report of a Man with a Gun? « North Carolina Criminal Law This page is definitely intriguing, and surely will be misused by some here. But there is a lot to glean from this.
Legality of open carry. From media reports and statements made by the officer during the stop, there appears to be no question that open carry is legal in Wisconsin. In fact, it seems that during a recent revision of its disorderly conduct statute, Wisconsin changed the law to protect open carry. Wis. Stat. § 947.01(2) (“Unless other facts and circumstances indicate a criminal or malicious intent . . . a person is not in violation of . . . this section for loading, carrying, or going armed with a firearm, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or is concealed or openly carried.”))
This basically rehashes what I said earlier. We do not know the content of the call that was allegedly made. THEREFORE we cannot Monday-morning quarterback this.
» United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531 (4th Cir. 2013) (“[W]here a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention.”) --Again, the call determines the legality of the stop
At the end of the day, it is still what a reasonable officer would have done. There is no way to crucify these cops for the video alone. Too many mitigating circumstances and unknowns. Therefore I still hold the position, where I was when I was a cop, I would have drawn down on them too. I hold the officers not liable in the court of Hesco, however, I remark with contempt on how long the stop was. That is the only thing I might say was wrong, judging by what little evidence we have.
Again, twisting my words. Par. For. The. Course...
If an officer or anyone for that matter comes into my house illegally, I will do my very best to arrange a meeting with God. HOWEVER, DORKIN, if I am walking down a street with my rifle or shotgun slung, or even a look-alike airsoft gun, I WOULD EXPECT FOR SOMEONE TO CALL AND THEN POLICE SHOW UP. AND IN THEIR DEFENSE, SINCE THEY DON'T KNOW ME, I WOULD EXPECT A REASONABLE OFFICER TO DRAW THEIR WEAPON.
Last edited:
Name calling? Seriously? How old are you?
If the "suspect" isn't pointing a weapon at the officers... what right do the officers have to point a weapon at them?
Cops that think like you do are EXPERTS at escalating a situation. Then when the innocent civilian decides to respond to that escalation, HE ends up being the bad guy?
What a fucked up world we live in. None of this would ever happen if people had any responsibility for their own safety. Instead, everyone expects someone else to protect them. It's no wonder that so many cops act the way they do. It's an impossible and irrational directive. I've never needed a cop in my entire life. I'm prepared to respond with lethal force, if necessary, 24/7. That's the truth of this. The fact that cops are called when a person is seen with a gun on them is the true indicator of how pussified and out of touch with reality society is. People live in a constant state of fear.
I've said my piece, and I've had enough of the childish name calling shit. I'll leave you to it.
We're right back to square one Hesco, possession of a firearm does not translate to criminal activity.
Too much of the "comply or die" mentality has infected the ranks of LE, and this stop epitomizes that problem.
No, that's just it. Were dragging right back thru the mud. We don't know what the call was. Therefore, try to put yourself in the shoes of the officer. Disregard their previous stops and history or whatever. What if the call was there are two guys with "big bad assault rifles" walking towards a school field trip? Then that could change the whole dynamic of the stop. More than likely it was not. HOWEVER, we cannot say "well, the cop should have know this." No, it doesn't work that way. This stop might actually be a not-so-right-respecting stop. And, if the cop admittedly told the guys on camera "hey we just saw you walking by..." absolutely, crucify the cops. But we don't know that because we don't know what the cops were told prior to the stop. This is the point that has been made over and over again here. You have to know all the facts before you decide to judge a stop like this. And everything else after the initial stop is justifiable if there was a call, even if it was on a non-emergency line. I'll try to get ahold of my old District Attorney and see what she would say about this.
Last edited:
^^^This sums up my thoughts perfectly... Then again, I'm also a pig from AZ.
Jethro21 is looking at this in the correct light IMHO and what he says is legally sound unlike the arguments and "facts" that several people on this thread have thrown around. There is a lot of bad information / misinformation in this thread and it is clear that several people must have earned their law degrees from Circle K...
There is nothing wrong with voicing your opinion, but to post things as facts when they are indeed not is inexcusable and not conducive to having a meaningful discussion.
Abraham Lincoln said "if you want to test a man's character, give him power.." I think we're seeing this quite often today with the rise of the warrior cop. There's a lack of character in people today on both sides. It's a bad situation.
Florida Cop Smashes Compliant Woman's Face Into Car -- "Maybe Now You Can Understand Simple Instructions" - informationliberation
informationliberation - Tyranny/Police State
report after report of cops who are an inspiration to us all
informationliberation - Tyranny/Police State
report after report of cops who are an inspiration to us all
What I think you're seeing more than the "warrior cop" bullshit that I'm tired of hearing of, is the complete loss of personal accountability in our society and an unprecedented reliance on government to take care of a citizen's every want.
You would not FUCKING BELIEVE the shit that police get dispatched to. My agency had a policy that EVERY call to 911 or the non-emergency number HAD to be dispatched. PERIOD, no discretion for the dispatchers. In addition to that, by Dept policy EVERY dispatch was to be considered a direct order from the Chief of Police, so no officer discretion on whether to respond. What that meant, was that if you called the police, for ANY reason, whether it had ANYTHING to do with the law or not, we had to physically respond to scene, no handling by phone.
Here is a VERY brief list of some of the calls I had to go to (and if after dark, was required to have a backup officer whether they were needed or not):
Assist complainant with 10yr old child refusing to give back the television remote
Assist caller: unable to get her sprinkler system to shut off
Assist caller: her own dogs are fighting each other in her yard
Assist caller: child's balloon is stuck in a tree
Assist caller: tape stuck in her VCR
Assist complainant: in a dispute with her 6yr old son regarding rights to HIS welfare check
Assist caller: needs help adjusting satellite dish
Assist complainant: 8yr old child refusing to get dressed for school
Those were actual fucking calls that I had to go to, and DO SOMETHING about, because if I showed up and told the people "this is NOT a police matter" and left, they would just call back and I would have to GO back. And they could call as many times as they wanted until an officer DID something to solve their problem, and then your supervisor was calling YOU to ask why the hell someone was getting dispatched to a call YOU should have handled in the first place.
In the midst of all those bullshit calls, we were also getting calls of shootings, stabbings, armed robberies, etc. not to mention the mental patients who would make 20 calls a night to 911. I ended up "specializing" in the mental cases because I could show up and get them sorted out so they wouldn't call 911 every 5 minutes. Was it anywhere in my "power" as a cop to help someone "UFO-proof" their home, hell no. But I did it because that was what was required to keep order and free up officers for actual priority calls.
It always amazed me that every single asshole in this entire country feels entirely justified in critiquing and criticizing Law Enforcement from a perceived position of knowledge. Pretty much every other profession in the world is allowed to do their job without some completely untrained bystander questioning the manner in which they're doing it: plumbers, electricians, doctors, nurses, pilots, lawyers, etc. But when it comes to police, every person thinks they have an idea of WTF they're talking about.
Feel free to hate the police, it's understandable, I WAS the police and I never want to have dealings with them unless it's to share a beer and some stories. I don't WANT the police involved in my life. If I'd wanted to be loved by everyone I would have been a Fireman. But do NOT confuse your given right to dislike or even criticize the police as being the same thing as knowing how to do their job.
I cannot encourage you enough to do a ride-along program with your police departments. The only time I ever had a ride-along that didn't have their perception changed was when I had one along and got into a shooting 15 minutes out of roll-call. That one got the wrong impression of what a normal day is like.
Congratulations, I think that may be the first rant I've had on the Hide (and it wasn't directed at XDPatriot or any other member in particular).
You would not FUCKING BELIEVE the shit that police get dispatched to. My agency had a policy that EVERY call to 911 or the non-emergency number HAD to be dispatched. PERIOD, no discretion for the dispatchers. In addition to that, by Dept policy EVERY dispatch was to be considered a direct order from the Chief of Police, so no officer discretion on whether to respond. What that meant, was that if you called the police, for ANY reason, whether it had ANYTHING to do with the law or not, we had to physically respond to scene, no handling by phone.
Here is a VERY brief list of some of the calls I had to go to (and if after dark, was required to have a backup officer whether they were needed or not):
Assist complainant with 10yr old child refusing to give back the television remote
Assist caller: unable to get her sprinkler system to shut off
Assist caller: her own dogs are fighting each other in her yard
Assist caller: child's balloon is stuck in a tree
Assist caller: tape stuck in her VCR
Assist complainant: in a dispute with her 6yr old son regarding rights to HIS welfare check
Assist caller: needs help adjusting satellite dish
Assist complainant: 8yr old child refusing to get dressed for school
Those were actual fucking calls that I had to go to, and DO SOMETHING about, because if I showed up and told the people "this is NOT a police matter" and left, they would just call back and I would have to GO back. And they could call as many times as they wanted until an officer DID something to solve their problem, and then your supervisor was calling YOU to ask why the hell someone was getting dispatched to a call YOU should have handled in the first place.
In the midst of all those bullshit calls, we were also getting calls of shootings, stabbings, armed robberies, etc. not to mention the mental patients who would make 20 calls a night to 911. I ended up "specializing" in the mental cases because I could show up and get them sorted out so they wouldn't call 911 every 5 minutes. Was it anywhere in my "power" as a cop to help someone "UFO-proof" their home, hell no. But I did it because that was what was required to keep order and free up officers for actual priority calls.
It always amazed me that every single asshole in this entire country feels entirely justified in critiquing and criticizing Law Enforcement from a perceived position of knowledge. Pretty much every other profession in the world is allowed to do their job without some completely untrained bystander questioning the manner in which they're doing it: plumbers, electricians, doctors, nurses, pilots, lawyers, etc. But when it comes to police, every person thinks they have an idea of WTF they're talking about.
Feel free to hate the police, it's understandable, I WAS the police and I never want to have dealings with them unless it's to share a beer and some stories. I don't WANT the police involved in my life. If I'd wanted to be loved by everyone I would have been a Fireman. But do NOT confuse your given right to dislike or even criticize the police as being the same thing as knowing how to do their job.
I cannot encourage you enough to do a ride-along program with your police departments. The only time I ever had a ride-along that didn't have their perception changed was when I had one along and got into a shooting 15 minutes out of roll-call. That one got the wrong impression of what a normal day is like.
Congratulations, I think that may be the first rant I've had on the Hide (and it wasn't directed at XDPatriot or any other member in particular).
Last edited:
I'm not defending the cop for having spun her face first into the side of her car, but there's no damned way that even a layman would characterize her behavior as "compliant." She was told to sit back down behind the wheel, and she didn't, instead drunkenly insisting on refusing the direction of the officer and complaining like a petulant child to someone on her cell phone about the stop. What she wasn't was entirely combative, but to describe her as "compliant" is pretty much BS.
I stated lack of character 'on both sides', that includes civvies. I don't 'hate' officers. If I did, I'd be posting articles of them doing fucked up shit every 5 minutes. I do think its a conversation that needs to be had though. If it opens one civilians eyes to respect peace officers, its a success. If it makes one officer realize he needs to have a little more repsect and patience while dealing with his next call, it works. I dont want any cops in my life either. It's my responsibility to protect me, mine and my property. I'm tired of hearing the 'victim card' played on both sides. If you're a civilian that hates officers and acts like a prick, don't be surprised when they're disrespectful to you. If you're an officer and you think everyone hates you, find another job. That's the beauty of America, we can all choose whatever profession we like. I originally wanted to become a Peace Officer, a part of me still does. I wanted to help people and give back. After doing several ride alongs, I signed the waiver, with my sherrifs permission and all, I decided it wasn't what I wanted to do. You're absolutely right, we all have personal choices.
AGREED Brother,
Between teaching a couple of classes at the Academy and being an FTO (before I politely asked to NOT do that anymore due to the poor quality of new officers) I had the opportunity to talk to most of the new guys on the Dept. One of the big talks I gave was about the inherent weakness of Law Enforcement being the PEOPLE who do the job. Every single person in LE brings their own personality and personal outlook to the job. More and more, the people getting into it were NOT qualified to be there, and were in it for the wrong reasons. The ensuing scandals proved it, but the process continued to get worse. I eventually hit the point where I was no longer happy with the role I was being forced to play in society and elected to get out of it rather than have my negative feelings adversely affect the way I interacted with the people who paid my salary.
By the time I left, I was having to refuse direct orders from unqualified superiors who wanted me to violate the law and people's rights, and I was having to do it too frequently. I managed to avoid discipline because eventually it would make it to someone who realized that I was right, but the guys who saw that were getting fewer and fewer.
It was the greatest job in the world when I was doing good and making things better, but unfortunately those times tended to happen less frequently. As much as I loved it, and couldn't imagine doing anything else, I'm now at the point where I have no desire to return to it, and what it was doing to me and my outlook on the world.
Why is it $hit? is it untrue? or simply because it paints LE in a negative way?
Its shit because of your intentions. If you want to start a Peace officer bashing thread, do it elsewhere. I intended this to open discussion and hopefully people would see other points of view. This is not an officer bashing thread. Piss off.
XD, I apologize for participating in derailing this thread. I respect your intentions in starting it, and didn't mean for it to devolve into a discussion/defense of LE in general.
Threads like this can have value if we can keep the emotion and name calling down. One of the great things about this site is the variety and expertise that the many members have, and we are all better off, even if in the along run we agree to disagree, if we can listen as much as we talk. I haven't always been as good at that as I would like either. I do believe that there certainly has been a shift to a warrior cop mentality, but I always believe that being a police officer is the hardest it has ever been and will only get harder. The public is stupider and more violent than ever before, and officer supervisors are stupider and more political than ever before. I know from personal experience as an officer in the military that it is even harder for most people to put a stake in the moral high ground and say "NO" to an order from their boss, than it is for them to risk their life as crazy as that sounds. Good cops are surrounded everyday by other cops that live in a world of convenient moral ambiguity, just like the rest of us. When they take a stand they can lose their livelihood, be ostracized, and will likely not even be appreciated for it by a public that has forgotten the Constitution.
Thats why I have said before that law enforcement done correctly is one of the noblest professions there is. They should be trained far more than military officers because the force they are using will be against Americans. They should be paid more than military officers because they must temper that force out of respect for the Constitution, which increases risk. Their moral character should be above reproach because everything about respecting the rule of law makes their job more difficult and rare is the man who can self-limit his own power.
My hat is off to each of you trying to do it right.
Thats why I have said before that law enforcement done correctly is one of the noblest professions there is. They should be trained far more than military officers because the force they are using will be against Americans. They should be paid more than military officers because they must temper that force out of respect for the Constitution, which increases risk. Their moral character should be above reproach because everything about respecting the rule of law makes their job more difficult and rare is the man who can self-limit his own power.
My hat is off to each of you trying to do it right.
Similar threads
