Peace Officers respond to open carry

[marduk185]

Who said that we don't need police? The purpose of the police is to prevent other men from violating my rights. The are supposed to be guarantors of my Constitutional and natural rights, not threats to them.

It is obvious why there is so much public pushback in the direction of law enforcement in this country, so obvious I would think it need not be explained, but apparently it isn't obvious enough to everyone.

There is backlash because we are living under an increasingly unConstitutional government that fear mongers to justify ever increasing police powers and ever decreasing personal liberty and we the people are wise to it. We know it and don't like it. Police are the enforcers, and the same badges arresting rapists are the same guys doing no-knock raids to serve warrants on non-violent offenders, the same badges insisting we register or turn in guns, the same badges enforcing partisan attacks via the IRS, the same badges with armored vehicles in small town America. Ever more restrictive laws in every aspect of life continue and those laws will be enforced by someone. Doesn't it stand to reason people will resent it? We have to go all the way to the Supreme Court to force law enforcement to understand they aren't supposed to track us without a warrant. A senator has to publicly shame the Attorney General to finally get him to say we won't use hellfire missiles from drones to enforce the law. Are these things supposed to give us a warm fuzzy about LE attitudes towards my liberty? Acts of kindness are awesome but we the people tasked you with defending liberty via the Constitution, and the clear indictment of public sentiment is that LE is failing that responsibility. How do we know which way an individual officer will go? If we are even asking that question haven't we already failed liberty 101?

The sheepdog analogy makes me want to puke but the fact that so many buy into it is indicative of what I am talking about. The most basic review of history will show who the real wolves are, and it isn't criminals or even terrorists that have destroyed tens of millions of lives in the last hundred years alone. Politicians see themselves as our parents and use the police as Dad's belt, and they are quick to resort to it anytime they feel we are not obeying. That's not their job, and that's not your job as police. The pols abuse their authority and are attempting, often succeeding, in using police to do it.

Police officers should be smart enough to discern the difference between the rapist who is angry at you for catching him and the righteous anger of a supposedly free people who are literally being pushed into choosing between remaining free or remaining law abiding. The Constitution was supposed to protect us from that choice, and those vested with special authorities are supposed to protect it above their boss. If the police want to regain the moral standing they used to enjoy, then stand with us in that struggle instead of saying "I'm just doing my job". The sheriffs in CO are a good example of this...and are being praised for it. The concept isn't hard. Actually doing it is hard, but without law enforcement the aims of anyone who would weaken our liberty cannot succeed. That's why the people are watching you. Don't play checkers in a chess game- this is about far more than stopping crime.

said far more eloquently than i could have managed in a million posts!

 

[KYpatriot]

So you are equating the local beat cop with the IRS, Eric Holder and the President of the United States?
You make the assumption that ALL cops are going to round up folks and put them in cattle cars on the way to the internment camp.

Do you know why they run no-knock warrants on your "non-violent" offenders that are selling meth to your schoolchildren?
Because we have to get in there before they flush their garbage down the toilet.

I suppose we could knock and politely ask that they hand over their meth. That doesn't normally work to well.

I DO understand the anger, I DO think that ANY overstepping of the bounds by law enforcement needs to be addresed by the public and by the media. I DO believe that the media should check BOTH sides of the story.
Of course lots of folks immediately jump to the conclusion that the cops are covering up, when in all actuality, they CAN NOT speak to specifics about a case under investigation until the investigation is complete.

You wish to give the benefit of the doubt to everyone BUT the police.
How about keeping an open mind, as I believe that no one is above the law.

Are there bad laws? Of course there are. The question is, what are you doing to change it?

First, thank you for taking my post in the spirit it was intended instead of a personal attack. I appreciate you being willing to have a discussion about a tragic situation without taking it to an emotional personal level, which is hard to do.

I'll start with your first paragraph. We the people don't interact with whoever is in charge at the top, and we have less and less control over more local authorities like governors, state legislators, school boards, city councils, as those people abandon their oaths/responsibilities to push a private agenda antithetical to the Constitution and individual liberty. Those cowards will never put their own skin on the line, they order you to do it. We the people interact with the local beat cop, who will either do what they are told or try to get out of it somehow.

There are several hundred thousand new felons in CT that understand what I am saying very clearly.

In the end, what it comes down to is the individual officer will enforce or not, and that decision is the last line of defense against tyranny. There is no escaping that fact. No would-be tyrant can do anything alone, he depends on those in uniforms to work his will on the people for him, by hook or crook or deception. I make no assumptions about ALL cops, and we are far from "cattle cars" so let's not get carried away...but the trend is clearly and positively in the wrong direction. In fact, I'm willing to bet you don't like the direction things are going either. There is no question that as this trend advances it will actually be good cops that suffer first.

I don't want to have another debate about no-knocks, I want to focus on the larger problem as the increasing use of such raids is but a symptom, and there were other threads on the subject that devolved into personal attacks because we couldn't keep a discussion about an important subject on a mature level (not you personally but us as a forum). I mention it here because I want you to understand I know what I am saying, in other words I know why no-knocks exist. What I am saying is that I also know in many jurisdictions no-knocks are rubber stamped as long as drugs are mentioned, and that anonymous informants can constitute probable cause. Because of this, the reward of catching the bad guy isn't worth the threat to the fourth amendment in a free society. I understand this necessarily means more bad guys go free. But I also don't think a guy with a dime bag of MJ should have to decide whether to defend his family from a home invasion and die for it because it was in reality a no knock. Outside of hostage situations they aren't justified in a society where the supreme law of the land demands liberty over security.

Finally this is about much more than individual misconduct by officers. We have always had that because officers are human, and we have ways to deal with that. The greater threat is creating a culture in law enforcement, from the federal level down, of the local warrior cop under the influence of federal agency mindset. I have a friend who was literally raided by a USDA SWAT team for selling raw milk. I'm talking children at gunpoint and bellies in the dirt. Thank God their local sheriff happened to drive by and he put a stop to it and got the husband to a hospital who was beginning a heart attack and likely would have died. You may believe there was more to it but there wasn't. That hero of a sheriff fulfilled his true responsibility, not the USDA. His allegiance was to the people not the Feds. My friends were found to be legal but still got harassed and followed for "winning." It takes more than just a bad officer in the USDA to cause this, it takes a bad culture in the whole organization. Why was it so easy to find guys to do that raid? This family are people are like Mennonites and don't even have guns.

Federal agencies will run their scare tactics on local police departments just like they do the public, and follow up with bribes in the form of grants. In that environment, who is the local department really listening to, the people or the Feds? I have spoken on here before about how my small rural county, practically Mayberry, has a federally funded 40 man SWAT team, DHS provided helicopter, and HUMVEEs. This is one county in KY, where we have a murder every few years usually over a private domestic issue. When we had a town hall meeting in the county library about it the sheriff brought in his deputies along the walls to "maintain order" and yelled at someone who was taping the meeting. Would he do as that other sheriff did for my friends? I don't know and that's lack of trust is the heart of the problem. It's as if the department is convinced the citizens are plotting to kill them and terrorists are in every room. That attitude in LE can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

When it comes to freedom I give the benefit of the doubt to no one. We the people are to blame for the current state of the things because we haven't been involved enough fulfilling our duty as citizens. Now that we are waking up it is being perceived as "anti-government" when really most just want to be left alone and to return government to a more Constitutional state. Yes, there is bad law. But remember the bedrock principle of the rule of law here is that all government authority in the Constitution derives from the people, and in the end the people are the final arbiter of what is lawful, not the legislator, or the court, or the police officer. An un-Constitutional law is void whether it was duly enacted or not, because we are not a democracy and 51% of the legislator opinion does not necessarily constitute legitimacy in a Constitutional Republic. The authorities enforce such law at the peril of their lives and those of the people. We have the Constitution because we were a people who wanted to be free, and no Supreme Court or federal agency will deny a people so determined, and it is the respect for life and peace in good patriots that is preventing violence already. Principled men will only bend so far, even though desiring peace, as our forefathers forcefully proved. If the processes are failing due to the selfish desires or agendas of those at the top, then the police officer, yes the local beat cop, is caught right in the middle. We patriots want assurance they will choose wisely, and that is why it is important to have this discussion. If law enforcement as a whole sticks with the people, we will never need to teach the enemies of liberty a lesson as those enemies would become powerless without the ability to misuse law enforcement.

 

[SLINKY ERT]

KYPatriot,

Excuse the lack of quoting from your text above, I'm just not that savvy yet.

"I have spoken on here before about how my small rural county, practically Mayberry, has a federally funded 40 man SWAT team, DHS provided helicopter, and HUMVEEs."

While I can completely understand why you would view the acquirement of surplus equipment as excess, have you considered that other agencies use some of the same equipment for their communities? A PD no more than 7 miles away got a HMMWV due to no 4WD vehicles in their fleet, and a number of years ago had to rely on the National Guard during a blizzard to get folks to the Paramedic stations, and in two instances, to the hospital. While the National Guard guys were an extreme help, they simply didn't have the resources to assist EVERY agency. The Chief of Police of that particular town decided to get a HMMWV so he could better help his citizens. Do they drive the HMMWV around all the time? Nope. Do they use it in snow or flood emergencies? Yup.

My agency's operating budget is probably what a large agency's fuel budget is for a year. We rely on DRMO for furniture, office supplies, and yes, even rifles. Would we accept reasonable equipment or vehicles so it wouldn't impact our citizens (READ AS RAISE TAXES)???? Hell yes. Now, that is REASONABLE EQUIPMENT. We are a small town, so we have no need for MRAPS or an M1A2. A HMMWV? Sure.

"We patriots want assurance they will choose wisely, and that is why it is important to have this discussion. If law enforcement as a whole sticks with the people, we will never need to teach the enemies of liberty a lesson as they would become powerless."

You will never get the assurance you are looking for. Just being realistic. We are a profession made up of human beings. There will ALWAYS be some that look out for themselves, are more concerned with money, break the law themselves, over-exert their authority, hope to step on anyone they can to make it to the top, or just be general assholes. I would challenge anyone who is bothering to read this to name a profession in which humans are the primary work force, and find NOT ONE instance of corruption, abuse of power, or assholishness.

While I agree 100000000000000% that we, as Law Enforcement officers, belong beside (and are answerable to) the citizens we swore to protect, there will always be those that don't see the profession that way. Such is life.

EDIT: I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Even my department gets federal money for equipment. We've used the DHS Grant every year to get needed equipment for my guys. This year's allotment went to new duty body armor, as some of ours was outdated, flashlights, and IFAKS and a Halligan for each car in case there is ever an active shooter at our school.

 

[KYpatriot]

Slinky there is nothing inherently wrong or evil about a rifle or a humvee or an MRAP. Saying a piece of hardware has that quality is the kind of logic anti-gun (anti-freedom?) zealots use to justify their assault on the people's right to defend themselves, and if I implied that in my post above that was not my intent. My point was people no longer trust the extra firepower in the hands of law enforcement, not like they used to. Why is that? That is the question.

The easy way to answer that would be to brush it off and conclude that a few crazies on the internet like Alex Jones are causing paranoia among a population of idiots. I think that is the cowardly answer because it releases us from a serious examination of ourselves as a society. Besides, it gives small minds like him too much credit and the people not enough. But for the sake of argument let's narrow it down a bit.

Take snipers hide for an example. I think it has the best quality of readership on the entire internet. It is full of people who put a lot of unpaid time to help each other perfect a craft, it is full of people who not only talk the talk but have walked the walk so to speak. It likely has more people who have taken an oath to the Constitution and had to live up to it than just about any place out there. In other words, patriots live here. Why do so many cops perceive an anti-government or anti-cop atmosphere here? I think those who do are misreading the intent but still, that is the perception. Are so many patriots here wrong, or is it more likely that the many people here with real life experience giving them a personal relationship to Constitutional principles are perceiving an ominous trend in this country? On an individual basis it could go either way but I'm talking about the big picture. What is more likely?

Look at the two examples of actual sheriffs I talked about above. One was quick to protect citizens from government overreach and the other I don't know but his attitude was hostile and the department has an armament the crime situation doesn't merit. The first guy I wouldn't perceive as a much of threat if he had an MRAP, the second guy I don't trust and I would oppose him having it. See what I mean?

If the snipers hide barometer is skepticism, that tells me something because of the readership here. I'm not saying everyone here is a genius or universally correct, but I would put the wisdom and experience and patriotism of this readership up against the general public anyday of the week, and it is a recurring theme. It's a discussion that comes up in military circles and is gaining traction everyday in public life. I really don't think it is personal hatred for cops or a desire for anarchy driving it. In some cases it is, but it shouldn't be.

I do think we can have the assurance I am looking for, precisely because there are many good cops like the sheriff that protected my friends, or the ones who told the Colorado legislature to pound sand. That's what we need, and when I can what I am trying to encourage. Like any population, some cops will make that stand no matter what, others will need leadership. Cops who take a stand make it easier for other LE to do so, and also send a message to those who attempt to control the people that if they want to play the tyrant's game they will have to do it with their own skin on the line. No matter what level an officer is at in the chain of command, it is a message worth sending and a principle worth defending.

 

[SLINKY ERT]

I do think we can have that assurance, precisely because there are many good cops like the sheriff that protected my friends or the ones who told the Colorado legislature to pound sand. That's what we need, and when I can what I am trying to encourage. Like any population, some cops will do that no matter what, others will need leadership. Cops who take a stand make it easier for other LE to do so, and also send a message to those who attempt to control the people that if they want to do it they will have to do it with their own skin on the line. No matter what level an officer is at in the chain of command, it is a message worth sending and a principle worth defending.

It's funny that you would bring up the Hide as a barometer. I have seen more "Cops are corrupt, Cops should be run over by drunk drivers, Cops are the same no matter what country you are in, Fuck the pigs, Cops stopped some poor girl for doing nothing but jaywalking" threads and comments than supportive threads in which LE has done good. On this site, it doesn't matter how many good deeds are done by the majority, once one or two guys fucks up (hell, sometimes the mere thought that they MIGHT have fucked up) it's enough to bring out the regulars and whip them into a frenzy.

This place is the same as any main stream media outlet. Nobody wants to comment about a cop who buys a kid McDonalds, then 10 minutes later is murdered. BUT, let someone post an article or Youtube video of what they perceive to be a "Violation of Justice", and it goes on for 6 pages.

It doesn't matter how many of us in LE get on here and try to tell our side of things, or attempt to have people reserve judgment until all the facts are in. Then, we're told that we "Circle the wagons". Those same folks then cry foul when one of us says "Your remarks make it seem like you don't like cops".

It doesn't matter that several Chiefs of Police (think about that for a minute.......not just County Sheriffs, but CHIEFS OF POLICE) are saying "We will NOT enforce any new gun laws", or go to State Hearings with the Sheriffs to testify against those asinine laws, we are all very much painted with the same brush as those Chiefs and Sheriffs that cow tow to the Governor or the President.

In all honesty, you won't TRULY know who's on your side until the balloon goes up and the fecal matter hits the oscillating device. Until then it's Hope.

 

[serevince]

I didn't read the whole thread, but there are some great points brought up, I'll have to go back and read some more.

I did lol though at the "head shot guy", if he would have said "I'm going to unload my weapon in your general direction and all my friends are going to join in!" I would have taken him more seriously.

Sent from my mind via apathy.

 

[KYpatriot]

I don't disagree Slinky, many good cops get painted with the same brush because of the actions of their leadership or other cops/ other departments. People are VERY sensitive to perceived infringements because of the distrust they have. It makes it hard on the cops trying to right, but I welcome this close scrutiny because without that pushback how much further would the bad cops be willing to go?

Law abiding people in general used to have much more respect for peace officers than they do now. I was trying to point out why I think that is, and how the agenda being pushed naturally pits even good officers against good people. The officer has to choose whether to enforce or intrude and the citizen has to decide whether to obey. Neither one may have asked for or be responsible for the situation but nevertheless when the rubber meets the road it isn't the politician who has to deal with this, real people at street level do. The citizens are tired of so many unjust laws and intrusions of their personal space. Law enforcement by definition are the ones enforcing them, whether they want to or enjoy it matters little, whether they give to charity matters little, what the citizens knows and cares about is that the strong arm of government is forcing something on them that is unjust.

Consider the citizens of CT that decided to stand on principle in civil disobedience of the registration law/weapons ban; how much are they supposed to trust a state trooper at their door? A felony is no small thing. Should they trust him if they know for a fact the trooper bought a poor kid shoes or runs an annual charity auction? Does that act of kindness mean the citizen should trust that the trooper won't change the citizen's life forever with a felony arrest? Would you?

This shouldn't be personal, and when it is it muddies the water and conceals the true problem. It is the hard facts of life that when a government gets beyond its authority and your job is to enforce its dictates that people start to look down at the entire profession when it should be considered noble in better times with better government. Naturally the people are skeptical, even hostile, because history shows that many cops (or military members ) will enforce just about anything. Who would have thought you could get Americans who took an oath to spy on the American people, without warrant, recording emails and texts and phone data with zero probable cause yet it is happening as we speak. People perceive that kind of abuse of power as a greater threat than crime, and they are absolutely correct to do so, because it is a greater threat.

 

[sulcop96]

I don't disagree, many good cops get painted with the same brush because of the actions of their leadership or other cops/ other departments. People are VERY sensitive to perceived infringements because of the distrust they have. It makes it hard on the cops trying to right, but I welcome this close scrutiny because without that pushback how much further would the bad cops be willing to go?

Law abiding people in general used to have much more respect for peace officers than they do now. I was trying to point out why I think that is, and how the agenda being pushed naturally pits even good officers against good people. The officer has to choose whether to enforce or intrude and the citizen has to decide whether to obey. Neither one may have asked for or be responsible for the situation but nevertheless when the rubber meets the road it isn't the politician who has to deal with this, real people at street level do. The citizens are tired of so many unjust laws and intrusions of their personal space. Law enforcement by definition are the ones enforcing them, whether they want to or enjoy it matters little, whether they give to charity matters little, what the citizens knows and cares about is that the strong arm of government is forcing something on them that is unjust.

Consider the citizens of CT that decided to stand on principle in civil disobedience of the registration law/weapons ban; how much are they supposed to trust a state trooper at their door? A felony is no small thing. Should they trust him if they know for a fact the trooper bought a poor kid shoes or runs an annual charity auction? Does that act of kindness mean the citizen should trust that the trooper won't change the citizen's life forever with a felony arrest? Would you?

This shouldn't be personal, and when it is it muddies the water and conceals the true problem. It is the hard facts of life that when a government gets beyond its authority and your job is to enforce its dictates that people start to look down at the entire profession when it should be considered noble in better times with better government. Naturally the people are skeptical, even hostile, because history shows that many cops (or military members ) will enforce just about anything. Who would have thought you could get Americans who took an oath to spy on the American people, without warrant, recording emails and texts and phone data with zero probable cause yet it is happening as we speak. People perceive that kind of abuse of power as a greater threat than crime, and they are absolutely correct to do so, because it is a greater threat.

KY patriot,

Sir, you, marduk and others do make some good arguments and I do understand your point of view. But I want to make a bit of an analogy here; isn't blaming cops for enforcing the laws enacted by elected officials a bit like blaming Marines, Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen for deploying to conflicts that those same elected officials deem they be sent to? I am not talking about the cop who oversteps his authority or through ignorance puts himself, and the LE community in a bad light. I am talking about the cop who stops the car because of the tail light even though he knows the person operating the vehicle is not a wanted felon of mass murder. Or the officer who reasonably checks the status of an armed citizen walking down a main street with an assault rifle slug over his shoulder.

On the tail light, it is my job to enforce the motor vehicle codes and a tail light out is not the crime of the century, and even though a minor traffic stop may lead to a good felony arrest 90% of the time its just a regular Joe (or Jill) like me that gets stopped. If I only stop the car with the Greatful Dead & legalize pot stickers on them then I am "targeting" and not universally applying the law. I am called upon to enforce the codes and laws, it is the citizens job to make sure they are following them. I do not enact the laws and sometimes do not agree with them, but it is not my job to pick and chose what laws I enforce then it is for me to decide what deployments I go on. Now do most cops I know ticket everyone? Heck no! In fact in my area there have been battles between the unions and management about the "quota" systems. Guess what, the cops did not want to be hamstrung into writing citations and we won. I can say I write less then 5% of the people I interact with a citation, and most of the my department falls in the 10-15% range. Speaking with other agencies in my area that seems to be the norm for most. So we do apply discretion as we enforce the laws.

As far as the Second Amendment is concerned, I and most cops are all for it. I am a lifetime member of the NRA and on a personal level side with my right to open carry, own a rifle, pistol etc. as long as I am doing so in a lawful manner. Now how long does it take to read the entire Second Amendment? less then a minute? OK, now how long does it take to read the States Articles on gun laws? Well MA G.L. c 139 & 140 are about 3" thick, and there are many contradictions. Trying to stay on top of all that is impossible. Now do I think we need all that? No, I do not but it is there and it is my duty to enforce. The other problem is that there is so much, and such confusion, it is not possible to stay on top of.

Now before the cry's "it's you job, you should know" start popping up let me say, valid point, your right and if all cops had an idactic memory's then it would be so. But the MV laws cover two volumes, criminal laws far more then that and lets not even get into procedural laws! I am looking at eight text books on my desk right now that cover what I am I am required to know. About as much as a lawyer, judge or heck even a doctor. But, the lawyer, judge, doctor and even average citizen has the time to go through the documents and see what the elements are and then after reading they are armed with the current information needed to make a decision. Most cops on the street have seconds to react, and sometimes make the wrong decisions due to ignorance. I am not condoning such mistakes, but they do happen to even the best cops.

I guess my overall point is good citizens like you sometimes know more then the officer responding. By cooperation and understanding there can be a partnership and the situation can be reasonably be taken care of. It is when the LEO runs across the person who already has a prejudice against the officers and escalates the situation at the start that the citizen as at fault. AND when the officers reacting with the situation come out all "Dirty Harry" that is when the officers are in the wrong. It happens both ways and I wish I had a dollar for every person who jumped down my throat because I stopped them for a simple traffic violation. Half the time they know that they were in violation of some law or ordinance but reflect the blame for the stop onto the officer. So again, cooperation on both sides will de-escalate most incidents.

And as for the laws of this Country and the fifty Sates, agree or disagree we officers of the law enforce them so if we do not like the laws then lets direct said criticism to the party that does, our elected officials. And again, I am not addressing the "bad cops" issue, simply the average cop on the beat.

Sully

 

[KYpatriot]

Sully speaking for myself I don't care about tail-lights and that kind of stuff, that is doing your job. If someone doesn't want to get stopped they should fix their lights. I'm talking about the larger issues related to the fourth, fifth, first and second amendments.

With respect to the military, yes it is like you describe. But, thank God, posse comitatus has protected America so that when the military follows misguided policy or abuses power either the military members themselves or foreigners suffer. The recent NDAAs have weakened posse comitatus which is not good at all. Now with law enforcement, the subject of force is almost always the American citizen, thus the citizens are much more likely to be aware of and resent abuses.

I understand that cops aren't responsible for the law, and the people themselves should elect better leaders, but that fact does not relieve the officer of their oath or their conscience, nor the fact that we need them to protect us not only from common criminals but sometimes our own authorities. My friends I talked about a few posts up were certainly grateful they had that kind of sheriff when they were threatened not by a robbers but by an out of control bureaucracy with guns. Lots of good men in CT are praying the state police choose to side with liberty as well.

 

[Shoottothrill]

Too many cops abuse to many Constitutional rights of the American people. I know it and they know it. Start upholding the oath you swore to uphold or get the fuck out of Police work. Period. You are not the Nazi Gustapo. The American Public pays your salary not the Government.

 

[Slapchop]

Too many cops abuse to many Constitutional rights of the American people. I know it and they know it. Start upholding the oath you swore to uphold or get the fuck out of Police work. Period. You are not the Nazi Gestapo. The American Public pays your salary not the Government.

Too many people don't even know what Constitutional rights are but are quick to jump on a cool sounding catch phrase or the proverbial band wagon. Not saying this pertains to you but just a statement in general.

To Slinky, Sully and KY, that was a good back and forth. Very informative on both parts.

 

[ArmyJerry]

True and sad at the same time.

Too many people don't even know what Constitutional rights are

 

[W54/XM-388]

The American Public pays your salary not the Government.

Well see here is the problem with that statement, while yes in the end the public (well at least the percentage that pay taxes) pays for their services, long ago the "public" got talked into how much nicer & easier it would be if they elected some "administrators" to handle the whole time consuming thing of collecting fees from everyone and getting various service providers paid etc.

Unfortunately due to greed, laziness & not being willing to fight the good fight for freedom each generation, eventually the "administrators" became the de facto "rulers" in cahoots with the class that the people elected as their representatives.

So as it is now, the administrator class takes your money by threat of force of arms (or when that is not enough, by taking out debts in your name) based on what both they and the representatives class conspire to spend.
Then they dish it out as they see fit with the "Public" having almost no say in how it goes.

So in reality the administrator class in cahoots with the representative class actually pay the salary of the police (and most other public services people) and as such, puts police officers in a bit of a bind as either they make the administrators happy, or they are kind of out of a job.

This is also why having an elected sheriff & elected judges is hugely important, as then at least some parts of the whole public safety system have to directly court the public every time there is an election.

So really your only option is every couple years when primaries and elections are held, to threaten the representative class with somebody other than them getting the key to the country club instead of them unless they do what you say. Unfortunately the representative class has gotten really good at picking who votes for them & for the rest, they know that most of the "public" have memories as long as a goldfish & are selfish, envious & uninterested in mental exercise and as such, easily shown what they "should" vote for.

Too many cops abuse to many Constitutional rights of the American people. I know it and they know it.

In truth, you need look no further than the mirror for the culprits.
People never ever ever learn that the chains they forge for others will be used on them.
Nor do people ever learn that when the country was founded, it was planted thick with hedges of laws to protect the people from the inevitable power of the government & if you cut down the hedges of laws to make it easier to get at those you don't like, those same hedges now no longer protect you.
But you throw a few words like: safety... drinking.. drugs... DWI... Terrorist... Child(add pretty much anything here)... Mexican... and people all of the sudden are begging for the laws protecting everyone to be torn down as fast as possible.
People get the government they deserve & those who are not willing to work hard and diligently at protecting and expanding freedom will see their freedom steadily eroded.

 

[fdkay]

Unfortunately due to greed, laziness & not being willing to fight the good fight for freedom each generation, eventually the "administrators" became the de facto "rulers" in cahoots with the class that the people elected as their representatives.

In truth, you need look no further than the mirror for the culprits.
People never ever ever learn that the chains they forge for others will be used on them.
Nor do people ever learn that when the country was founded, it was planted thick with hedges of laws to protect the people from the inevitable power of the government & if you cut down the hedges of laws to make it easier to get at those you don't like, those same hedges now no longer protect you.
But you throw a few words like: safety... drinking.. drugs... DWI... Terrorist... Child(add pretty much anything here)... Mexican... and people all of the sudden are begging for the laws protecting everyone to be torn down as fast as possible.
People get the government they deserve & those who are not willing to work hard and diligently at protecting and expanding freedom will see their freedom steadily eroded.

Now that, I can agree with wholeheartedly.
Very well written and a very good summation of some of our major problems.

 

[KYpatriot]

Too many people don't even know what Constitutional rights are but are quick to jump on a cool sounding catch phrase or the proverbial band wagon. Not saying this pertains to you but just a statement in general.

To Slinky, Sully and KY, that was a good back and forth. Very informative on both parts.

Slap you are right and that is how we got to this point in the first place.

Shoot, your post is why we can't have nice things around here. We can have the conversation without calling someone a nazi. I get your fervor and have been guilty of the same but we can do better, the good cops deserve better.

 

[DetroitRearView]

Too many cops abuse to many Constitutional rights of the American people. I know it and they know it. Start upholding the oath you swore to uphold or get the fuck out of Police work. Period. You are not the Nazi Gustapo. The American Public pays your salary not the Government.

Broad brush strokes like your post is what gets me going...I am retired Metro PD, everything from pushing a patrol car, range instructor, supervisor, evoc trainer, computer forensics, counter terrorism unit, homicide detective...etc

In other words broad experience and have worked with almost every Fed alphabet and military. Most, not ALL cops that I worked with were 2nd amendment supporters/honest/hard working/respectful/professionals that could have done anything in life, but chose to serve and protect others, so others can have a "nice normal day" instead of being spat upon, lied about, puked on, pissed on, come home bloody, sacrifice sleep for 72 straight, retire with metal all over your body and die young with disease.

Yes there are idiots that are cops. Yes there are crooks and murderers that are cops. We have arrested and killed our own when required.

So, from my "limited" perspective if you have not "been there, done that" you have no idea.

Oh, yes - I support open carry, always have. If you cannot be in the business and deal with it appropriately then get out. This is America and the 2nd Amendment only further defines what is inherently true in our Constitution...We the People .... NOT we the GOVERNMENT!

 

[sulcop96]

Too many cops abuse to many Constitutional rights of the American people. I know it and they know it. Start upholding the oath you swore to uphold or get the fuck out of Police work. Period. You are not the Nazi Gustapo. The American Public pays your salary not the Government.

Shhhhhhhhh, let the grown ups make cogent articulate points and you just watch and try to keep up.

Sully

 

[Veer_G]

Too many cops abuse to many Constitutional rights of the American people. I know it and they know it. Start upholding the oath you swore to uphold or get the fuck out of Police work. Period. You are not the Nazi Gustapo. The American Public pays your salary not the Government.

Too many people don't even know what Constitutional rights are but are quick to jump on a cool sounding catch phrase or the proverbial band wagon. Not saying this pertains to you but just a statement in general.

To Slinky, Sully and KY, that was a good back and forth. Very informative on both parts.

Wow. Six whole pages before we invoked Godwin's Law.

 

[KYpatriot]

This out today. Even the mainstream media is being forced to acknowledge it.

Americans rising up against government: Column

Interesting picture Veer. Check out the guy in the fedora bottom right corner. The look on his face...its like he could see the future.

 

[Veer_G]

Interesting picture Veer. Check out the guy in the fedora bottom right corner. The look on his face...its like he could see the future.

The bit in fraktur is the first line from a rather famous song. I was being a bit silly. It's interesting to note that not everyone is reacting in the uniform, compulsory fashion.

 

[Infringed711]

It would get it banned. See "California Open Carry."

Open carry may have been banned but it might have opened the door to make California shall issue. The 9th circuit through out the "just cause" portion of it, they are appealing and hopefully it goes to the SC and we can get Constitutional carry for everyone

 

[dwkuska]

In the interest of full disclosure I would like to say I am an open carry advocate, and open carry at home and everywhere I go(except where prohibitited). With that said I am simply baffled by just some of the remarks on the first page. Stopping someone for open carry in a state that permits it is not RAS, in fact it goes by another name "harassment." You cant argue that a peace officer is just checking to make sure they are not a mass murderer. That is quite frankly the most idiotic excuse I have ever heard. Based off of that logic we could go only a half step further and say police should stop and pat down EVERY citizen to see if they have a gun and check their "papers." I am absolutely enraged that such talk is coming from individuals on a pro 2A forum.

As I stated before I open carry(handgun) wherever I go. I am always staying vigiliant of my surroundings but I dont keep my "head on a swivel" as if I see some guy looking around every 5 seconds that would give me RAS to believe he is a threat to me and the public at large. I have found most people dont even notice I am carrying a firearm because I dont make a big scene about it. It sits at my 7 o'clock and I dont touch it except with my elbow in crowded situations to ensure it stays put.

I am of the opinion that not all cops are bad. The cop in the video however... needs a new career and maybe some therapy. I have talked to lots of police who have no issue with me or my firearm as long as I am not fondling my sidearm(read brandishing). I have only been "talked" to by a police officer once, and that officer was corrected by his co-worker when he walked up to see what was going on. I open carry because a right not exercised is a right lost. There should be NO FEAR of someone open carrying as 6 out of every 10 adults in my state on average carries a weapon concealed. If nothing else you should fear the people who feel the need to hide the fact that they are armed. If open carry is not for you then I can accept that. But to be on a gun website demonizing a 2A right.... you might as well turn in all your guns right now. Because if we start letting the govt take away this 2A right or that 2A right.. we have already lost. Cheers to those of you who support the 2A in its entirety!

 

[Gunga]

As far as news people go, I think Bill Ruppert is pretty main stream with all of the credentials. I don't keep up with that much so I don't know.
I saw this on his page just after going through this thread, so I came back since it seems relevant and on topic.
Heart breaking for any American really, no matter which side of the argument you are on
at the link Badged Serial Killers: The Growing Murder Culture of Cops (Part III) by Bill Buppert | ZeroGov

 

[DetroitRearView]

As far as news people go, I think Bill Ruppert is pretty main stream with all of the credentials. I don't keep up with that much so I don't know.
I saw this on his page just after going through this thread, so I came back since it seems relevant and on topic.
Heart breaking for any American really, no matter which side of the argument you are on
at the link Badged Serial Killers: The Growing Murder Culture of Cops (Part III) by Bill Buppert | ZeroGov

Yo, Bill stop reading articles and walk the streets of America.
So, allour military members are nothing but murderers as well, right?
I suppose next he will write an article about insane people who belong to forums like "Sniper's Hide"
Talk about naive...Sensationalism gains audience, not objectivity.

 

[BradZ]

Criminal cop, hope he serves prison time

 

[Shoottothrill]

Shhhhhhhhh, let the grown ups make cogent articulate points and you just watch and try to keep up.

Sully

Here we go with the condescending cop talk. I see from one of your posts you blame your actions of the politicians instead of thinking for yourself, you are just there robot.

Here's a quote from you, "But I want to make a bit of an analogy here; isn't blaming cops for enforcing the laws enacted by elected officials a bit like blaming Marines, Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen for deploying to conflicts that those same elected officials deem they be sent to?"

Open carry was not illegal in that officers jurisdiction period. I fail to see how your argument makes any sense at all. I never said that all cops violate citizens Constitutional rights, I said "too many Cops," I am not a cop hater. I have a friend who is a S.W.A.T. and neighbor and we shoot together on occasion.

Cops in Arizona would never hassle someone who was open carrying like the officer in the video.

 

[xdpatriot]

This is why I started this thread. Open MATURE discussion. This is how we start to fix this stuff.

 

[bogeybrown]

Now that we've gone 6 pages and a number of us have weighed in on the issue (I refrain from using the term "from both sides" because I don't see this as an issue of "taking sides"), I'd be sincerely interested in getting some opinions from those who took exception to this stop on how YOU fell they should be handled. The LE members have tried to explain some of the complexities of not simply being able so say to dispatch "yeah, I'm not going to the guy with a gun call". SO, having processed a LOT of input on this, what's the proper response to a guy walking down the street with an open-carry AR?

 

[EventHorizon]

Now that we've gone 6 pages and a number of us have weighed in on the issue (I refrain from using the term "from both sides" because I don't see this as an issue of "taking sides"), I'd be sincerely interested in getting some opinions from those who took exception to this stop on how YOU fell they should be handled. The LE members have tried to explain some of the complexities of not simply being able so say to dispatch "yeah, I'm not going to the guy with a gun call". SO, having processed a LOT of input on this, what's the proper response to a guy walking down the street with an open-carry AR?

1. to the caller who 'raised the alarm'. "Sir, we have an open-carry law that allows citizens to have firearms on their person. Is the man's firearm holstered or is it out? Is he holding the firearm in his hands?

2. "Sir, is the man behaving in an odd manner? Is he threatening anyone? Does he seem imparied?"

3. To the guy with the gun. "Excuse me sir, we know this is an open carry jurisdiction and that you're not brandishing your firearm but we've had reports that someone matchign your description was behaving threateningly with a firearm (assuming the caller answered yes to the above). It's very important that in the interest of your safety and ours, you keep your hands away from your firearm while we deal with this. Do you understand what I've just asked of you? We would like to put a lid on this by just checking that you're behaving responsibly, are not impaired and have the needed license for open carry. All those things check out then we'd be happy to get out of your way. Do you understand what I've just said to you? Now, if you need to reach into your pockets for the paperwork please go ahead and remember to not touch your firearm."

I"m clearly not trained to talk to the public about the law but I don't see a burning need to tell people that I'm going to shoot them in the head either.

As to the open carry an AK. Well, if I saw someone with an open carry AK and if they were carrying it with a magazine in and across the body I would probably pull out my firearm as I would see that as an imminent threat. I would have to presume it's loaded with one in the barrel and ready to go and there's no justification for that. If I'm wrong on this I'd like to know why as I'd hate to brandish when I thought I was doing the right thing.

 

[Slapchop]

Here we go with the condescending cop talk. I see from one of your posts you blame your actions of the politicians instead of thinking for yourself, you are just there robot.

Funny how you're free to post a childish, inaccurate, loaded and inflammatory comment and when you're called out on it, you want to cry that it's condescending. Hypocrite.

 

[sulcop96]

Here we go with the condescending cop talk. I see from one of your posts you blame your actions of the politicians instead of thinking for yourself, you are just there robot.

Here's a quote from you, "But I want to make a bit of an analogy here; isn't blaming cops for enforcing the laws enacted by elected officials a bit like blaming Marines, Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen for deploying to conflicts that those same elected officials deem they be sent to?"

Open carry was not illegal in that officers jurisdiction period. I fail to see how your argument makes any sense at all. I never said that all cops violate citizens Constitutional rights, I said "too many Cops," I am not a cop hater. I have a friend who is a S.W.A.T. and neighbor and we shoot together on occasion.

Cops in Arizona would never hassle someone who was open carrying like the officer in the video.

Sir, your post was designed to do no more then incite and irritate the LEO's conversing with concerned citizens and provided no substance. It received the attention that it truly deserved.

Now your attempting to present arguments and that is good, I would rather tilt into a hurricane then withdraw to a breeze and your OP was no more then a puff from your prison purse. This post has items worth commenting on so let us start a dialog.

Now because your quoting me my statement is about police enforcing the law, as noted I referenced the tail light. This is because sprinkled through the thread are comments about LE taking actions on situations other then the real crux of the post and that is LE actions towards 2nd Amendment issues, and as KYpatriot also broght up 4th & 5th Amendment as well. So point one, the public and members of this forum as well as posters in this thread extended the police actions to include all forms of LE response. My point is all laws and not the bigger VALID concerns raise by KYpatriot and others.

Now onto the robot comment, that is exactly the point of KYpatriot, Murdock and EvenHorizon. It is a point that has some valid concern and actually an aspect of law enforcement I feel needs more attention. In fact I believe my first post pointed out a need for both LE and the public to see the issue from the other side and to dump the myopic single lenses viewpoint. It is so valid it has triggered me to include more Con. Law into roll call training. This is the point at hand here, how can LE remain safe and effective without overstepping there authority. Simple, spend some time training and as a supervisor be there for any possibly situations that may arise.

And although "I" and my responses to situations are of no value to the thread I will address that because as you point out I am just a robot. I teach the firearms carry course in my town. In fact my presentation is being adopted by the Criminal Justice Training Council and standardized for use for certification to get the License to Carry. What I teach both citizen and officer is that we are an OPEN CARRY STATE and our citizens have a right to carry. As long as the carry is not creating a state of public alarm, example loading a firearm in a car outside a school or bank, brandishing and pointing or carrying while obviously intoxicate the role of responding officers is to observe. In fact of the 100+ calls for "man (or woman) with a gun" in my area all but two have been resolved without any more then a visual drive by where the officer does no more then exchange waves to at most a passing, "heading to the range today?"

BUT each situation is different and the LEO needs to look at the totality of the situation and think of his safety first ALWAYS. I will not comment on the video, and have refrained from doing so other then to state I would never allow an officer to use the "blow your head off" comment in that type of situation. Other then that I was not there, don't know all the facts and will not second guess the situation.

I stated above all but two situations were resolved with no more then a visual and report back to the caller by the officer. Of the two that were not I was involved in both. I will not relate "war stories" because they should all start with "once upon a time" or "and there I was" but suffice to say I approached someone in the wrong way and was shot. So yes, even seeming nice people may have other motives, such as going to there wife's place of work (armed) because she filed for divorce. SO even though Event Horizon has a nice outline on how to approach (and items I am going to use) it does not always work even in seemingly innocent situations.

As for cops in AZ not hassling... how do you know that to be the case in every situation? I have trained officer and tactical officer from AZ and have been there several times. Cops exchange stories so I think I have a bit of a better basis on knowledge then you do and think that statement is again myopic. The officers I have encountered in AZ are a very solid bunch and better trained then some but there are no one size fits all situations on the streets.

Sully

 

[sulcop96]

1. to the caller who 'raised the alarm'. "Sir, we have an open-carry law that allows citizens to have firearms on their person. Is the man's firearm holstered or is it out? Is he holding the firearm in his hands?

2. "Sir, is the man behaving in an odd manner? Is he threatening anyone? Does he seem imparied?"

3. To the guy with the gun. "Excuse me sir, we know this is an open carry jurisdiction and that you're not brandishing your firearm but we've had reports that someone matchign your description was behaving threateningly with a firearm (assuming the caller answered yes to the above). It's very important that in the interest of your safety and ours, you keep your hands away from your firearm while we deal with this. Do you understand what I've just asked of you? We would like to put a lid on this by just checking that you're behaving responsibly, are not impaired and have the needed license for open carry. All those things check out then we'd be happy to get out of your way. Do you understand what I've just said to you? Now, if you need to reach into your pockets for the paperwork please go ahead and remember to not touch your firearm."

I"m clearly not trained to talk to the public about the law but I don't see a burning need to tell people that I'm going to shoot them in the head either.

As to the open carry an AK. Well, if I saw someone with an open carry AK and if they were carrying it with a magazine in and across the body I would probably pull out my firearm as I would see that as an imminent threat. I would have to presume it's loaded with one in the barrel and ready to go and there's no justification for that. If I'm wrong on this I'd like to know why as I'd hate to brandish when I thought I was doing the right thing.

Event Horizon, This is actually very good and more or less a blueprint of how we handle such calls. A bit more articulate then what I put out to my guys, but solid and usable. The only issue is that even the most law abiding citizen may have malice in there heart and have another motive for carrying, openly or not. This is where officer safety comes into play and I don't feel an officer should every take there own safety into risk in dealing with any situation. To error and be alive and take the scrutiny is better then to be shot or killed.

Now I am not saying to approach with guns drawn, demand papers as use the "shoot them in the head" linguistics, but there are times when, as in the AK posted above, that LE has to make an obvious "strong" approach.

The key is helping the officers understand when and where to be more "sheepdoggie" and when to be more officer friendly.

Also the term Sheep Dog that has upset a few people has NOTHING to do with a badge. Lt. Col. Grossman outlines the Sheep, Wolf, and Sheepdog and in his Killology books and seminars. And although I don't see eye to eye with all his teachings I do understand what he is attempting to get across. I would venture that the majority of Hide members are Sheepdogs. And yes there are cops who are Wolves and to the poster who stated that he hopes the corrupt cops go to jail, every decent cop in the country is in agreement with you!

Sully

 

[Sniper Uncle]

Having pored over this thread, a couple thoughts come to mind.

1. I only watched the video, and don't know all of what transpired, just what I saw and heard in the video clip. Thus, everything I say here is based solely on incomplete information.

2. It seemed to me that everyone in the video behaved in a very poor fashion.
A. What the hell were the two fools thinking, sauntering down the street with rifles slung over their back??? If they were exercising the right to Open Carry, then it was a stupid way to go about it. If they had nefarious motives, then the stop was definitely warranted. It really isn't clear what was at stake here, but I suspect the former.
B. What the hell was the officer thinking in giving repeated threats to "shoot you in the head if you make a move with your hands (presumably toward the gun)"???? I really don't give a shit, the officer could have worded that much differently. I understand that he may have had to follow orders to respond to a 911 call. I get that he wanted to establish his authority and control the situation. But the fact remains, from what is shown on the video, that he said inflammatory things at best, and at worst, seriously unjustified escalation of the affair. The two dudes, to my sight, never did make any threatening moves, the rifle was slung over the back, what did they do that could possibly warrant being shot "in the head"???
C. to my sight, the woman back-up officer looked to be pointing the gun at the kid with the gun. I know you can't tell for sure, I also can see that she wasn't sighting it on his head, but it sure looked like her "low-ready" stance was aimed at the kid. A trigger slip would have probably ended in a gut or chest shot. Did the kid really do anything that warranted a possible GSW???

I have had a lot of dealings with LEO's over my years----you are bound to when you drive a truck transporting permitted loads all the time. I have been victim of an arrest for a crime that was never committed, much less was it a violent crime. The officer said,"This charge most likely will be dropped, as it isn't even the correct charge, and we can't find a better charge, but my commanding officer said to arrest and charge you…" I also have many experiences with "good" cops, that have behaved very professionally and had a job to do. I have received tickets that were justified, as well as some that were not. I really is the rotten experiences that one remembers, not the good ones.

Bear in mind, the adage is always true, "ONE OH SHIT wipes out 1000 Atta-Boy's."

To all the LEO's in this thread, whether active duty still or not, thanks for serving, and I hope you think about this video and what the appropriate way to handle this would have been. We may not agree on how to handle it, but I think we can agree that this wasn't that particular officer's finest hour----at least I pray to God it wasn't.

 

[dwkuska]

To the question about the AK or AR-15... I will not speak for every state but in WA state it IS legal to opencarry a rifle. Now if its an AK or an AR your probably going to be asked to leave places of business(if so your rights are gone in that PRVATE owned establishment) and possibly have a police officer ask to speak with you. I have carried an AR-15 on my back at an open carry event in our states capital. That was the first and last time I will do so as I dont feel the need to carry anything that big. If I get into a situation with a "bad guy" then my glock 17 gives my attacker 17 reasons to surrender or flee before I get to a "real" gun. I can tell you in WA state there is no paperwork needed to open carry its in the state constitution. If your 18+ you have the RIGHT to open carry without any license or permits. Though I will say I ALWAYS advise having a concealed weapon permit because if your shirt or coat falls over it for even a second your illegaly concealing without a permit.

Regarding the "low and ready" position. I think this was COMPLETELY out of line to have their sidearms out of their holsters at all. The folks in the video posed no imminent threat to them or the community. If you have your weapon holstered but unsnapped you are sawing you are willing to use lethal force. If you have your hand on a a holstered unsnapped weapon you are showing intent to use lethal force. If your gun is out of its holstered you are showing imminent use of lethal force to the threat at hand. I will say again those police need new jobs as they are a risk to the community and are likely to get themselves or others killed. Dont believe me Bing/Google "Officer Birk Seattle." IMO when you are in a role that requires you to carry a firearm if you show your inability to control yourself thats not a training issue.. thats a find a new job issue. I am so tired of these rogue cop stories that kill their wives/ect and everyone says they are shocked when the rogue officers have a history of excessive force and short tempers.

 

[Infringed711]

^^^basically my thoughts on the situation

 

[orkan]

It really boils down to this:

If I have a choice between not having my Constitutionally-protected God-given rights violated or infringed upon in any way, or not having anyone to keep me safe, then I choose to not have anyone to keep me safe.

If officers cannot do their job without violating or infringing upon the rights enjoyed by every citizen in this country, then we have a problem. The Overton window is at work here. What are considered borderline or questionable actions now, would not even be up for discussion 30 years ago. Granted, things are different now than were then, but the Constitution is basically unchanged.

There are numerous things that are completely unconstitutional, yet tolerated and considered legal.
Manditory stopping at DUI checkpoints to "check and see if you are breaking the law."
Requiring all citizens to take off their firearms before entering courthouses and various public places.
Forcing citizens from their home so that they can gain a tactical advantage on a potential criminal next door.
I could go on and on.

You can take a look at any major news outlet, and you will find an instance of police abusing their authority every single day.

None of this says all cops are bad. None of this says there aren't good cops. None of this says all cops are good. This says there is a massive and growing disconnect between police forces and the public at large. So who's fault is it? The people's... that's who.

Society at large relies on police to keep them safe. This is nothing but an illusion. The police cannot possibly keep everyone safe. Even in a tiny town, their response time is over 10 minutes, and that is an eternity in a life threatening situation. They aren't required to keep us safe either, yet that is what everyone EXPECTS them to do. You know what happens when you task someone to do an impossible job? They FAIL. Well that is exactly what is happening. The police keep tightening the noose, under the guise of keeping us safe, because that is what people say they want. In doing so, they infringe upon our rights in order to catch the bad guys at a rate that will make the public happy, perpetuating the illusion of safety.

Combine that with the fact that shitbags will work to manipulate the system to get out of getting caught or convicted, and it basically ensures that it will be an unworkable division between law enforcement and the citizens they are charged with protecting.

It's also heavily political. We have greater divisions among our society than has ever been since the war for independence. If I'm pulled over by a cop that doesn't like guns in the hands of citizens, and he sees my cab full of guns as it always is, he's going to be on edge and totally shitty with me. It's happened many times. So in a time when Alpha citizens deal with government intrusion into every aspect of their lives on a daily basis, should it really surprise anyone that those same Alpha citizens disagree with police "checking to see" if they are a criminal? Strict constitutionalists feel our rights are violated every single day, yet we are ostracized because we don't want to compromise and lose yet MORE of our rights.

Like it or not, police are the physical arm of the politicians... and there are very few politicians that are worthy of the public trust. Corruption in every level of government in virtually every city, county, and state in the country. You don't have to look hard to find it. So it doesn't surprise me at all that there is a continuing division between citizens and law enforcement.

It will continue until people realize they should be responsible for their own safety.

 

[bogeybrown]

Some great points raised, many as diverse as the individuals who hold them. Rather than get into a point by point discussion of each (again), I'll share the approach on EVERY single contact I made with EVERY SINGLE citizen regardless of circumstance or socio-economic level:

"As a citizen, how would I WANT a Police Officer to handle this interaction with me?/What is a REASONABLE response from a Police Officer to me and my actions at the time?"

I, as a citizen, understand that I'm not always going to get what I WANT when I deal with the police (a warning instead of a ticket for example), but I can accept that it's reasonable for an officer to cite me for a violation.

If I'm drunk and belligerent I may WANT the officer to give me a break, but if I take a swing at him I accept that it's a completely reasonable response for him to use force against me. After all, I took a swing at a cop, so why should I reasonably expect him to let me hit HIM and him to NOT hit me back or at least use the force to get me to jail?

If I am going out of my way to attract the attention of law enforcement then I've got to expect that I'm going to get the attention I was seeking.


Through some PMs, MosestheTank and I figured out that we grew up in the same place, with one of the worst police departments in America, PERIOD. I grew up knowing that I never wanted the attention of the Police, EVER. It didn't matter that I was a pretty good kid, the cops didn't know me and didn't CARE. If I did something dumb enough to get the police involved, I was going to get dealt with based on my actions at the time, NOT based on how great of a guy I was. Even when I was still active LE, I never sought interaction with the police. Hell, very few of my friends were police when I was on the job. The guys that were, were because they would have been guys I'd be friends with anyway. I didn't instantly like someone because we were both cops. In many cases it was the opposite, and I didn't want them around me or my family away from work.

The best interaction with law enforcement you can possible have is NO interaction. Why some of the people on youtube go out of their way to initiate a contact that has a poor chance of going well is beyond me.

I think the "dis-connect" here on the Hide is that most of us are the types of people for whom the police are NOT a part of our daily lives. We don't call the police for every little problem, we don't ask them to come out in the middle of the night to investigate a strange noise, we handle our business ourselves. There are whole segments of the population for whom the police are as regular as the Mail Man. I've been to houses where the kids met me at the door and called back to their mother "Mom, Mr Brown's here!", not "Mom, the POlice are here". I was so much a part of daily life for those people that they knew me by name and knew my schedule because they'd wait until my day on shift to call so I'd be the one to come out and deal with the latest installment of their sagas.

 

[orkan]

Precisely.

Should that mean that those of us whom do not want police interaction should have it forced upon us when we've done nothing to solicit the interaction?

That question is at the very heart of the debate. We are less free today than we were yesterday, and that trend will continue until proper respect and weight is given to the constitution again. By the police, and by the people. The police should not be a part of our daily lives, and people should not be allowed to make them a part of their daily lives. The unreasonable mandate to keep people safe should be removed.

At that point we'll actually be able to have an honest conversation about things. Right now, as it stands, an officer that violates the constitution justifies it by telling us it was for our safety, and no one cares except the person whom had their rights violated. Or the officer/officers will simply make up something to keep himself from getting in trouble. There is no honest conversation, because they are trying to defend and indefensible position supporting an unreasonable mandate.

So what do we do? Society at large seems perfectly fine with checkpoints. They seem perfectly fine with being disarmed. They seem perfectly fine with people's rights being violated, as long it's not their rights. Does anyone think the police will change if society doesn't expect anything different from them? If people keep asking unreasonable tasks of police, how can it possibly get better? Set someone up for failure, and they absolutely will fail, and that is exactly what has happened with the police.

I won't even get started on the budgetary process and how it affects governmental decisions. I've seen law enforcement at just about every level make horrendously stupid decisions which had nothing to do with need, and everything to do with money. "Need to spend that budget, ALL OF IT, so we can ask for more next year and at least get what we got last year!"

Our society is sick gentlemen. It's not the fault of the police or the politicians... but the people.

 

[fdkay]

It really boils down to this:

There are numerous things that are completely unconstitutional, yet tolerated and considered legal.

Requiring all citizens to take off their firearms before entering courthouses and various public places.
Forcing citizens from their home so that they can gain a tactical advantage on a potential criminal next door.
I could go on and on.

You can take a look at any major news outlet, and you will find an instance of police abusing their authority every single day.

Orkan, I agree with much that you have said in the last two posts here. Not everything, but the majority and the spirit of what you said.
I just want to touch base here on two items.
The carry of firearms in the courtroom.
This is a public safety issue. Have you not seen the fights that break out in the courtrooms?
These are emotionally charged environments a great deal of the time.
I am here to tell you, that in MANY cases, a firearm would have been used to deal out "justice" in a packed courtroom.

Evacuating nearby homes in the case of high risk warrants or standoffs with armed suspects.
Really? You would rather have them next door when bullets start flying?
Even if it is "to gain a tactical advantage" they wish to gain tactical advantage to minimize the threat of injury or death to the perp, to the officers and to the public at large.

 

[bogeybrown]

Orkan,

In going through your post, it doesn't appear as though really any of your issues have to do with the POLICE, but rather government and society as a whole. I couldn't agree more that SOCIETY and GOVERNMENT have lost their GD minds. When the two driving forces behind LE are off the rails, then there's obviously going to be some massive policy problems.

When you figure out how to get the country back to some semblance of common sense and restore some level of personal accountability, then by all means don't just let us know, please keep your SH account active so we can PM you in the White House to discuss some tax breaks. Although, the "take care of yourself" message doesn't get people elected anymore; the "Santa Claus" approach is what gets people elected where you promise all things to all people for "free" (read "on the backs of the dwindling # of tax payers).


And just for the record, where I worked the police had to secure their weapons in the courthouse also. The only people "allowed" to be armed in the courthouse were the judges, not even the bailiffs were armed in court.

 

[orkan]

Orkan,

In going through your post, it doesn't appear as though really any of your issues have to do with the POLICE, but rather government and society as a whole. I couldn't agree more that SOCIETY and GOVERNMENT have lost their GD minds.

The police are the physical arms, hands, and legs of government. Government is a reflection of society as a whole. So yes, the police are used by governments to interact with their citizens. Government makes the laws requested by the people, police enforce those laws. They are not some innocent third party. The "I'm just doing my job" defense does not fly with me. When I was in the military, I was under oath, and I could be and SHOULD be held accountable for violating that oath. Job be damned.

Have you not seen the fights that break out in the courtrooms?

I didn't say courtroom. I said courtHOUSE. However, lets say I said courtroom. Knowing full well that courtrooms can turn into MMA fights... I'm supposed to know and realize that I'm going into a potentially dangerous situation and NOT be armed, even though I'm armed 24/7 everywhere else I go? That's like saying, I carry a gun to the coffee shop, but I'm going to the ghetto so I'll leave it at home. The officers in the court room are NOT legally bound to protect me. If they fail in their "duties" and I am injured, I cannot win a court case against them for their inability to protect me. This is well documented. So, upon entering, I'm FORCED to become a victim if I want to be on that PUBLIC property.

What I was referring to was the courtHOUSE. Any time I need to modify a title, get something licensed, or pay taxes for instance... I must enter the courthouse. By doing so I must render myself a victim before entering the facility. If I do not get licensed, then I'm a criminal! If I don't pay my taxes, I'm a criminal. So they FORCE me to go there, and present identification before doing many things, yet will not allow me to protect my own life while on PUBLIC PROPERTY. I don't have a problem with private businesses doing whatever they want. I don't NEED to go, nor am I FORCED to go to a private business. I can simply not go to those businesses that have a no-guns policy. (not that they'd know I was carrying anyway) I am obligated by law to go to the court house when demanded, as a function of being an adult in society that owns businesses, houses, and vehicles.

In my town, the sherrifs office is 20 feet from the courthouse. We have had 3 escapes in the last year. Why should I be OK with and be forced to enter that "gun free" criminal-safety zone where I KNOW there is a high likelihood that I'll run into some of the bottom feeders of society? The POLICE are the ones that enforce that completely unconstitutional law. If I disobey, and am caught, I will immediately be classified a felon. Once so classified, I will never be able to protect my life with truly lethal force again! So my choice is to submit to the absolutely unconstitutional law, or risk forfeiture of my freedom.

Rights are always violated under the veil of safety. There is no other mechanism so efficient as to say "it is for the good of the people." "God wills it! Whom than can be against us, if God is with us?"

Need I remind you: "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Evacuating nearby homes in the case of high risk warrants or standoffs with armed suspects.
Really? You would rather have them next door when bullets start flying?
Even if it is "to gain a tactical advantage" they wish to gain tactical advantage to minimize the threat of injury or death to the perp, to the officers and to the public at large.

My home is my castle. The officers have no legal requirement to keep me safe. They have a mandate, yes, but no legal requirement. So they may approach my castle as a guest, and inform me of the danger. If then I decide to remain inside, they have NO LEGAL RIGHT to expel me from my home.

This "public safety" you speak of is an ILLUSION, created by those in power, to amass still more power... and the police are often unwittingly the mechanism which that power is abused. Hundreds of thousands that have died before us, to protect the founding principles upon which this nation rose to great prosperity. It is absolutely heart-breaking to watch people compromise and disregard those ultimate of sacrifices under the damnable lie of safety rendered.

The fact that the police, by and large, are so very resistant to these ideals and resistant to absolute accountability is very alarming to me.

 

[bogeybrown]

The police are the physical arms, hands, and legs of government. Government is a reflection of society as a whole. So yes, the police are used by governments to interact with their citizens. Government makes the laws requested by the people, police enforce those laws. They are not some innocent third party. The "I'm just doing my job" defense does not fly with me. When I was in the military, I was under oath, and I could be and SHOULD be held accountable for violating that oath. Job be damned.

We're saying the same thing. The PEOPLE through their government enact the laws. At least that's how it's supposed to work. I don't know that there has been a time in recent American history, if at all, that the government was LESS representative, but nonetheless the theory if not the practice still stands. If you don't like the laws, then the change has to take place at the societal level. The absolute LAST thing you want is LE as an institution going off the reservation and making its own rules. That being said, there IS quiet disobedience within the LE community when the politicians completely lose their minds and certain things simply go un-enforced under the umbrella of discretion.

DISCRETION is the big hairy gorilla that is both the absolute best and worst of things depending on how it's used.


I know it's been quite some distance since the OP, but if you'll recall, this entire discussion started from an instance where 2 guys did in fact SOLICIT the attention of the police. They went out of their way to have interaction with the police. This wasn't a case of the police seeking these guys out. Anytime you start the "SH" don't be amazed if the "IT" follows. That applies in every part of our daily lives, from our bosses to our spouses.

 

[KYpatriot]

Orkan,

In going through your post, it doesn't appear as though really any of your issues have to do with the POLICE, but rather government and society as a whole. I couldn't agree more that SOCIETY and GOVERNMENT have lost their GD minds. When the two driving forces behind LE are off the rails, then there's obviously going to be some massive policy problems.

When you figure out how to get the country back to some semblance of common sense and restore some level of personal accountability, then by all means don't just let us know, please keep your SH account active so we can PM you in the White House to discuss some tax breaks. Although, the "take care of yourself" message doesn't get people elected anymore; the "Santa Claus" approach is what gets people elected where you promise all things to all people for "free" (read "on the backs of the dwindling # of tax payers).

Orkan and BB have hit the nail on the head here, but I have a slightly different take on it. Let's put a laser like focus on something. Just because the people demand something, even overwhelmingly, does not make it Constitutional or give anyone in government a pass on their oath. The people have no right to waive the Constitution for an individual. If the vast majority of people acquiesce to DUI stops without probable cause or warrantless phone record collection those things are still a violation of my rights, which ALSO makes them a violation of someone's Oath. The very purpose of a Constitutional republic is to use the rule of LAW, i.e. the Constitution, to protect the individual from the majority. Democracy/public sentiment is in fact nothing more than tyranny of the majority...which is why the founders wouldn't consider it a viable form of government. I always cringe when someone says we are a democracy simply because we vote for our leadership. Government officials of all stripes, and collectivists alike, love to use this deception to attempt to justify themselves when they decide to violate the Constitution. "The people want it" is never justification for violating the Constitution, but rather a form of anarchy (tyranny of the strong or powerful).

If government followed the rule of law in this country, and if the leadership of the various police agencies followed the rule of law, then whatever people demanded for their safety would always be tested against what the Constitution allows. Instead leadership increases their powers at the expense of liberty and violate rights when bowing to political pressure by pandering to the public. The tyrant's favorite trick is to create the political pressure to do what they want to do anyway by sowing the seeds of fear among the people in the hope they will choose false security over liberty. These things are wrong and are a violation of the oath public servants take to the Law. As we speak these tactics are setting the patriots in this country on a collision course with LE and their own government. Here is the danger: when a citizen ignores the law he is declaring for himself the rule of man, and government can restore the rule of law with the services of a police officer. The officer first asks for compliance, then uses force. When government ignores the law and declares for itself the rule of man, the principle is exactly the same. The people should ask for compliance, but if they must will use force, if they value liberty and want to restore the rule of law. It isn't difficult to imagine the terrible consequences of such a fight, but there is no getting around it; there is either the rule of law and liberty or the rule of man and descent into tyranny and bloodshed.

I point this out because while I agree with you both that we as a society are getting the government we deserve, it doesn't follow that two wrongs make a right. In other words, none of us who ever took the oath are relieved of our oath by the sway of popular opinion, difficulty, danger, or even futility when it seems we are the only ones standing. Anyone with governmental authority of any kind must always say no to unConstitutional measures, even if they are popular, if they want to uphold their oath. This is our first duty or the oath is meaningless and the rule of law dead. Unfortunately, our society indoctrinates LE (and politicians) with the idea that the highest priority is to prevent crime or serve public desire, when neither is true and never was. Preserving the rule of law and preventing the fight that results from the destruction of the rule of law is our highest duty.

 

[orkan]

If the vast majority of people acquiesce to DUI stops without probable cause or warrantless phone record collection those things are still a violation of my rights, which ALSO makes them a violation of someone's Oath.

Yes sir! Thank you for that.

 

[KYpatriot]

We're saying the same thing. The PEOPLE through their government enact the laws. At least that's how it's supposed to work. I don't know that there has been a time in recent American history, if at all, that the government was LESS representative, but nonetheless the theory if not the practice still stands. If you don't like the laws, then the change has to take place at the societal level. The absolute LAST thing you want is LE as an institution going off the reservation and making its own rules. That being said, there IS quiet disobedience within the LE community when the politicians completely lose their minds and certain things simply go un-enforced under the umbrella of discretion.

DISCRETION is the big hairy gorilla that is both the absolute best and worst of things depending on how it's used.

BB if you would read my post above and then re-read your quote above. What I am saying is that when LE refuses to enforce a law they believe is unConstitutional, that they are not "going off the reservation" but instead are planting a flag squarely ON the reservation as an anchor to prevent society, the boss, or whoever from dragging them off of it.

Think of it just like an unlawful order in the military... We not only have the right to disobey, but the duty to do so. The trick is to discern between orders that are unlawful and those that are merely stupid and ill advised, which is why we study, train and call ourselves professionals.

In the same way our discernment as citizens of the republic can be increased by educating ourselves about the Constitution and understanding better it's original intent. Even though our duty to the oath may not be as black and white as we would like, if we approach the question with the integrity and gravity it deserves I am confident we can live with the imperfect results. The problem is that we too often dodge the question.

As a corollary, when I was still in the AF I had the misfortune of career progression, which required me at times to leave the cockpit and work at various levels in the chain of command, including some work at the national command authority level. We all know the military stresses following orders and focuses our training on that. But I can tell you from my admittedly limited experience as one man, that our mission failures are almost always from the inability of someone to say "no", usually someone high up in leadership who knows better but along the way surrendered their own judgment in favor of career progression. I am positive you have experienced the consequences of that character weakness in OIF/OEF.

So goes our society. The problem is rarely people using too much of their own discretion, but rather not enough following their conscience.

 

[bogeybrown]

. The tyrant's favorite trick is to create the political pressure to do what they want to do anyway by sowing the seeds of fear among the people in the hope they will choose false security over liberty.

I didn't want to go all the way back to quote myself, but I think you remember me saying this exact same thing, almost verbatim, earlier in the thread and referenced the Patriot Act. I'm with you brother, I scream it from the mountaintops.

The power of the politicians to stampede the sheeple off the cliff of liberty onto the rocks of subjugation is etched into the headstones of millions of hapless souls in the annals of history.

The issue I raised with alarming the public because someone CAN, is that they run the risk of CAUSING the stampede. In this case you have 2 guys raising a public alarm because it's within their rights to do so. Now, do you count on the public at large to say, "oh well, it scares the shit out of me, but if it's constitutionally protected, then it must be okay, I'll just have the shit scared out of me then."?
Not likely, what happens is the public starts an outcry against the second amendment, even the people who had no reason in the past to be in any way anti-gun. You've taken the moderates and given them a reason to push on the wrong side of the issue. The very issue these guys are claiming to try to advance may very well end up being attacked. They've given the public a real-to-them reason to pressure their lawmakers, even at the municipal level, to take away their freedoms in the name of PERCEIVED public safety.

Now, how many politicians say "we couldn't possibly restrict your freedoms or violate the Constitution, even if you're demanding we do it."?
Again, not likely.

What is even MORE dangerous, is that these incidents shade the perception of LE. I can guarantee you that if our bosses ever came into a roll call, whether it be the Sgt or the Chief, or the Mayor, and went out and TOLD us to go fuck with law abiding gun owners we'd tell them to get fucked or at the very least just flat-out ignore them, If for no other reason than because cops are THE most contrary, rebellious sons of bitches you'll ever find. You could set a cop on fire and if the wrong boss told him to put himself out, he'd burn to death rather than do what he was told.
BUT, by putting cops in these situations, the cops have a personal interest in not standing out on the sidewalk in an impossible position the next time. Even though they may be insanely pro 2A, they also hate being in impossible situations. SO, they get offered a law that allows them to deal with the "problem" next time. Human nature (that ugly bitch) is now at play, and the cops will work within the law (even though they'd ordinarily HATE the damn thing) to handle the next call.

I can't comment specifically on every Dept's oath, as I've only take 2 in LE, but they tend to focus on swearing to uphold the laws of the relevant jurisdiction. I'm not offering that as an excuse, but the issue of oaths was raised, so I just wanted to bring it up that the LE oath is not the same as the one the Military takes. If you look at the Oath the military takes, and then look at what your day to day existence is in the military, would you say that you spent more time "protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic" or would you say you spent more time doing what you were told to do by a superior?

I don't care if you were at Belleau Wood, Iwo Jima, Khe Sahn, Bagdad, or wherever, you spent most of your time doing what you were told. The last guys in uniform that actively defended the CONSTITUTION of the United States did so at places like Gettysburg.

ETA: Just saw KY posted again before I could reply. My comments regarding the defense of the Constitution were in no way directed towards any specific person's service or duties.

 

[xdpatriot]

I can guarantee you that if our bosses ever came into a roll call, whether it be the Sgt or the Chief, or the Mayor, and went out and TOLD us to go fuck with law abiding gun owners we'd tell them to get fucked or at the very least just flat-out ignore them, .

Thank you. That's bad ass shit right there. Everything else is bullshit and I'll support any officer that thinks like this. Bravo.

 

[orkan]

usually someone high up in leadership who knows better but along the way surrendered their own judgment in favor of career progression.

Look at what happens to those that step outside the "group." Law enforcement treats their profession as a brotherhood. Thus, anyone not a member of that organization is not afforded the level of leeway enjoyed by the members. It is very hard to maintain objectivity in that environment. Again, if people are setup to fail, they generally will fail. The rare exceptions to this are those officers that do speak out on matters of constitutionality. How are they treated by their "brothers?"

Then there is the implied division that such a situation automatically creates between the "brotherhood" and the citizenry. This is its own topic within itself.

Truly, look at what happens when ANY person deviates from a socially established norm amongst a group of people. Hell, I can't even mention S&B on this forum without drawing fire. For what? Because I hold a different opinion than most here. There you have a prime example of mob rule. The very thing that is not suppose to exist in this constitutional republic of ours. Granted this forum is not governed by those "laws" so I'm not saying it applies here. Its simply an example of what happens when someone speaks out in regard to unpopular ideas or ideologies.

For an officer to speak out against their organization is typically career suicide. They will forever be viewed to have betrayed the "brotherhood," while in actuality may have been the soul voice of opposition amongst a sea of constitutional cripples. This will follow them between departments.

It's amazing how easily the line can be blurred. Bogey, in reference to the OP's video, you state that the gentlemen walking initiated the situation. That they wanted a confrontation with the police. I disagree entirely. If law enforcement protected citizens rights to bear arms instead of infringed upon it... would there be a sea of people out there looking to make a statement? I don't believe there would be. Suppose it becomes politically incorrect to wear pants in public, so the police can more clearly see if you are concealing an illegal weapon? If I decide "To hell with that bullshit, I'm wearing pants today," and an officer approaches me, am I to apologize for NOT breaking the law? You may think it's a stretch, but I bet if you traveled back in time 120 years and told those people about standard police procedures today, they would not believe it possible. If police respond to someone that is NOT breaking any laws, and treat them as if they ARE a criminal, guilty until proven innocent, how can you possibly expect that interaction to turn positive? The very notion of this goes against the entire foundation of our country. To compromise here, renders us expected to compromise EVERYWHERE. From the perspective of the police, obviously they are safer if no one has guns. Yet the truth is, they are in more danger, because here in the real world, gun laws and irrational unlawful police response to legally owned firearms does no thing except create and empower criminals.

The "good" cops I know, prefer an armed citizenry. If people are in charge of their own safety, and prepared to deal with threats, it is less work for them, and far less dangerous. More guns in the hands of trained law-abiding citizens equals less crime. This is not an opinion, but a statistical fact which is backed up by common sense if nothing else. Criminals fear armed citizens FAR more than police officers do. Though some scarcely doth suggest it.

Reference again the OP's video. Now remove the calls that irrational panicky concerned citizens made to the PD. Would there have been an incident? Perhaps, if one of those cops drove by and spotted those "soon to be criminals" with those evil guns. Remove the police from the referenced video, and those guys could likely have walked until their boots fell off without an incident occurring. The police force has allowed a very vocal liberal minority to influence their thinking and reactions to such a degree that the sight of a gun, regardless of its condition or presentation, solicits fear and immediate over-escalation of force. They mistakenly think they are doing the community a service of safety by doing so, when in fact, they are doing irreparable harm to society as a whole. By perpetuating this illogical fear, they are doing the illogical gun-hating left minority a huge service, by placing authority and force behind their irrational views which shifts the Overton window farther to the left on the outset of every single encounter such as found in the OP's video.

All of this, to say nothing about every alpha male's natural propensity to escalate a situation rather then not escalate. Most police encounters I've had, it is made very clear that Mr. Officer is THE BOSS of me, and any assertions to the contrary are met with severe hostility. Obviously, if I am anything but completely compliant with everything he asks, then I must have something to hide... right? Of course he has no clue who he's dealing with, nor the skillset I carry... and when that truth becomes known, there is a very immediate shift in his behavior. Case in point, I was pulled over for "loud exhaust." (nevermind the straight pipe harleys that just pulled out) My exhaust was not that loud, and had a professionally installed muffler. I was clearly targeted for one reason or the next. He decided he was going to pull me over, on a gravel road, on the way to my house. He had it in his mind that I was some punk and he must have been bored. So, hands at 10 and 2 with window down as he approached. I try to let them know right off that I mean them no harm. Letting them see my dick clamps is a really good way to show this, usually. He didn't make it to my window yet, and already was yelling at me, seriously, about how noisy I was and to "show me your goddamn documents." I didn't say a word. Just watched him approach intently. When he got to my window, he was met by the sight of an XDM 9mm tucked between my seat and the center console, a suppressed 10" AR15 SBR, a benelli SBEII shotgun, and a DTA SRS. That was just the front seat. I fail to remember exactly what was in the back seat, but if memory serves, it was either a NFA MP5SD and AK74 or something similar. Also not in plain view is the XDM9 compact I conceal carry 24/7.

He stopped mid sentence. His facial expression immediately changed from one of anger, to desperate concern. He took a look around and realized we had stopped in the bottom of a ravine, and no other person was within 3/4 of a mile of us, nor could anyone else see down there. He cleared his throat, attempted to recompose himself, and proceeded to continue with the stop in as professional of a manner as I've experienced before or since. Complete change in tone and respect.

I felt bad for him, I truly did. Because on his way to my window, he was in control. He felt powerful and in charge. When he got there, he realized that he was derelict in his duties to the extent that it could have got him killed, had I been the wrong sort. The look on his face when he realized this, was enough to make me feel truly sorry for him. I wasn't even upset that he had essentially pulled me over for no other reason than being bored.

He's human. He had a lapse of judgement. Citizens are humans, and they have lapses in judgement. The key here is that police are in a position of authority over the general citizen. They should hold themselves to a higher standard every single day, and must be accountable to the citizens whom they have authority over. Anything less and the word "tyranny" becomes more than just a word in the dictionary. It has been stated that "what if the officers did not make contact, and those people went and shot up a bunch of other people, and it comes out that those officers could have stopped them!?!?!" In that instance, the person lodging that complaint should be completely ignored and marginalized. The officers would have done everything in their power while maintaining their commitment to the Constitution.

At the end of the day, I want to be safe. I want officers to be safe. I want them to do their level best to protect those that cannot or will not protect themselves. However, I'm not willing to give up my God-given rights as a human being to any degree in order for someone to make me feel safe. Nor should citizens be able to blame officers for not ensuring their safety. If these ideals were to become reality, I suspect that only the dregs of society would have problems with the police.

 

[KYpatriot]

BB, Orkan thanks. Seems we are on the same page. I also did not realize that LE oaths were substantially different from mil oaths. Doesn't seem like they should be if that is the case.

Those of you in the know, is there a standard LE oath, do they vary by state or federal affiliation?

 

[sulcop96]

Greg,

You and I are actually on the same page in many aspects, but I wanted to address a few items you posted.

+++ your quote++ Look at what happens to those that step outside the "group." Law enforcement treats their profession as a brotherhood. Thus, anyone not a member of that organization is not afforded the level of leeway enjoyed by the members. It is very hard to maintain objectivity in that environment. Again, if people are setup to fail, they generally will fail. The rare exceptions to this are those officers that do speak out on matters of constitutionality. How are they treated by their "brothers?

I can not answer on this from outside my department but the brotherhood of silence is DEAD sir. Between the new officers in generation why who question and research everything and a savvy upper management the days of support at any cost are over. Our department has weeded out the "old guard" over the last several years. As a supervisor I will allow NO violation of authority to go unnoticed and spend a large amount of time making sure the officers interact properly and in bounds. We have cultivated a group of honest, well read officers that do not hide behind mistakes. Errors happen and the result is training and properly motivating the officers to comply not only to policy and law but to what is right. Those who lie, violate the rights of citizens, arrest or cite without cause or act in a "rouge" manner are quickly weeded out. I started my commitment to LE work in 1994 and it has done a 180 so, at least in my area, this is a thing of the past. In fact its so changed that the days of officers ONLY hanging out with other cops is also done. AT my Superbowl party out of 30 guests I think perhaps 4-5 were cops just because my circle of friends, like most of my department, as a varied social group.

++ your quote++ For an officer to speak out against their organization is typically career suicide. They will forever be viewed to have betrayed the "brotherhood," while in actuality may have been the soul voice of opposition amongst a sea of constitutional cripples. This will follow them between departments.++

No sir! I was actually selected for promotion to Lt. because I stopped a warrant service demanded by the chief went well beyond the scope of the warrant and was in fact a bad warrant. I was not chastised for stopping it I was celebrated. Another supervisor stopped a bad practice on MV stops, wrote a department policy and roll call power point and retrained the department. This dropped or MV stop stats BUT again, celebrated by admin as the Progressive and correct things to do.

++your quote++ The police force has allowed a very vocal liberal minority to influence their thinking and reactions to such a degree that the sight of a gun, regardless of its condition or presentation, solicits fear and immediate over-escalation of force.++

In some cases yes we have but Greg I assure you it is starting to come around. My guys, more so my newer officers are more savvy. less likely to draw down or get panicky just because a citizen has a gun and more adept at reading the situation and knowing when to escalate and when to just observe and wave hello.

++your quote++ The "good" cops I know, prefer an armed citizenry. If people are in charge of their own safety, and prepared to deal with threats, it is less work for them, and far less dangerous. More guns in the hands of trained law-abiding citizens equals less crime. This is not an opinion, but a statistical fact which is backed up by common sense if nothing else. Criminals fear armed citizens FAR more than police officers do. Though some scarcely doth suggest it. ++

Agree, as do most cops I know BUT the fear is the armed citizen getting into situations that end up putting them in harm, more or less gun balls.

As you stated at the end of your post, we, officer and citizen alike, want to be safe at the end of the day. There is a disconnect between the police and the citizens but at least in my small world it is improving by leaps and bounds. I do not feel our PD is doing anything above and beyond other departments but change is not a linear progression and not sweeping. It will happen in spurts, here and there and as long as things continue to move in this direction over time the disconnect will improve BUT I am afraid there will always be a disconnect of some degree because the only way you can understand what it is like to be a cop is... well to be a cop. It is like being a member of the armed forces, 99% of the population have no clue but lots of false impressions. But like my service it is the best job in the world, WHEN DONE PROPERLY. As the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility, and I see a more responsible breed of LEO on the rise.

Sully