-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Peace Officers respond to open carry
- Thread starter xdpatriot
- Start date
BogeyBrown
comments are note worthy, unlike you he maintained himself in a professional manner and responded like wise
You however
lost your composure thou nothing was directed at you
I hope for your sake you leave your rage at home, respond to calls with that mindset and it wont be long before your answering some tough questions from IA
Bogey ya know they need more like you, hoping you got thru to some of the guys you mentored
XD you dont see it but your more likely part of the problem vs solution
I'm not a peace officer, as stated many times. Perhaps you'd be better off reading entire posts instead of attempting to make an officer look like he's raging out. Really good try though.
Yeah guys. This really is a good topic of discussion as we can learn to see both sides.
If I get a call from my dispatch about an armed man walking around in town, I have to respond. When I am talking to the armed man about being armed and walking around town, I am going to make sure he understands the consequences of getting stupid. I will control the situation. Period. I am the poor asshole that has sort out whether he is just open carrying or some nitwit the local hospital dumped out after they determining he "is not a danger to himself or others". I believe in open carry. I believe people have a right to protect themselves. As a LE Officer I do too. I will not not violate your constitutional rights.
I detain people on investigative stops all the time. Check a fishing license, wood cutting permit. Its my fucking job. If I am dispatched to a man with a gun call in town, you can sure as shit bet I will respond and talk to him and I will be in total control like these guys were. If you think I'm violating your constitutional rights then sue me and the department. You can stand in line with the piece of shit meth dealer that said I violated his rights too.
I detain people on investigative stops all the time. Check a fishing license, wood cutting permit. Its my fucking job. If I am dispatched to a man with a gun call in town, you can sure as shit bet I will respond and talk to him and I will be in total control like these guys were. If you think I'm violating your constitutional rights then sue me and the department. You can stand in line with the piece of shit meth dealer that said I violated his rights too.
Don't think the cop was raging or offensive except for the threat to shoot him in the head multiple times, unnecessary in my opinion, this is why being a cop is a shitty job, everyone gets to second guess you, I would never do it. For the LEO's here, is it the norm to threaten to shoot someone in the head in this type of situation? Is it not a reason for the person to become in fear for his life and possibly start shooting? There are a lot of people out there that are new to not trusting LEO's, this might confirm their fears (rational or not)) and cause them to defend themselves. The no knock cop that got killed and the shooter that just walked is a sad sign of the times we live in and a sign that more and more conflict is coming between the police and a part of the public that are supporters (benefit of doubt go's to the men in blue type people) of the police but never dealt with them on this level. As far as getting paid more than the military, I agree but they should be required to live in a barracks. I prefer they trim down the administrators in the Police departments and use the money to increase training, Constitution and the BOR, Law, Psychology, as well as tactics and firearms training. To the 99.99% of the good guys in blue, thanks for doing what you do, you wouldn't know it by some of the comments here (even by me sometimes) but we (99.99%) do appreciate the core job you all do.
Yeah Slap, you can be the dorm mother!
Arma good post but I don't think barracks is gonna fly LOL.
Yup! We're fixing to box yo ass up Slapchop. Watch out! Hahaha! Community showers n shit....
LOL we had dividers but not doors on one deployment and I think they saved my life. One time this guy was minding his business a few toilets down while I was shaving at a sink at the end. I had this awesome wyatt earp stache going down past my jaws and no less than three colonels in one day told me I was going home if I didnt fix it. Typical laser-like colonel mission focus, dont know how I got away with it as long as I did. Anyway, the plumbing was typical TCN (third country national) shoddy and made this weird sound when this dude tried to flush and the toilet erupted like a volcano from hell all the way to the ceiling. I was barely out of the frag pattern myself because of the divider but this guy was literally at ground zero. He came flying out from behind there on all fours like a rabid coon, covered in old sewage that had been percolating in 115 heat. I mean covered, like shit fondue. He looked at me and I just froze...my training had not prepared me for this! I could not have been more horrified had he been on fire. The least shred of mercy demanded I put him down immediately but I couldn't aim well enough through the involuntary gagging. Guess I should have trained more. Now I watch MSNBC while I shoot in case I am ever faced with something like this again.
True story except for the MSNBC part. I dont care enough to actually do that.
Last edited:
Jerry,
There's a lot of intricacies and subtle nuances to how these, and really any other calls get handled. There are cops who can say "good morning" to a citizen and draw a complaint. On the other extreme are guys who can dog-cuss and even slap someone and never hear another word about it.
It was not uncommon for me to inform someone of the possible consequences of their actions. Each situation dictated a slightly different twist:
With a citizen on a traffic stop who informed that they had a firearm in their car, I'd simply ask them where it was and request that they not put their hands anywhere near that area so that we could avoid "any possible misunderstanding about their intentions". They understood where I was coming from.
On New Year's Eve when every gangsta in the city was literally out in the street cranking off AK rounds, they were typically greeted with the muzzle of my weapon and were told in no uncertain terms that doing ANYTHING other than exactly what I told them to would likely result in their death. It was necessary to assure them of my WILLINGNESS to do them harm in order to PREVENT them from ACTUALLY getting hurt. In a case like that if you don't take charge definitively, then you invite the other person to try his luck. Threatening violence allowed us to avoid the application of violence.
My street-level-enforcement team did hundreds of field interviews a month. A lot of the guys we dealt with were used to normal patrol guys that they could push around a little bit, which is like letting a dog growl at you, eventually you're going to get bitten. We were completely professional, but the people knew that we weren't the police to push their luck with. During a pat-down you could feel a guy tense up deciding if it was worth it to fight or run. I'd generally tell him, as nicely as if I were asking for directions, that if he "broke bad" it wasn't going to end well. The smart ones understood the game, the ones that tried us rarely tried us twice. If I were in the mood to ACTUALLY fight with someone, I wouldn't say shit to him when I knew it was going bad and I'd let him try his luck. By informing him of the consequences, I was defusing the situation and making violence against me a less-appealing option.
The fact that we never used force against anyone that didn't initiate it, never trumped up charges, and treated people professionally (even when applying force) allowed us to go into neighborhoods with 4-6 guys that entire patrol squads couldn't get into. We could sit on the porch in public housing eating BBQ with the older folks and WALK through neighborhoods where patrol cars tried not to drive. If you were a citizen trying to live your life, you loved us. If you were a "bad guy" you found somewhere else to be when you saw us.
There's a lot of intricacies and subtle nuances to how these, and really any other calls get handled. There are cops who can say "good morning" to a citizen and draw a complaint. On the other extreme are guys who can dog-cuss and even slap someone and never hear another word about it.
It was not uncommon for me to inform someone of the possible consequences of their actions. Each situation dictated a slightly different twist:
With a citizen on a traffic stop who informed that they had a firearm in their car, I'd simply ask them where it was and request that they not put their hands anywhere near that area so that we could avoid "any possible misunderstanding about their intentions". They understood where I was coming from.
On New Year's Eve when every gangsta in the city was literally out in the street cranking off AK rounds, they were typically greeted with the muzzle of my weapon and were told in no uncertain terms that doing ANYTHING other than exactly what I told them to would likely result in their death. It was necessary to assure them of my WILLINGNESS to do them harm in order to PREVENT them from ACTUALLY getting hurt. In a case like that if you don't take charge definitively, then you invite the other person to try his luck. Threatening violence allowed us to avoid the application of violence.
My street-level-enforcement team did hundreds of field interviews a month. A lot of the guys we dealt with were used to normal patrol guys that they could push around a little bit, which is like letting a dog growl at you, eventually you're going to get bitten. We were completely professional, but the people knew that we weren't the police to push their luck with. During a pat-down you could feel a guy tense up deciding if it was worth it to fight or run. I'd generally tell him, as nicely as if I were asking for directions, that if he "broke bad" it wasn't going to end well. The smart ones understood the game, the ones that tried us rarely tried us twice. If I were in the mood to ACTUALLY fight with someone, I wouldn't say shit to him when I knew it was going bad and I'd let him try his luck. By informing him of the consequences, I was defusing the situation and making violence against me a less-appealing option.
The fact that we never used force against anyone that didn't initiate it, never trumped up charges, and treated people professionally (even when applying force) allowed us to go into neighborhoods with 4-6 guys that entire patrol squads couldn't get into. We could sit on the porch in public housing eating BBQ with the older folks and WALK through neighborhoods where patrol cars tried not to drive. If you were a citizen trying to live your life, you loved us. If you were a "bad guy" you found somewhere else to be when you saw us.
Why are there no fitness standards for law enforcement officers on an ongoing basis? Most departments require new recruits to pass a physical agility test. Once that initial test is successfully completed, it will most likely be the last one that officer will ever have to take for the rest of his or her career.
This one glaring difference disqualifies them from performing to same standard as MIL, so NO i do not think they warrant the same pay.
The LE support group that absolutely defends all LE action no matter how apparent that they have public image issue
You guys unrelenting LE can do no wrong, how dare you question our actions. Only serves to distant you more from a public which increasingly examines your every action.
This one glaring difference disqualifies them from performing to same standard as MIL, so NO i do not think they warrant the same pay.
The LE support group that absolutely defends all LE action no matter how apparent that they have public image issue
You guys unrelenting LE can do no wrong, how dare you question our actions. Only serves to distant you more from a public which increasingly examines your every action.
That about sums it up perfectly. If a guy thinks that his act of violence is going to be met with an even greater and more devastating act of violence he's gonna think twice. No different than when our military parks a carrier battle group off the coast of some third world hell hole and just sits there. Projecting harm often times avoids conflict altogether.
Obvioulsly a good, experienced cop knows when he needs to dial it up and when he needs to turn it down. Meaning that not everyone needs to be be treated like the growling dog but there are some that most certainly do.
The issue with the physical fitness standards is money and politics. Most of us that took some pride in ourselves and our jobs maintained a professional appearance. The reason you don't see the physical fitness standard maintained in veteran officers is that in most cases, if the City/County/State (employer) requires that officers maintain a level of physical fitness, then the employer is also required to provide time on duty for exercise, gym facilities or subsidies for gym memberships, or whatever. Many agencies/governments aren't willing to provide THEIR part of the equation in order to require the officers to maintain a physical standard.
I don't think ANY of us here have defended LE "no matter their actions", nor have we said that LE can "do no wrong". Those of us IN the profession have seen a hell of lot more of the "doing wrong" than the citizens EVER will.
Where the distinction comes in, is that as a professional in that field, I did NOT judge another officers actions on HIS call based on HIS perceptions. If a guy is stealing, robbing, raping, whatever, then that no longer has anything to do with his actions as a police officer, that is criminal activity regardless of what job you're in. But I've been on calls where one guy totally read the situation differently than I did and acted according to what HE saw. It wasn't how I would have handled it, but I'm not him, so I shut the fuck up as long as he wasn't doing something objectively WRONG.
Law Enforcement is the only job that comes to mind where people who have no idea what they're talking about feel as though they're in some way qualified to judge the people who do it for a living. It's like having someone who's afraid to fly on an FAA review panel investigating a pilot's actions prior to a crash. Or someone who couldn't pass high school chemistry or P.E. for that matter on an AMA Medical review panel judging a doctor's actions in a patient-death. Or the guy who can't screw in a lightbulb telling an electrician how he should have wired up a breaker box.
If you want to say: "The plane shouldn't have crashed", "the patient shouldn't have died", or "the panel shouldn't have shorted out", then feel free to do so. However, that's not the same as being qualified to tell the pilot that he should have increased power and applied left aileron.
I'm not a cop and it has been a very long time since I've had a reason to speak with a cop other than for social reasons. I have a number of cops in my family and count a few LEOs among my close associates, and all but one are the kind of cops I wish all cops were. I see the cop-general public relationship as a 2-way street and I think it helps everyone if both parties make an effort at professional exchanges. I do hold LEOs to higher level of professionalism in stressful situations as that is what they are trained for and paid for. Being a cop is hard in a way that as a young man I know I didn't want to handle. That being the case I don't open carry for 3 reasons, in descending order.
1. I fear being the first one shot by a psycho who wants to shoot the place up and remove any obvious threats. And I don't want to encourage someone who might want to make an easy grab for my weapon.
2. Because there are people who will become alarmed and some cop will have to waste their time and energy to come talk to me when we both could have been doing something better.
3. I do not want to be the example held up by an anti-gunner and not have the opportunity to directly address them.
I am sorely disappointed that the cop in the video felt the need to tell those guys he may shoot them in the head. I think he lost a bit of ground there. But I do have to blame the two protesters as well. I am rabidly pro 2nd amendment and I have been a protester of one sort or another my entire life. Not only were these guys hurting the cause, but they possibly alienated a few cops who under more mature circumstances may have held a productive conversation. That is a loss, not a gain.
Times have changed. Call me the balding gray beard that I am, but young guys like that need to change too. I only have the video to go on, but it seems there was zero attempt on their part to do anything other than get attention. I feel sure the cop would have done better to engage in a conversation instead of what I see as a confrontation, but he was reacting to the planned acts of others, rightly or wrongly. On the other hand those two had no doubt talked through what they were doing. Unfortunately for everyone involved they didn't take the time think it through.
1. I fear being the first one shot by a psycho who wants to shoot the place up and remove any obvious threats. And I don't want to encourage someone who might want to make an easy grab for my weapon.
2. Because there are people who will become alarmed and some cop will have to waste their time and energy to come talk to me when we both could have been doing something better.
3. I do not want to be the example held up by an anti-gunner and not have the opportunity to directly address them.
I am sorely disappointed that the cop in the video felt the need to tell those guys he may shoot them in the head. I think he lost a bit of ground there. But I do have to blame the two protesters as well. I am rabidly pro 2nd amendment and I have been a protester of one sort or another my entire life. Not only were these guys hurting the cause, but they possibly alienated a few cops who under more mature circumstances may have held a productive conversation. That is a loss, not a gain.
Times have changed. Call me the balding gray beard that I am, but young guys like that need to change too. I only have the video to go on, but it seems there was zero attempt on their part to do anything other than get attention. I feel sure the cop would have done better to engage in a conversation instead of what I see as a confrontation, but he was reacting to the planned acts of others, rightly or wrongly. On the other hand those two had no doubt talked through what they were doing. Unfortunately for everyone involved they didn't take the time think it through.
Last edited:
Moses,
Welcome to the thread sir. Your wisdom and eloquence is always appreciated, and I believe you took 4 pages of discussion and boiled it down very nicely.
Welcome to the thread sir. Your wisdom and eloquence is always appreciated, and I believe you took 4 pages of discussion and boiled it down very nicely.
As a former LEO, I agree with Bogeybrown's last post, where it seems everybody with an opinion is instantly an expert in human relations. If you weren't there, then STFU.
As a citizen, I agree with MosesTheTank. Communication and respect is a two-way street. If you want respect, then you need to give respect. And remember, LEO and citizen, APPROACH BEGETS RESPONSE.
As a citizen, I agree with MosesTheTank. Communication and respect is a two-way street. If you want respect, then you need to give respect. And remember, LEO and citizen, APPROACH BEGETS RESPONSE.
This is completly absurd and off topic. You're one of the first ones to complain and moan about how police are becoming too militarized and that they should be scaled back and now you want to hold law enforcement to the same standards as the military? Which one is it bro? You can't have it both ways just because it's convenient to you. Unfortunately for you and ArmyJerry, most LE pay far surpasses anything that I ever made in the military.
No one here in LE defends everything that LE does but I understand its in your box of catch phrases that gets repeated over and over. Just like when a troll will start a cop bashing thread with "I know all LEOs aren't bad but..." Instead of trying to mask your contempt and disdain via feigned concern and interest, just come out and tell everyone how you truly feel. It's more respectable that way.
Great point.
When I was still on the job I knew that I could shape an encounter with my demeanor. What was funny though was when a citizen would start out with "What the fuck do you want?" then get that "you can't do that" look on their face when I wasn't willing to stand there and soak up their abuse.
My jump-out team adhered to the "don't start the 'SH' and there won't be no 'IT'" approach.
Unlike Slapchop, our agency was one of the worst paid of its size in the south, which basically made us one of the worst paid of our size in the country. I think a kid fresh out of basic/boot is making more than our officers with 5yrs on the road. It was one of those cases where some of us did it for the love of the game while the city continued to lower standards to attract applicants.
How is this off topic, my reply was to above comments
IF LE is to be paid like MIL then they should have like performance standards, i dont think that is an unreasonable point nor absurd
IS LE being militarized? I think many would say yes, but that is a topic best left alone
They are different jobs, and thus the standard for each ought to be about what each job requires. My point about pay was that I don't think we respect the profession of law enforcement enough in this country. Think about it we have no less than five military academies cranking out officers, along with many ROTC scholarships, and that's just to get in the door as an commissioned officer in the military. Then senior officers mentor and send junior officers to yet even more schools and training programs along the way, and all of this is so the officer learn how and when to apply force to our foreign enemies.
Yet the very people who we task with applying force to our own citizens, including lethal force; the people we have tasked to take away our freedom when necessary as long as it passes a strict and sometimes complex Constitutional test, we as a society inexplicably seem uninterested in their training and provision. Then we wonder why a few fail to live up to the considerable difficulty of doing the job Constitutionally.
They absolutely should be paid more, educated more, trained more, and generally shepherded more just like we do with military officers. With the way things are going, I am far more concerned with the judgement of my local sheriffs deputies than anyone on active duty, because what the deputies know and do and think affects me and my loved ones far more than a company commander in Afghanistan. We should therefore invest in them just as much if not more so. It would be a more attractive job, you could hire from a larger pool, and on the average have a better trained more professional and competent force. Some people excell and just get it with very little training, but on the average when you are dealing with human beings you get what you pay for. That's all I'm saying.
Yet the very people who we task with applying force to our own citizens, including lethal force; the people we have tasked to take away our freedom when necessary as long as it passes a strict and sometimes complex Constitutional test, we as a society inexplicably seem uninterested in their training and provision. Then we wonder why a few fail to live up to the considerable difficulty of doing the job Constitutionally.
They absolutely should be paid more, educated more, trained more, and generally shepherded more just like we do with military officers. With the way things are going, I am far more concerned with the judgement of my local sheriffs deputies than anyone on active duty, because what the deputies know and do and think affects me and my loved ones far more than a company commander in Afghanistan. We should therefore invest in them just as much if not more so. It would be a more attractive job, you could hire from a larger pool, and on the average have a better trained more professional and competent force. Some people excell and just get it with very little training, but on the average when you are dealing with human beings you get what you pay for. That's all I'm saying.
Some great points KY,
To an extent, that very system DOES exist: on the Federal LE side of things. They have long academies, good budgets, equipment, benefits, continued training, etc. It's possible because of the funding stream.
Unfortunately, with the quality of local LE being tied to the local economy, the diversity in training, equipment, quality of officers is staggering. Within a few miles you can have an agency that pays twice what the one next to it does. The lesser-paid agency spends the money to train a new officer and they neighboring agency hires away the talent, leaving "what's left" working in the lesser paid place/s.
To an extent, that very system DOES exist: on the Federal LE side of things. They have long academies, good budgets, equipment, benefits, continued training, etc. It's possible because of the funding stream.
Unfortunately, with the quality of local LE being tied to the local economy, the diversity in training, equipment, quality of officers is staggering. Within a few miles you can have an agency that pays twice what the one next to it does. The lesser-paid agency spends the money to train a new officer and they neighboring agency hires away the talent, leaving "what's left" working in the lesser paid place/s.
Unfortunately this doesn't work in a constitutional republic, where not only is it our right to question government, it is our DUTY as citizens to question government. Law enforcement, like many other government officials, have been delegated certain special powers and authorities from the people, as volunteer servants of the people. Nobody, regardless of the badge or office you hold, is entitled to these powers (such as the power to arrest or detain), that power is on loan from the people. Since the people own it, they are entitled to inspect or question your use of it as they deem proper and necessary. If you feel that they shouldn't, them perhaps you have come to feel like you are acting under your own authority instead of theirs. That sentiment can lead to the abuse of the power the people have trusted you with.
I also think that some cops have as little respect for the true importance of the job as the public. Most that I know consider themselves blue collar guys like the tradesmen. They are doing themselves, and the public, a disservice by boiling down the critical relationship of their duty to Constitution and the preservation of liberty to nothing more than a skillset or technical knowledge, as if they were a plumber. Nothing wrong with the trades, we need them desperately. But professional law enforcement is about far more than technical knowledge or the skill set for catching bad guys in the scheme of ordered liberty we are trying to preserve.
Last edited:
Thanks, and you are right about the FBI for instance, but even they focus too much I think on know-how, and not enough on know-why. When I was a brand new military officer my relationship to the people and the Constitution was not very complex...don't let foreigners hurt America, a pretty black and white concept. I understood, (though not everyone did) that my oath was to the Constitution, not my boss, so I knew from the beginning that I should fight for the ideas it contains. That put some grey into the job, but with a cop the job is built in the grey from the start. EVERY authority you exercise under the color of law could be a violation of a citizens rights depending on the circumstances, so doing the job requires extraordinary judgment and character. Especially considering doing it "right" will usually place the officer at more risk, and sometimes requires letting a criminal go for sake of preserving principle. These are not easy things to do, but in a modern world where law enforcement has capabilities the Stasi could have only dreamed of, we must recruit and build up lawmen of character and self restraint, who understand that stopping crime is not their highest duty, if we want to preserve liberty.
Last edited:
KY and Bogey,
I'm on board with you on the pay/skill/economic disparity. I have a very bright hard working niece that I have implored to get out of her state agency and with the Feds because of what they have to offer each other. I would hope that the among the most competent, well equipped, best trained officers would be those in my community as those are the ones I know and the ones I will need to immediately rely upon in a moment of crisis. This is rarely the case.
I'd like to throw another factor into the mix, judgment. Please, any LEO old-timers to chime in here. This also applies to the military, of course. We are a society quite fond of legislating away many of our public servants ability to use judgment. Most of us seem to agree that if you weren't there you probably don't know how things went down. How many of you LEOs have had to do something that you may not have done, or vice versa, because of some rule/statute/"guideline" that flew in the face of any judgment you may have otherwise brought to bear? I have heard a few officers say it. I have heard teachers and doctors say it. I have never heard one of them say they are consoled by some liability it may have relieved them of. But it is certainly true that we have punished good people for using the best judgment they had at the time.
I learned a painful lesson many years ago when my firm was bought out. Our new masters had a set of rules for everything. Good people don't need an encyclopedic manual to tell them what to do in every conceivable situation, in part because you cannot possibly author every conceivable situation. If you don't trust someone's judgment then maybe you shouldn't hire them. Or maybe look at your hiring practices (see the pay issue above). Long story short, competent people need to be able to exercise thought and apply it to their work. Take that ability away and you will lose good people. I watched some of my finest colleagues walk out the door, as I eventually did too.
One way or the other we have hired someone to make a decision, a legislator/admin/bureaucrat, etc. who is removed from what is going on in the moment, or the person who is actually there and has to deal with things. Of course there is balance, but I fear we have swung too far in the wrong direction.
I'm on board with you on the pay/skill/economic disparity. I have a very bright hard working niece that I have implored to get out of her state agency and with the Feds because of what they have to offer each other. I would hope that the among the most competent, well equipped, best trained officers would be those in my community as those are the ones I know and the ones I will need to immediately rely upon in a moment of crisis. This is rarely the case.
I'd like to throw another factor into the mix, judgment. Please, any LEO old-timers to chime in here. This also applies to the military, of course. We are a society quite fond of legislating away many of our public servants ability to use judgment. Most of us seem to agree that if you weren't there you probably don't know how things went down. How many of you LEOs have had to do something that you may not have done, or vice versa, because of some rule/statute/"guideline" that flew in the face of any judgment you may have otherwise brought to bear? I have heard a few officers say it. I have heard teachers and doctors say it. I have never heard one of them say they are consoled by some liability it may have relieved them of. But it is certainly true that we have punished good people for using the best judgment they had at the time.
I learned a painful lesson many years ago when my firm was bought out. Our new masters had a set of rules for everything. Good people don't need an encyclopedic manual to tell them what to do in every conceivable situation, in part because you cannot possibly author every conceivable situation. If you don't trust someone's judgment then maybe you shouldn't hire them. Or maybe look at your hiring practices (see the pay issue above). Long story short, competent people need to be able to exercise thought and apply it to their work. Take that ability away and you will lose good people. I watched some of my finest colleagues walk out the door, as I eventually did too.
One way or the other we have hired someone to make a decision, a legislator/admin/bureaucrat, etc. who is removed from what is going on in the moment, or the person who is actually there and has to deal with things. Of course there is balance, but I fear we have swung too far in the wrong direction.
KY, you're correct. The topic of my paper to get hired by the PD said basically the same thing: that the police only have the "power" to enforce the law as long as the citizens grant it to them. In much the same way as our currency is only as valuable as people's perception of it.
My point is not that the people don't have the right to question the ROLE of law enforcement in our society, since that role is DICTATED by the people. One place may want their police to be effectively invisible and only appear when called upon. Another place may want the police to be overtly present. In the examples I listed above of calls for service it's clear that others feel as though we're there to be all things to all people at all hours.
The razor-thin line is that the way an officer handles a call, any call, is a highly fluid situation, with no diagram of how to get from point A to point B. There are boundaries that the police need to work within (the Constitution chiefly, human decency, and the law) but beyond that every call is it's own thing. I could handle the same type of call for service 5 different ways during a shift simply based on the personal dynamics at work. One domestic complaint may require me to talk to everyone and leave, one may require me to scream at some people and leave, one may require me to fight with someone and take them to jail. What decision I make on each of those calls is determined by a LOT of factors, and not to be unkind about it but how I handled each situation was up to ME based on MY experience and judgment. I have told supervisors to piss off when they wanted to interfere with my handling of a call within my discretion. As long as I was within the parameters, no one else had to like my decision. If they wanted a different outcome, I invited them to have the call re-assigned to them and I'd be their backing officer, but as long as I was accountable for the outcome, I would handle it the best way I could based on my perception.
Out of curiosity, are you a pilot? If so I think you can draw some personal parallels to making a judgment call in the cockpit that may not be what everyone else would do, but that doesn't mean you need someone who's never flown a plane telling you how to do your job.
My point is not that the people don't have the right to question the ROLE of law enforcement in our society, since that role is DICTATED by the people. One place may want their police to be effectively invisible and only appear when called upon. Another place may want the police to be overtly present. In the examples I listed above of calls for service it's clear that others feel as though we're there to be all things to all people at all hours.
The razor-thin line is that the way an officer handles a call, any call, is a highly fluid situation, with no diagram of how to get from point A to point B. There are boundaries that the police need to work within (the Constitution chiefly, human decency, and the law) but beyond that every call is it's own thing. I could handle the same type of call for service 5 different ways during a shift simply based on the personal dynamics at work. One domestic complaint may require me to talk to everyone and leave, one may require me to scream at some people and leave, one may require me to fight with someone and take them to jail. What decision I make on each of those calls is determined by a LOT of factors, and not to be unkind about it but how I handled each situation was up to ME based on MY experience and judgment. I have told supervisors to piss off when they wanted to interfere with my handling of a call within my discretion. As long as I was within the parameters, no one else had to like my decision. If they wanted a different outcome, I invited them to have the call re-assigned to them and I'd be their backing officer, but as long as I was accountable for the outcome, I would handle it the best way I could based on my perception.
Out of curiosity, are you a pilot? If so I think you can draw some personal parallels to making a judgment call in the cockpit that may not be what everyone else would do, but that doesn't mean you need someone who's never flown a plane telling you how to do your job.
Hahaha,
It seems I got a post or 2 behind while I was typing and Moses and I paralleled each other a bit.
KY, I wasn't talking about the FBI, you can fucking have them and their entire budget to do something worthwhile. Hell, give their budget to the homeless, you'd see more for your tax dollars. I was talking about the other federal agencies that could actually manage to find a snowflake in a blizzard.
Sorry, did I mention a few unpleasant experiences
It seems I got a post or 2 behind while I was typing and Moses and I paralleled each other a bit.
KY, I wasn't talking about the FBI, you can fucking have them and their entire budget to do something worthwhile. Hell, give their budget to the homeless, you'd see more for your tax dollars. I was talking about the other federal agencies that could actually manage to find a snowflake in a blizzard.
Sorry, did I mention a few unpleasant experiences
Moses,
I needed to get that mini rant out and in its own little box before I replied to your question.
In short, YES!!! more and more we got hit with "zero-tolerance" policies that were abhorrent. I almost got into a fistfight with another officer on a call where he was putting someone in jail who was clearly innocent of the charge because he was required to do so under one of those asinine laws. I spent HOURS writing narratives to explain why I DIDN'T arrest someone when I was under a standing order to do so. I was positively blessed at the time with some bosses that had the balls to back me up.
Once I became a boss, I fought some of those same battles for my officers, but wasn't as blessed with people above me to support doing the right thing in the face of a bad policy.
I needed to get that mini rant out and in its own little box before I replied to your question.
In short, YES!!! more and more we got hit with "zero-tolerance" policies that were abhorrent. I almost got into a fistfight with another officer on a call where he was putting someone in jail who was clearly innocent of the charge because he was required to do so under one of those asinine laws. I spent HOURS writing narratives to explain why I DIDN'T arrest someone when I was under a standing order to do so. I was positively blessed at the time with some bosses that had the balls to back me up.
Once I became a boss, I fought some of those same battles for my officers, but wasn't as blessed with people above me to support doing the right thing in the face of a bad policy.
The first part of my post, about STFU, was a bit short and terse, so let me expand on the thought.
Any and all American citizens are welcome to have and opinion, and have the right to express said opinion. What pisses me off is when a citizen who is uninformed or too lazy to seek out the truth starts running his/her mouth and declaring their opinion as fact. The perfect example is what happened in LA with Rodney King. A lot of non-LEO that saw the short and incomplete video on TV automatically assumed that a group of badge-heavy, white thugs were beating the shit out of some poor black saint. The first reaction from every LEO I know (and I know a lot) was to wait and see, since the video only captured the use of force aspect of the incident and not the entire thing. We all know the truth was brought to light during the trial, which resulted in acquittal.
Any and all American citizens are welcome to have and opinion, and have the right to express said opinion. What pisses me off is when a citizen who is uninformed or too lazy to seek out the truth starts running his/her mouth and declaring their opinion as fact. The perfect example is what happened in LA with Rodney King. A lot of non-LEO that saw the short and incomplete video on TV automatically assumed that a group of badge-heavy, white thugs were beating the shit out of some poor black saint. The first reaction from every LEO I know (and I know a lot) was to wait and see, since the video only captured the use of force aspect of the incident and not the entire thing. We all know the truth was brought to light during the trial, which resulted in acquittal.
I guess news of the nearly $4 million the City of LA had to pay to King didn't make your paper.
Now what were you saying about the truth?
The way he pummeled that female officer, I would have just shot his ass with my pistol not a tazer, this is one reason why I am not a Jersey State Trooper today, just dont have the right temperament for watching females (cop or civilian) getting assaulted.
This thread has really brought out some thinkers- those who love calling cops pigs (marduk185 pure awesomeness) and now someone who can't make a good argument so starts talking about how law enforcement is getting fat (no doubt from all the doughnuts, right Jedi?) and need better fitness standards.
By the way, I have annual fitness standards to maintain and yearly physicals. This year has been tougher since I had an on the job knee injury, but I can still smoke our physical standards, despite a diet of Krispy Kreams and coffee.
By the way, I have annual fitness standards to maintain and yearly physicals. This year has been tougher since I had an on the job knee injury, but I can still smoke our physical standards, despite a diet of Krispy Kreams and coffee.
Well, the burden of proof in civil cases is less - just ask OJ...
I've never seen the whole video of King so have no comment on it but just 'cos the city paid doesn't in itself mean King was right/Police wrong.
been an interesting read guys, and i wanted to say that i mean absolutely no disrespect to you fellow hiders who happen to be pigs. i have called pork the pigs that they are since i was a preschooler despite many of my friends over the years having been pigs too. one of my favorite hide members that ive chatted with on these subjects often is blueline in all of his bacon glory!
i simply fear that the u.s.a. has fallen into a sleeping state and acceptance of unconstitutional operating procedures is becoming such normal practice that they arent even any longer considered wrong. i apreciate reading the other points of view here. thanks pigs
i simply fear that the u.s.a. has fallen into a sleeping state and acceptance of unconstitutional operating procedures is becoming such normal practice that they arent even any longer considered wrong. i apreciate reading the other points of view here. thanks pigs
No question on civil burden EH, but 2 of the cops were convicted of federal charges and spent 3 years in the can.
Contrary to MCSO's depiction, the facts tell a much different story than he's apparently aware of.
I've absolutely no love for a thug idiot criminal like King, but kicking his ass on that particular night was very arguably "excessive."
Did not know that. Thanks. I believe Kings dead now. I read an article where he said his new love was swimming and that he was clean and sober. Next he was found full of dope face down in the pool.
Go figure.
I have read the various postings and identified the different agendas’ of the posters. I have heard everything from pigs and physical fitness tests to name calling mixed between some very good articulated arguments from different sides of the OP. I figured I would skip any response because I was not sure I could add anything thought provoking or positive to wherever this thread leads, but after some careful thought I figured I would throw my hat into the ring as well. And speaking of agendas’ it is clear there was an agenda on the part of the two men encountered in the video. So everyone here seems to have an agenda.
First, my opinions (agenda) are coming from that of a "pig" with 20 years on the job. I am currently a Sgt. in a department that covers a population of 32,000 but due to the resort/tourist trade summer numbers pop to 100k or more. I supervise 4-8 officers on any given shift in a community that covers the very rich down to the very poor. We have a huge drug problem and with that a marked jump in violent crimes, armed robbery and shootings. More or less I work in “Anytown USA”. I have been involved in two shooting incidents, one where I was the victim and one where I was not. Both cases when through the court of public opinion, second guessing, Monday morning quarterbacks and media attention. With that said I still feel no more qualified to render an opinion then Orkan, 0311 or anyone else here. What I do want to do is point out the one thing that stands out to me, PERCEPTION.
I am not talking about the Totality Triangle or the perception of the officers, but the perception of civilian vs. pig and even among the pigs and civilians themselves. First, due to my prior circumstances, I will not render a judgment on any situation until I know all the facts and not knowing all the facts here I will neither attack, nor defend the officers involved. What I will point out is that the officers did not just arbitrary decide to pick on some poor smuck who was openly carrying. This was not a premeditated act on the part of the officers; however, it was on the part of the individuals encountered. Yes, it is an open carry State, as is MA the state I work/live in, but they had to know that carry in the open is going to cause a reaction due to…. Perception. In fact it appears the reaction was part of their agenda. When that reaction came the officers also had a perception, and right or wrong took an action. To simply drive by, open carry state or not, would have been at best negligent considering they were dispatched to the scene by a citizen complaint. The citizen was alarmed, at least in some part, because of their perception of armed men.
In the state of MA anyone owning a firearm or rifle must also be properly licensed. I believe that to be true of most States. It is an open carry state but you must carry your license at all times that you carry your firearm and you must produce said document at the request of any law enforcement officer. I am not sure what the laws in that jurisdiction are, but what I can say is that open carry or not officers have a duty to the public when they are alarmed to conduct at the very least a threshold inquiry. The reaction of the party encountered can give rise to reasonable suspicion or even probable cause. How do I know? Because that is close to the circumstances of my situation and had I taken a more proactive “aggressive” posture I would not have been shot. I am not condoning the actions of the officers in the video, simply pointing out a perception sometimes missed by the civilian population. Pigs respond, pigs make judgments and sometimes pigs get shot.
Yes the “shot you in the head” comments could have been better articulated, but the officer was there to assess the situation and two heavily armed men in a down town area is at the very least a stressful call for service. But to fully understand the situation look at it from the perception of the party that called; “help, guns”; the officers, “crap, these guys are armed” and the two individuals involved, “I hope this gets our message across”. All three acted within the confines of their perception.
Orkan I understand your point of view, respect it but the cops had to check it out. 0311, buddy the streets are hard and yes we need to act when called upon, safety first (I have two .380 holes to show what letting your guard down can do). And to alarmed citizens everywhere, not everyone with a gun is a threat, but when you see one and call 911 as the yellow stain spreads around the crotch of your pants us pigs will go check it out.
So let’s get a grip on perspective and realize it changes with viewpoint. Want to change perspective, change the angle you view something from.
Sully
First, my opinions (agenda) are coming from that of a "pig" with 20 years on the job. I am currently a Sgt. in a department that covers a population of 32,000 but due to the resort/tourist trade summer numbers pop to 100k or more. I supervise 4-8 officers on any given shift in a community that covers the very rich down to the very poor. We have a huge drug problem and with that a marked jump in violent crimes, armed robbery and shootings. More or less I work in “Anytown USA”. I have been involved in two shooting incidents, one where I was the victim and one where I was not. Both cases when through the court of public opinion, second guessing, Monday morning quarterbacks and media attention. With that said I still feel no more qualified to render an opinion then Orkan, 0311 or anyone else here. What I do want to do is point out the one thing that stands out to me, PERCEPTION.
I am not talking about the Totality Triangle or the perception of the officers, but the perception of civilian vs. pig and even among the pigs and civilians themselves. First, due to my prior circumstances, I will not render a judgment on any situation until I know all the facts and not knowing all the facts here I will neither attack, nor defend the officers involved. What I will point out is that the officers did not just arbitrary decide to pick on some poor smuck who was openly carrying. This was not a premeditated act on the part of the officers; however, it was on the part of the individuals encountered. Yes, it is an open carry State, as is MA the state I work/live in, but they had to know that carry in the open is going to cause a reaction due to…. Perception. In fact it appears the reaction was part of their agenda. When that reaction came the officers also had a perception, and right or wrong took an action. To simply drive by, open carry state or not, would have been at best negligent considering they were dispatched to the scene by a citizen complaint. The citizen was alarmed, at least in some part, because of their perception of armed men.
In the state of MA anyone owning a firearm or rifle must also be properly licensed. I believe that to be true of most States. It is an open carry state but you must carry your license at all times that you carry your firearm and you must produce said document at the request of any law enforcement officer. I am not sure what the laws in that jurisdiction are, but what I can say is that open carry or not officers have a duty to the public when they are alarmed to conduct at the very least a threshold inquiry. The reaction of the party encountered can give rise to reasonable suspicion or even probable cause. How do I know? Because that is close to the circumstances of my situation and had I taken a more proactive “aggressive” posture I would not have been shot. I am not condoning the actions of the officers in the video, simply pointing out a perception sometimes missed by the civilian population. Pigs respond, pigs make judgments and sometimes pigs get shot.
Yes the “shot you in the head” comments could have been better articulated, but the officer was there to assess the situation and two heavily armed men in a down town area is at the very least a stressful call for service. But to fully understand the situation look at it from the perception of the party that called; “help, guns”; the officers, “crap, these guys are armed” and the two individuals involved, “I hope this gets our message across”. All three acted within the confines of their perception.
Orkan I understand your point of view, respect it but the cops had to check it out. 0311, buddy the streets are hard and yes we need to act when called upon, safety first (I have two .380 holes to show what letting your guard down can do). And to alarmed citizens everywhere, not everyone with a gun is a threat, but when you see one and call 911 as the yellow stain spreads around the crotch of your pants us pigs will go check it out.
So let’s get a grip on perspective and realize it changes with viewpoint. Want to change perspective, change the angle you view something from.
Sully
Last edited:
See, there's that slight note of disdain that rubs some of us "alarmed citizens" the wrong way. If you think we're all gonna piss ourselves at the sight of a firearm in what might be the wrong hands, you both misjudge some of us and make a none-too-subtle claim to an elevated status. Most of us respect what you do, and hopefully most of you don't see us as weak-willed and frightened.
Your right, there does appear to be a slight note of disdain in that remark. But let me ask, is that your perspective? Armed men are always dangerous? Not being catty just asking your perspective because I encounter people from time to time who do go that far. There are people within the confines of the town I work that ask why even the police must be armed. At one B&E call recently the victims wife had to go into another room because she has such a fear of guns that the sight of the responding officers sidearm made her feel "uneasy". So is that your view or is your agenda to simply pick out a line in the text and exploit that?
I ask because I believe I was stressing the difference in viewpoint and at no time did I equate "alarmed citizens" with "we're all". So your right I should have corrected that to read, the minority of "alarmed citizens" that... but you have had an agenda so far. Nothing wrong with that, as stated we all do, but put it out there clearly.
As for elevated status, huh? I am a Sgt. in a Podunk PD, how am I elevated in that? I make a post attempting to bridge the gaps in perspective and you hold tightly to one line yet you attempt to assume my intent is lump all citizens into "weak-willed"... Hmmmm, I know Orkan (greg) is a citizen, never met the man but I would hazard to say he is more the norm in the Hide community and I would hardly call him weak-willed and frightened. I also doubt he would call 911 if he saw two guys with firearms. he may watch and monitor them, but I don't think he would piss himself. well, he may piss himself, but not because the men are armed.
So back at it Veer_G did you even see the point I attempted to make?
Sully
Sully, you need to go back through my posts, let alone through this thread, to get a clue. I'm not against law enforcement, and I maintain a state of caution around people who are armed, especially those who are unknown to me. What you wrote looked like a blanket characterization. If it wasn't, my apologies.
Veer_G
As noted that did appear to be a blanket statement, addressed that so I hope it is clear that was not my intention. I did go through your posts, hence the question on agendas, that was why I was confused. You may have not read any other post I ever made on the hide, but elevated status is not something I have ever been accused of. Now that we got that straight apology accepted and thanks for pointing out how that remark did appear all inclusive.
Sully
I am floored by the candor of Sulcop, Bogey, KY, and others. Thank you for your insights. One of many things that strikes me is that this conversation does anything but boil the issues down. Quite opposite, it highlights the complexities. Before I go much further I ask that some folks give a few minutes consideration before reacting to someone else's post that may have struck a nerve. If for no other reason at all, I see some guys laying down thoughts that offer an understanding of their own philosophy. Besides deserving of a bit of respect for putting themselves out there for that, there is a lesson to be learned from another perspective. Too often we shut the door on this and we are all the poorer. This is frequently what we complain about when someone else disagrees with us, "they just don't understand me". That, as has been mentioned several time in this thread, is a two way street.
In the event anyone assumes I'm taking up for guys that certainly don't need it, I'm not. I'm wanting to preserve the conversation for my own benefit.
In the event anyone assumes I'm taking up for guys that certainly don't need it, I'm not. I'm wanting to preserve the conversation for my own benefit.
ahhhhhhhh I much enjoy a good ole heated thread of douchebaggery, it is all so clear in the end who circle jerks each other and high fives each other with their ballsacks. It is also clear the number of folks gonna be standing around saying "wait you cant do that, I'm telling, yes sir mister policeman I will get in that cattle truck headed to a reeducation facility" when, heaven forbid, the balloon ever does go up.
Routine traffic stop in Texas for seatbelt violation. Yes a seatblet violation, another one of those laws passed as a knee jerk reaction.
You wonder why cops are suspicious of folks with guns? Open carry of long guns is legal in Texas.
Police shootout - Trooper Randall Wade Vetter - Texas Department of Public Safety - YouTube
You wonder why cops are suspicious of folks with guns? Open carry of long guns is legal in Texas.
Police shootout - Trooper Randall Wade Vetter - Texas Department of Public Safety - YouTube
Cattle truck? That's bum steer. The aliens are gonna hoover us off the surface of the planet any day now.
Similar threads
