State tropers having fun.

May 3, 2005, 11:37 AM

You teach prople how to treat you

When I was way younger - I might of have a few infrations with the po-po. :)

I recall just getting my driver's license, I had my Mom's car out running errands, behaving myself. There was a shooting during a robbery, just my luck, the get-away vehicle matched Mom's car. Red Cherry flashed , I was pulled over, and the officer approached - with caution. He was nice and informed why he pulled my over. I was pulled over again on my way to get home, again, the officer was nice. The 3rd time, I was pulled over by a State Trooper...Stupid me reached over to the sack on passenger floor board...pump shotguns have really big bores when viewed from muzzle end. He followed me home as I explained " I'm just running errands, not my fault the get-away car looks like mom's" . Mom's get a sinking feeling when son arrives home in her car with a State Trooper in tow. :)

Now I have known quite a LEOs, in various agencies. I have assisted with them - and they with me , I was in a business that having a reporte' was good - and it worked both ways. Even assisting the UCs.

I have lived various places, it is not uncommon to be followed, if new in town, especially if out late. I have worked the 3rd shift. I have "been out and about" in the wee hours, maybe working late, answering an alarm, coming in from a late date, leaving early to go hunting / fishing.

My experience has been - there are a LOT of goings on in the wee hours. The local freeway for instance used to have a wee hours road race, Porche's, Benz , Bimmers...and these were older "responsible" folks. The "bond daddy's" blowing off steam...racing for Rolex's...

I also know there are those on call, Drs, Nurses, Scrub Techs...and the format here is - hit the flashers , we had 30 minutes from time we got the page/ call to be in the OR.

LEOs working in the wee hours see all sorts of stuff. They are not stupid.

There is a difference in a Benz and Bimmer doing 125 down the Fanny Fox ( racing for Rolex's) , and the Volvo doing 80 with the Flashers, ( medical personal) the Toyota doing 75 in 60 with the flashers...poor guy is trying to get his wife to hospital to have that baby...might be some guy heading out to answer a Security alarm...

My point is - don't look like a victim in anything. In any Profession there are bad examples, I've had them in mine.

Not just locally either, I've been pulled over out of state, going thru construction areas at 2am..."son, your headlight is out" and the officer understood the construction areas were prone to do this...pointed me to all night store, and assisted me in changing my headlight.

Bringing back a Vette, the officer in GA " son we had a report of vette similar like this one...writes me a note, with his and partner's badge number, and the numbers for Leo statons in the event I get pulled over again...

Leos don't buy open headers, as being needed on "River Road" for cat-fishing at night in a yellow Chevelle with black racing stripes...especially when there is a Purple Barracuda eating your dust... :)

Now my buddy wondered why the Nova Station wagon was driving sooo slow and cautious on the freeway one night about 3 am. Seems the College student really wanted in that Sorority. She had to drive nude down the freeway about 20 miles, retreive an envelope from a Dairy Queen picnic bench and return.
Seems the heater was not working too well and she was freezing. He loaned her a blanket and followed from a distance in a unmarked Caprice...the deal was , so she would not "fail" the test, - toss the blanket once she started down "suds row"...she made the sorority, he rec'd a thank you note.

" I was young, once...how I ever survived college and "suds row" beats me" - he said.

buzz_knox

May 3, 2005, 11:39 AM

Well if you stop breaking the law, they will stop pulling you over.

Being ugly helps too. A rather cute friend of mine had the delightful experience of getting pulled over . . . so the cop could ask her out.

Hardware

May 3, 2005, 01:41 PM

Back in the '80's, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I drove a beater Dodge Charger. It was a '73 with a 440 magnum, a factory slap shifter and a 4.11 posi. The day after Christmas I am coming home late from a friend's house on an absolutely abandoned highway and I was pulled over by a couple of state police officers. No big deal, I'm 100% legal and they say my plate light is out, it wasn't, but I figured it was a boredom stop. The officer takes my license, registration and insurance and goes back to the cruiser. A few minutes later a BMW goes past us just under Mach 1. The cops turn on the mars lights and anounces over the PA that I should follow him as he takes off after the speeder. :) I fire up my Charger and even though she looked like a heap the suspension and drivetrain were 100%. I caught up to the cop and stayed on his back bumper for about 15 miles at speeds exceeding 100 mph. When the BMW actually stopped and the cops had popped the driver into the chicken coop in the back of the cruiser, he walked back and handed me my paperwork. He didn't say anything, just kind of gave me the stink-eye. Nope, didn't mind that boredom stop at all. :evil:

Preacherman

May 3, 2005, 01:43 PM

A rather cute friend of mine had the delightful experience of getting pulled over . . . so the cop could ask her out.
I sincerely hope she immediately made an official complaint against this SOB? :fire:

Old NFO

May 3, 2005, 02:01 PM

Now I know I'm old... BUT back in the '60's I made the mistake of running one night and got away clean (or so I thought), until I pulled up in front of the house at midnight, only to find the Sheriff and my mother sitting on the front porch waiting for me... Talk about being gounded :o

AND the Sheriff never let me forget that, especially when we went shooting at the police range (which was about 2-3 times a month)... :cuss:

The only saving grace was my Grandfather (born in the mid 1880's) would outshoot all the LEO's with his old Peacemaker, which at least got them mad at him and they forgot about me :D

I do have a number of friends in the LE world today, and they all tell me if you call attention to yourself either with what you drive or how you drive, you WILL be stopped.

Vernal45

May 3, 2005, 02:05 PM

well also depending on what make and model of your car, time and place you were, they might have pulled you over hoping to get lucky. Sometimes, they will pull you over for nothing, check you out

Thats just wrong..... :banghead:

dev_null

May 3, 2005, 02:14 PM

> Well if you stop breaking the law, they will stop pulling you over.

For 3 mph over the posted speed? C'mon. Sounds like a fishing expedition to me, or else there's more to the story.

Around here if you do 3 mph over the posted speed you'll be run over in a heartbeat. I've been almost rear-ended for doing "only" ten over at night.

Damned if you do, damned -- or should I say rammed? -- if you don't.

May 3, 2005, 02:14 PM

A friend of mine, a US Air Force officer (captain, C141 jockey) was pulled over while on his way to McGuire AFB. The NJ trooper took one look at his rank and said.

"You can go, sir. We only ticket enlisted men."

dustind

May 3, 2005, 04:56 PM

A rather cute friend of mine had the delightful experience of getting pulled over . . . so the cop could ask her out. I have heard of that happening a lot to friends that I know in California.

Topgun

May 3, 2005, 05:22 PM

I do have a number of friends in the LE world today, and they all tell me if you call attention to yourself either with what you drive or how you drive, you WILL be stopped.

Well, ain't that just DUCKY? How refreshing to know that no CRIMES are any longer required by the police.

Golly, I'm just all warm an fuzzy now.

:barf:

Vernal45

May 3, 2005, 05:29 PM

Well, ain't that just DUCKY? How refreshing to know that no CRIMES are any longer required by the police.

Yep, thats a fact. Its called; Police have all the authority, citizens have no recourse. Short version title: Police State. :cuss:

Edmond

May 3, 2005, 06:00 PM

I almost never get pulled over. Doesn't matter if I'm driving my Toyota or my Corvette, they just don't pull me over.

Then again, when you're a little 5'6", 125 Asian guy who totally doesn't fit the "fast and furious" crowd, I guess they don't really think much of you. :D

DontBurnMyFlag

May 3, 2005, 06:08 PM

ah, c'mon guys. most cops arent JBT's.

Old NFO

May 3, 2005, 06:33 PM

Well, ain't that just DUCKY? How refreshing to know that no CRIMES are any longer required by the police.

Topgun, you took what I said wrong- An example from a friend that is a SC state trooper (Motor Officer) He chased a new Red Corvette for almost 20 miles with the guy running 110-120 mph. When he finally got him stopped, he asked him why he was driving so fast- The guys answer, I just wanted to see how fast the cruise control would work at... :what:

Another was from a Sgt. at LASO- They pulled a dirty older pickup truck because they could smell a strong odor of acetone- They got over 20lbs of Meth . Another one in the LA- San Diego area is the Guatamalan "cowboys" dressed to the nies, with the big white cowboy hats, driving new pickups and Mustangs; they are probably 7 of 10 for drugs on those stops, and yeah, that is profiling, but if the shoe fits... :scrutiny:

Not all of them are perfect, but the larger percentage are just trying to do as good a job as they can. They will admit they can't catch everyone, nor can they always get there in time due to manning levels, but the majority do try.

FeebMaster

May 3, 2005, 06:42 PM

ah, c'mon guys. most cops arent JBT's.

Well, most don't actually own jackboots.

Spreadfire Arms

May 3, 2005, 07:23 PM

i find it very interesting to see all the cop bashing on THR when there is absolutely nothing to back up their statements other than "i heard", "someone told me," "i think,"..... etc.

for all the pro-L.E. and officers on this board, please don't pile on to something you have no evidence of. people on THR write all day about the anti gunners speculating things about gun owners, then some of you guys in turn do the same thing the anti's do to us and think its okay.

here are some examples so far:

DontBurnMyFlag wrote:
"well also depending on what make and model of your car, time and place you were, they might have pulled you over hoping to get lucky. Sometimes, they will pull you over for nothing, check you out, make sure your not drinking, or if you have drugs etc. Once they assure themselves your good, you get off with a warning. sometimes they get lucky and pull over a criminal. It gets annoying sometimes coming home from the shore real late at night, but i got nothign to hide."
do you have proof of this? do they tell you this when you get pulled over?

2nd Amendment wrote:
"Drive Caddy's, Lincolns, Mercedes and/or big SUV's. Generally speaking you can then do no wrong. An added measure of security is to have a dealer tag on the back. No cop wants to mess with the headache of pulling one of those over, only to discover the driver is a paid goober who doesn't know where the car came from, who owns it or even what year it is."
L.E. can't run the VIN to check if it's stolen? i'd hardly call it a headache. that's coming from someone who was a cop and has dealt with dealer plates. where is this factual information coming from?

Cosmoline wrote:
"They scan the bed and the cab for meth indicators."
did they tell you this? or do you just assume that is what they are looking for?

buzz_knox wrote:
"A rather cute friend of mine had the delightful experience of getting pulled over . . . so the cop could ask her out."
100% improper if it occurred. but did it really happen? or was she embellishing?

WT wrote:
"A friend of mine, a US Air Force officer (captain, C141 jockey) was pulled over while on his way to McGuire AFB. The NJ trooper took one look at his rank and said.
"You can go, sir. We only ticket enlisted men."
again 100% improper. are you sure this was the conversation? i've arrested a Navy officer before and didn't even consider his rank.

dustind wrote:
"I have heard of that happening a lot to friends that I know in California."
i was a police officer in California. i'd like to know what agency is allowing this.

Topgun wrote:
"Well, ain't that just DUCKY? How refreshing to know that no CRIMES are any longer required by the police."
again, your information is based upon little to no evidence from THR board members filling your mind up with 2nd or 3rd hard information.

hcker2000

May 3, 2005, 09:19 PM

I knew ever one would have a good old time with this thread.

EDIT: Oh yes and I'm going to take the long way to work that dosn't involve any highways. The only thing that ticks me off is the fact that when ever there are 20+ cars doing 10 mph over the speed limit the cops leave every one along but at night you go a few over with no one around and they decide to pull u over.

pax

May 3, 2005, 10:08 PM

Spreadfire Arms ~

do you have proof of this? do they tell you this when you get pulled over?
Actually, judging from my husband's fairly frequent experiences, it's not that uncommon for police to pull folks over just to make sure everything is okay.

My husband works late, late (early) hours, and has often been pulled over by small town police in the middle of the night who wonder what he's doing there.

The usual stop goes something like,

"Do you know why I pulled you over tonight?"

"No, officer. I was under the speed limit... wasn't I?"

"Yes, sir, you were under the speed limit, but it looked as though you were maybe swerving a little bit and I wanted to make sure everything was all right."

OR

"Yes, sir, but it looked as though your internal light was on and I wanted to make sure everything was okay." (The internal light wasn't on.)

OR

"Yes, sir, but you came up kind of quick on that red light and I wanted to be sure you weren't drinking." (He stopped at the light. "Kind of quick"? I dunno. I've seen him drive, and he habitually slows down a half block or more before the light.)

OR

"Yes, sir, but I wanted to let you know you are missing a hub cap and needed to make sure everything is all right." (Is a hub cap a required item on the vehicle? Dunno -- he didn't get a fix it ticket, so maybe not.)

All actually happened, and in every case it was fairly obvious that the cop on the beat was just checking out something in his area that looked out of place.

Were these all "articulable suspicions"? Yep.

Were they all cases of someone breaking the law, or appearing to break the law? Not hardly. For the most part, I think they were quite plainly fishing expeditions.

In none of these cases did husband come home with a ticket, nor was he even upset about the stops. No one was unprofessional or rude -- they were just letting the guy in the strange vehicle driving around in the middle of the night know that the police were watching.

Heh, for that matter, one of my dear friends tells the story of how she and her husband took their firstborn off to college. As they pulled away from the college, she was crying and her husband was visibly upset. A policeman followed them for six blocks or so, finally pulled them over, invited her to step out of the car and join him behind the bumper while her husband remained in the vehicle, and then asked her quietly, "You look upset ... Has he been hitting you?" :D Poor girl had to explain that her (*sniffle*) firstborn daughter (*sob*) had just been (*sniffle*) left at (*sob*) college for the first time (*sniffle*) ... :D Have to feel sorry for the cop on that one. He saw something that gave him reason to believe something bad was happening, and checked it out. Then he had to stand on the side of the road and listen to the story of someone's life!

pax

Old Dog

May 3, 2005, 10:23 PM

I knew ever one would have a good old time with this thread.
To me, it's a bit disappointing that this forum seems to be seeing an increase in threads started by persons who are really just plainly -- and knowingly -- inviting all the cop-bashers to come out and play ...

Well, you know what? With all the knuckleheads and slimeballs out there on the roads these days -- and my daughters are often sharing the road with 'em -- I'm happy that we have police out there checking on drivers who just don't look right to them ... The roads are for the public, and they definitely require monitoring.

Alex45ACP

May 3, 2005, 10:28 PM

Everyone knows police officers can do no wrong, stop making these horrible false accusations.

:rolleyes:

P95Carry

May 3, 2005, 10:29 PM

To me, it's a bit disappointing that this forum seems to be seeing an increase in threads started by persons who are really just plainly -- and knowingly -- inviting all the cop-bashers to come out and play ... I tend to agree - it does seem that way at times. Much as anything because the adversarial feelings will never go away for some and so - threads on the subject are, sadly rather predictable for most part.

Bear this in mind folks - there is rather often a sense of ''same old, same old'' for many people.

grampster

May 3, 2005, 11:42 PM

Pax's mom...BMW....hmmmmm.....Good evening maam, are you the younger sister to that articulate, nice gunnie at THR?........ :D :D

txgho1911

May 3, 2005, 11:56 PM

I was shook up once only 45 min from home.
4 hr drive from Lewisville TX to home was a well known road. Bored and nothing new at 3AM. I was finnished. My eye lids would not stay open so I pull off the road.
Cop was waking me up because I parked with my window wide open with my mouth open. Probably snoring. He was not going to let me stay there from the trouble found there in the past. Side road dead end with a history of bodies and burned cars.
I'm kinda glad he insisted I continued home.

Perfesser

May 4, 2005, 12:06 AM

"Drive Caddy's, Lincolns, Mercedes and/or big SUV's. Generally speaking you can then do no wrong"...
Actually a Cadillac or Lincoln WILL get their attention, especially late at night. I worked mids for several years just south of East Lancaster in Fort Worth - some of you DFW guys know where I mean - and the BEST route in was not a good place to be at night. I had a 92 SDV. Got pulled over once, 'too fast coming onto the street from the corner' or some such. Showed him my DL and CHL, told him I was headed to work at S***** and he knew the site. No ticket...just 'be careful'.
Found out later, from several news reports, that they figure an older man in an expensive car is likely to be a gay cruising, or straight looking for a hooker, and East Lancaster was certainly the place for either one.

Spreadfire Arms

May 4, 2005, 12:19 AM

pax,

everything you wrote is enough reason to LEGALLY stop a car. the discussion is leaning towards officers ILLEGALLY stopping a car.

there is a difference. a cop on a fishing expedition is what the THR members on this thread are discussing, not good faith stops.

as a moderator on this board you can see that this board is very pro-citizen but not very pro-cop. in fact i would almost say if you took a poll on this board probably not even 50% would be pro-cop (if cops and former cops were excluded from voting even less than that).

that is true, there are good cops and there are bad cops. just like there are good and bad citizens, or good and bad military personnel. i haven't seen too much military bashing going on around here.

sorry to say, this board is not very pro-police. some people on here pride themselves on not being pro-police. evidenty the 2nd Amendment and their firearms ownership is all they need to get themselves out of any trouble.

if you believe the above sentence, fine. just dont ever call 911 when you got a problem. after all, you have the 2nd Amendment on your side and all you need is your firearm to protect you. :rolleyes:

just my personal observation, but i think most THR members here who bash cops would rather call 911 and have a cop come deal with the problem then put their own neck out on the line themselves. then they go to their den and type on their computer about how much they don't like the police, from the comfort, safety, anonymity, and privacy of the internet.

let's take a poll. how many people here put their real name on their posts? i sure do. i'm not afraid to speak my mind on here. let's see who else is?

call my bluff. put your money where your mouth is. post your real name, city, and state.

hcker2000

May 4, 2005, 12:22 AM

I'm not bashing them or do I wan't any one else to. The guy that pulled me over was nice enough. Heck he eve shook my hand before he left. It is funny though that people mention geting pulled over just to get checked up on. Heck I'v been "checked up on" about 20 times by local PD. They like to come see whats going on when me and my friend are hanging out in a public park when no one else is around. They also liked to check up on us when we were riding our bicycles but we rarly ride any more.

pax

May 4, 2005, 12:46 AM

Spreadfire Arms,

Nowhere in my post did I say that the stops were ILLEGAL. The thing is, the way the laws are these days, almost anything the police want to do is covered by one statute or another. And that's the problem. The police don't have to break any laws in order to mess up people's lives.

Nor do they have to have any malice in order to mess up people's lives. That just comes with the job. The LEO who pulled over my sobbing friend certainly intended no malice -- he intended something good, in fact. Nevertheless, the poor girl was considerably traumatized by having to defend her husband to the law while she was already upset.

Am I anti-cop? Nope, not at all. "Some of my best friends are cops." Cliche as that might be, it is also the literal truth -- my two best friends are both cops, as are more than half the people in my larger circle of close friends.

The laws are configured in a such a way that the cop on the street has considerable leeway to do pretty much whatever he needs to do in order to get the job done and get home safe at the end of the shift. In some ways, this has shifted the balance of power considerably away from the common citizen. If you like, argue that this is a good thing.

But don't tell me it doesn't exist.

As for your challenge: If you want my name and location, it would probably take you about five minutes of reading my post history and then a quick internet search to locate it. I don't kid myself; that's not enough to deter a determined stalker. But it may be enough to prevent a casual stalker from turning into a determined one.

pax

Any of us in a position of statutory authority - - Peace officer, deputy sheriff, city cop, state police, or some kind of federal agent - - must always remember: The Bill of Rights was codified to protect the public against People Like US! I enjoy being a quiet, peaceful member of the community. Personally, I’d just as soon remember the Bill of Rights on my own, and not need to be reminded of it in federal court - - or on the front page of the newspaper. – Johnny Guest

tyme

May 4, 2005, 01:06 AM

Were these all "articulable suspicions"? Yep.
Those were not examples of "articulable suspicion" sufficient for a traffic stop. Articulable suspicion is not merely any observation some LEO can articulate. It has to reasonably point to a crime, not just some vague uneasyness... and it has to be true. I am rather underwhelmed by all of the "articulable suspicions" you quoted, even if they were true. Any officer who gave me one of those would find me marginally polite but extremely uncooperative.

I depise random/profiling stops, whether they're traffic stops or terry stops of pedestrians. However, if I were driving through a small town, a deputy pulled me over and said, "I have no good reason for pulling you over, but it's late and I want to make sure everything's okay," I'd be inclined to tell him where I'm coming from, where I'm going, why I'm out late, etc. Replace that with "I pulled you over because <insert bs reason>" or "I pulled you over because your being out so late is suspicious," and I'm likely to be as uncooperative as possible. It's a small distinction, but to me it makes all the difference in the world.

There's a reason cops aren't brutally honest. "I don't have a good reason for pulling you over" translates to "please sue me." It's amusing, then, when LEOs talk about how dumb criminals deny having a gun, deny having 5 kilos of heroin, deny this, deny that. Do LEOs think they're any more believable when they give a BS reason for stopping or investigating someone, when they're really on a fishing expedition? Yet anyone calling cops dumb or JBTs for engaging in such stupidity is labelled a cop-basher. I don't know what inspired me to connect lying criminals with lying cops, but aren't they pretty much the same? Both lie to cover up a crime.

No one was unprofessional or rude -- they were just letting the guy in the strange vehicle driving around in the middle of the night know that the police were watching.
Personally, I consider a LEO giving a false reason for a stop to be unprofessional and rude, but that's just me. There is no curfew for adults. Being out at night is not a valid reason for a Terry stop or a traffic stop. Cops in small towns should take notice that their towns are not isolated from everyone else on the planet. Just because something looks out of place to them is not sufficient reason to conduct a stop. It is not a crime for an urban dweller, unfamiliar with the ways of rural and small-town life, to be in a small town at night.

kngflp

May 4, 2005, 01:20 AM

My brother used to get pulled over all the time in his primer gray 70 Chevelle SS. The cops were usually just intrested in what he had under the hood. I guess a 396 big block with just headers is good enough reason to pull a guy over.

Vernal45

May 4, 2005, 01:32 AM

The laws are configured in a such a way that the cop on the street has considerable leeway to do pretty much whatever he needs to do in order to get the job done and get home safe at the end of the shift.

PAX made the point, in spades. This is what the problem is. LEO's have way too much leeway. An LEO's SAFETY does not trump MY RIGHTS. It is already a Police State.

The thing is, the way the laws are these days, almost anything the police want to do is covered by one statute or another. And that's the problem. The police don't have to break any laws in order to mess up people's lives.

That is the definition of a POLICE STATE. We just have better window dressing than other police state countries.

Remember, there are 3 types (in my experience that want to be Cops.
1. The kid that was picked/bullied on in school. He wants a badge and some revenge.
2. The bully, he wants to continue to bully, and the legal power to do it.
3. The person that really, honestly wants to change his/her little corner of the world.

The 3rd group is in the minority these days. Which is sad.

DISCLAIMER:
I do not hate cops. I grew up in a Cop family. Was a Cop for 10 years. Still have Cop friends.

No_Brakes23

May 4, 2005, 02:17 AM

"You can go, sir. We only ticket enlisted men." Absolutely rotten if it is true. Zeros can afford a ticket a lot better than us serfs in the ranks.

You know I have plenty of JBT cop stories, but for every pencilnecked jerk cherrypatchin or BS stopping, I have a story of an LEO who had me red-handed at triple digits and let me go with a warning. LEOs are a necessary evil, somebody has to do it. And no amount of screening is going to 100% sucessful at weeding out all the bad 'uns. We are actually pretty fortunate in this country that our cops aren't all JBTs who shake down the neighborhood. Try goofing around in Mexico and see what happens. That doesn't excuse a lack of professionalism up here, but just keep it in mind next time you see the flashing lights.

You know it's funny the best, most even handed advice I ever got for how to behave during a stop came from a website devoted to beating tickets.

http://www.ticketassassin.com/visorguide.html

For those of you into cop bashing, there are forums that exist solely for that. I am not saying to sugar coat things, but leave out the unsubstatiated non-personal experience stuff on the High Road.

Remember, there are 3 types (in my experience that want to be Cops. I have made similar lists, but I have noticed a nother type of cop. The Dynastic cop, (And they seem to be some of the most even keeled, IME.) That is the son or daughter of a cop who has seen the good and bad side of it, to some extant. Not there to prove anything, and also not as likely to become bitter and disillusioned like the idealists.

pax

May 4, 2005, 02:40 AM

Remember, there are 3 types (in my experience that want to be Cops.
1. The kid that was picked/bullied on in school. He wants a badge and some revenge.
2. The bully, he wants to continue to bully, and the legal power to do it.
3. The person that really, honestly wants to change his/her little corner of the world.

The 3rd group is in the minority these days. Which is sad.
Okay, that's unreasonable and unfair.

For the most part, the psych evals weed out the truly rotten before they ever get the job. It's really rare that someone goes into police work with any sort of bad attitude.

It's a little less uncommon for someone who used to be even-keeled to become more and more cynical the longer they are in police work, to the point that they just know everyone is lying to them about everything, and that they just know that a law-abiding citizen is simply a criminal who hasn't been caught yet. This is deplorable, but understandable because 99% of the people they come in contact with on the job lie to them, and because the only citizens they see with any regularity are folks who are on the fringe between obeying the law and flaunting it. Even crime victims are often criminals themselves.

Of the more than a dozen cops I know personally, I don't know any who are power-trippers looking to mess up someone else's life. For the most part, these are good people trying to do good things. I think folks like them make up the vast majority of LEOs.

Unfortunately, it is pretty rare for an otherwise good cop to be acutely and uncomfortably aware that many of the laws, regulations, and court rulings which make the job easier to do also infringe some basic civil rights, and negatively impact the way good citizens perceive LEOs and the job they do. That is the crux of the problem here -- and it's not cop bashing to say so.

But it is cop bashing to ascribe mean motives to these often overworked and usually underpaid good people. Their motives aren't the problem, and a solution won't be found by attacking that.

pax

Never ascribe to an opponent motives meaner than your own. -- John M. Barrie

Zach S

May 4, 2005, 08:20 AM

For a while my daily driver was a beat up Fairmont. At one point, it was about six different colors, three of them the same brand and color of primer applied at different times, so of course some was faded more than the other. I drove it without a fender for about a month. No hood for another month. Theres a short in one of my brakelights, the bulb never last more than a few days (however I do have two on each side). It hasn't had a grill or front bumper since I did the motor swap in 8/03(?). It didnt have a muffler before the swap, the inline six wasnt that loud. When the 5.0 went in, I added mufflers that werent much quieter than straight pipes. Not long after the swap, I finally airbombed it to only two colors, a primer gray body with a black hood. The same weekend, I added a vintage ford hoodscoop. As noted above, I never put the front bumper and grill back on.

Everyone told me it was a cop magnet, being a junker with loud pipes. I drove it from 12/01 until 1/05, and I can count the number of times I got stopped on one hand.

mfree

May 4, 2005, 09:44 AM

I've been stopped three times in my life...

01/2000, in my white '84 Tbird, alone on the highway in the KY mountains, 22 over the limit but reduced to 15 for first offense, rear passenger no seat belt. Paid and gone. (a legitimate mistake, was writing down odometer reading and the car crept up to 88 on me, going downhill... that car would do that. Some sleepy mornings on the Pellissippi parkway, uh, i mean PelliStrada, I'd find myself doing 90+, sometimes breaking triple digits and the car wasn't even breathing hard).

~05/2002, in my extremely junkered up '91 shadow, for "running a yellow". Got a warning, that I deserved. Also a good reminder that the exhaust was pretty loud and he heard me gun for the yellow from about 300' away.

02/2005, in my little red Omni GLH, 12 over, alone on the highway. Had no proof of insurance, got the ticket, proved insurance, ended up court costs and diversion for 30 days. being honest, neat, and respectful in court helps.

What's the common factor here? I was doing something stupid, and doing it all by myself. Stay in traffic, keep with traffic or slower, mind red/yellow lights and stop signs, use your frikkin' turn signals, and you should be golden.

Old Dog

May 4, 2005, 10:42 AM

It is already a Police State.
We just have better window dressing than other police state countries.
Puh-LEEZE. I've had occasion to spend a little time in real police states. That you would say this, about this country, indicates you have no idea.

Some of y'all really, really crack me up. I've lived in several major urban areas all over this country as well as a couple rural or semi-rural areas; in almost 30 years of driving, I can count on one hand (well, okay, maybe I need both hands) the number of times I've been pulled over -- and each time, I definitely deserved it ('cause sometimes, I do like to drive fast). As mfree says, use your turn signals, come to complete stops, maintain your car (lights and mufflers, etc.), drive with the flow ... no worries.

Vernal45

May 4, 2005, 10:52 AM

For the most part, the psych evals weed out the truly rotten before they ever get the job. It's really rare that someone goes into police work with any sort of bad attitude.

I disagree with you PAX. Evals are not near stringent enough.

Puh-LEEZE. I've had occasion to spend a little time in real police states. That you would say this, about this country, indicates you have no idea.

Old Dog,
If a cop walks up to you, and asks you for ID, out of the blue (hint, you are just minding your own business), can you just walk away. No, you must show ID. When the laws are written so that an LEO can have ANY reason to pull you over, id you, or stop you from going to and fro, it is a Police State. I dont care how many countries you have been in, I am sure my list of countries visited is as long as yours, my opinion stands. We just have better window dressing in our Police State. The fact that you dont realize that there is a growing problem with law enforcement indicates you have NO idea, either that, or you have your head buried in the sand.

Old Dog

May 4, 2005, 11:29 AM

Ah, Vernal ... clearly, your experiences have jaundiced your perception toward the law enforcement community in this country and the status of your freedom. The laws are written with the presumption that those enforcing the law will obey the laws (and it's regrettable that there are officers who do violate the laws); the laws are written to enable the law enforcers to act upon reasonable suspicion (and yes, it's regrettable that there are officers that abuse this provision). If I am minding my own business, sitting on a bench in Pioneer Square at 3:00 PM, I would have to presume a cop asking me for ID has a pretty good reason ... if he does NOT --I have redress under the law. This is the difference between a true police state and our "police state." Now, if I'm minding my own business on a streetcorner on Aurora Avenue at 3:00 AM, my very presence there might be a pretty good reason for a cop to ask me for ID ... I'm probably not gonna object too much ...

Yes, the laws are written in such a way to allow abuse by law enforcement. However, they are not written in such a way as to give every LEO a reason to pull me over, ID me, or "stop me from going to and fro." What prevents us from being a police state -- and what will always prevent this -- are our rights and ability to contest each and every encounter with law enforcement and seek redress, compensation or judicial action. I would suggest to those who seem to have overly frequent contact with law enforcement that they may just need to review their driving habits or change the locations where they hang out ...

Vernal45

May 4, 2005, 11:34 AM

a kind of "you can beat the rap but not the ride". That implies that the RAP is illegal, but nothing you can do about it. The mere fact that you can be sitting somewhere a 3am, minding your own business, yet forced to ID yourself when ordered, is disturbing. Yes, you have redress, only after the fact, after the damage is done, while going through the system (depending on the charge) you have a record, your firearms may be seized (until they figure out what is going on, or when they get ready to give them back). The way we have it here is still the BEST in the world, but dont bury your head, IT is a police state.

Molon Labe

May 4, 2005, 11:40 AM

State tropers having fun.

Sence I work 3rd shift I always seem to find State tropers that are bord. One pulled me over for a turn signal (just a warning). That was fine because you know it always sucks when people dont signal. Tonight one pulled me over for 2 or 3 mph over 35 (just a warning).tropers? sence? bord? dont? Sounds like you have bigger problems than the state boys being on your tail...

Spreadfire Arms

May 4, 2005, 12:03 PM

tyme,

what is a "terry stop?" i know of a Terry pat-down but not a Terry stop. A Terry pat-down allows an officer who has legally stopped someone to pat down the subject's exterior clothing only for weapons for his officer safety. a "terry stop" would infer an officer can stop you with no reason and pat you down. please clarify what you mean.

and every post between my last post until now, yes, not one real name, city, and state posted with their reply. the anonymity of the Internet allows people, however uninformed or biased, to post their opinions of things, however baseless and incorrect it may be. lots of THR board members are outspoken and boast about their bravery yet wouldn't dare reveal their true identitiy.

and yes i see it continue, people who have never been through a police testing process, never worn a uniform for one day, never done the job, continue over and over to criticize something they know so little about. yet because they are an armed citizen they know more about the law and legal issues than the neighborhood cop. :confused:

Vernal45

May 4, 2005, 12:12 PM

Spreadfire Arms,

Only a fool would post his name and address on the internet for all to see. I disagree with some on here, agree with some. My opinions, like the opinions of everyone are built upon my experiences. If you doubt that I used to be in LE, fine, doubt all you want. If you think the cop on the streets know more about the law than some on here, including me, fine, think what you will.

And yes, I have been through police training, both in and out of the Military. Served as a cop for 10 years. But of course, anyone on the internet that does not post their name is probably lying, and does not know anything, according to you.

For the record, concerning a Terry stop:

In the United States, a "Terry stop" is a police officer's stop and limited search of a person for weapons, justified by the officer's "reasonable suspicion" that a crime is in progress or imminent, by a person who may be armed, and who causes the officer to fear danger to the officer or to others. The standard is distinct from the "probable cause" standard for an arrest.

And yes, The Terry Stop is abused, every day. Reasonable suspicion is just a fancy way of saying "gut feeling".

Also, good idea for posting your name, address and web info, free advertising for you...... :evil:

mrhuckins

May 4, 2005, 12:13 PM

ah, c'mon guys. most cops arent JBT's.

Not in my experience. I almost went into law enforcement, however, I had the opportunity to do some guard work for the LEO's first, and discovered that 90% of them were jerks, and not just when pulling me over for something. Who wants to work with a bunch of jerks?

I'm just thankful that we live in America where we all have the right to be treated like we are guilty until proven innocent in a court of law!

Spreadfire Arms

May 4, 2005, 06:00 PM

vernal,

i dont consider it to be foolish to stand by your opinions. you hide behind a computer. you throw stones from afar but hide in the shadows so while you have the luxury of scrutinizing anyone you wish, nobody can do the same to you. so you are an ex police officer who is anti-cop. were you military police or civilian police? there is a huge difference in training and professionalism. the MP's i see are hardly on the same professional level as civilian law enforcement. if you don't believe that, go ask Charles Graner and Lynndie England. what, you say? one is in prison over prisoner abuse and the other one is on trial at Fort Hood? you don't say. even here in Austin i catch military police personnel underage (under 21) drinking in nightclubs on 6th Street. they are busy committing Class B misdemeanors while off base.

i think the average street cop knows more about the law than the average THR board member.

im not saying anyone here who doesn't post their name is lying or doesn't know anything more than the average street cop, but it sure makes it handy to make up something in their head and declare it without any repercussions.

as for free advertising for me, i have sold exactly 1 rifle indirectly from THR. Daniel T. purchased a RRA from me at a local gun show. i feel my opinions here are generally against the grain of THR members and in fact i probably if anything lose sales as a result of it. do i care? not really. people are free to buy from me or buy somewhere else.

i'm just one of the only persons on here with enough fortitude to put my true identity on everything i post here. i wish i could say the same for most THR members.

hiding behind the anonymity of your computer doesn't exactly concide with the persona of gun-toting, pro-2A, i-know-more-than-the-cops-and-most-lawyers-too attitude.

buzz_knox

May 4, 2005, 06:07 PM

I sincerely hope she immediately made an official complaint against this SOB?

It tends to be problematic to complain in some small towns in Tennessee. When the cop you are complaining against constitutes a significant portion of the local law enforcement, things can get . . . dicey.

As for whether it happened or not, I trust her implicitly, as does everyone who knows her. From her description of events, the cop never suggested she had done anything wrong, or even commented on why he pulled her over. He just did it, started chatting her up, and then asked her out.

As for
i think the average street cop knows more about the law than the average THR board member.

I kind of doubt it. I've known cops who barely knew the weapon they carried, let alone the laws they were required to enforce. A lot of it is essentially "I know this is wrong because it looks wrong and we'll sort it out later."

Spreadfire Arms

May 4, 2005, 06:17 PM

believe me there are alot of people on THR who don't know all of the laws either.....there is much more than just laws regarding firearms ownership and carrying.

police officers must know the entire gamut of criminal and some civil law. in TX they must also know the code of criminal procedure.

somehow i just dont think common folks, and THR board members, have the time or interest in knowing all the information a police officer has in his head to do his job.

all it takes for someone to get on THR is to register and have internet access. all it takes for someone to be a cop is police academy. :confused:

isnt this the same board, after all, that said citizens could go around placing suspected illegal immigrants under citizen arrest? geezus.

Vernal45

May 4, 2005, 06:30 PM

all it takes for someone to get on THR is to register and have internet access. all it takes for someone to be a cop is police academy

As a GRADUATE of a TEXAS POLICE ACADEMY, I think I know what I am talking about. Cops are NOT the only ones who know the laws. :banghead:

Spreadfire, are you a cop? Cause if you are, and you are advocating, telling people to post there names and addresses on the internet, you are doing wrong, doing a disservice to your badge. No person, in this day and age, would post their info for all to see, including ID theft, stalkers, people who might like my guns more than me and find my address and try to steal them...GEEZ That kind of advice from a cop, lets me know what kind of cop you are not.

Spreadfire Arms

May 4, 2005, 06:37 PM

you, and people like you (graduates of a police academy - that would include me), are not a large percentage of THR board members.

i am not knocking you on this. i am merely stating that most THR board members have little to no L.E. experience. i think we can agree on that.

NukemJim

May 4, 2005, 07:35 PM

i am merely stating that most THR board members have little to no L.E. experience. i think we can agree on that

I agree I have no LE experience.

However I do have more than a little experience with statistics. I drove the same car for 4 years. 3 of which I went to school and worked during the day. Number of times pulled over = 0
1 year I worked 2nd shift in a hospital got off at midnight if it was a good night 2-3 AM was not uncommon. Number of times I got pulled over = 4
Each time the Officer was polite and asked me if I had been drinking. ( No they do not serve ethyl alcohol in the hospital )
So for the same car driven the same way for 3 years during the day no pullovers, the same car driven in early AM pulled over 4 times in one year each time using the same excuse, and each time I had not been drinking at all. ( Working in an ER will discourage you from drinking and driving if you have any sense at all )

I cannot say anything about type of car changing the frequency of being pulled over but the time of day sure does.

Please not I am not bashing cops and if you look at my past posts I do not do so. They do a difficult job I would not like.

As far as posting name on net I would like to introduce you to a crime that you may not have heard of it is called " Identity Theft " . From what I have read from my banks and several publications including some from the US.gov posting such information is not recomended.

NukemJim

Double Naught Spy

May 4, 2005, 08:33 PM

I don't know all the laws either, but I do know that by breaking the law, you attract the attention of local law enforcement. I have a lead foot and have managed to meet lots of law enforcement officers. In all my stops, I have only been stopped once when I wasn't breaking the law. The officer thought my tag had expired. When he saw that it had not, he apologized and sent me down the road without ever even asking for my license.

And Dev_null, sure enough, even for 3 mph over. You see, it is called a speed LIMIT. You have a lot of room in speed up to and meeting that limit point. After you exceed the limit, you are breaking the law. It does not matter if you think it is trivial or not. In the original post, hcker2000 specifically noted being in violation of the law every time he was stopped. Funny how that works. He wasn't stopped when he wasn't breaking the law. Amazing. Do the math. It is pretty straight forward.

Zrex

May 4, 2005, 09:40 PM

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

-- Ayn Rand

mrhuckins

May 4, 2005, 11:27 PM

Go Zrex, Go Zrex, Go Zrex! Thats exactly why you never concent to any type of searches by police. Honest Joe Citizen may be breaking several laws, without even knowing it. I had a colored rock in my car one time, it was about the size of a golf ball, and a LEO accused me of having that rock so that I could use it as a weapon to beat people with. :banghead: A FREAKIN COLORED ROCK!!!!

Gimmie a break.

Jeff White

May 5, 2005, 04:14 AM

Vernal45 said;

Only a fool would post his name and address on the internet for all to see.

Then I must be one big fool then, becuase when I first got involved in a forum The Firing Line, the owner, Rich Lucibella encouraged everyone to register with their own name. I have used my name on all three forums I moderate on. There are many members here who still use their own name. In fact I'm on a forum where you have to use your own name and if you aren't personally known to the admin, you must scan and email ID to register. Things are much more civil when people aren't hiding behind screen names.

You seem to have a problem with police officers, yet you claim to have been one. Did you leave under bad circumstances? Why don't you tell us why you hate your former profession?

Jeff

mrhuckins

May 5, 2005, 04:54 AM

I agree to using my own name in the forum. I'm not going to post my address though. I learned my lesson after having droves of women stalk me. :rolleyes:

--David

pax

May 5, 2005, 05:05 AM

David ~

It's very easy for men who have never been stalked to sneer at the safety concerns of women who have.

Jeff ~

Whether I use my legal name or my consistent everywhere forum name, I stand behind what I say. People think they can hide behind a screen name, but you know and I know how easily the character of a man shows in the words he uses and the ideas he defends.

pax

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet... Shakespeare. Or was it Bacon??

rms/pa

May 5, 2005, 07:28 AM

to all my fellow forum members here, lighten up please.

we got lots of leo's in america, at all levels of skill and ethics.

some GREAT cops,some good cops, and some lousy cops...... but even one of the lousy cops might be the one who goes into a burning car to rescue a dog.
its a real PITA to be dealing with an officer when one (either you or the cop) is not at your best. there ain't no magic wand gonna make us be perfect all the time. all we can do is clean up the mess and move on.
ragging on each other does not help this.

rms/pa

mrhuckins

May 5, 2005, 07:51 AM

Pax

Ouch! My pride. :rolleyes: I could also pick apart anyones comments, to make them look foolish. However, I tend to believe people are not liars and give them the benefit of the doubt unless I have proof that they are liars. Or I could just take an offhanded remark for what it was worth.

Who was talking about women??? I was talking about ME.

But thats just me.

mfree

May 5, 2005, 09:10 AM

Out of all the police officers I've known... which are quite a few, since there are several in mine and my friends' families, I grew up neighbors with the now-chief of Maryville PD, several other neighboring officers, my brother the MP and hopefully soon to be KPD officer, and all the officers that come into the range on their own time, AND the three officers I dealt with on the street who pulled me over....

Only one was "bad", though I haven't met him during his LEO duties, but he seems to have a chip on his shoulder so big I'm surprised he can carry his range bag at the same time without collapsing.

Other than that, they all seem to be genuinely nice, professional people who just have an interest in *gasp* being PEACE officers.

Maybe it's just an East Tennessee thing though...

buzz_knox

May 5, 2005, 10:00 AM

Maybe it's just an East Tennessee thing though...

Unfortunately, it's not. In my hometown (Clinton), a sheriff's deputy shot an disabled vet twice in the back as the vet hobbled away from him. The only charge brought, after considerable protest, was for failure to file a shooting report within 48 hours. That charge was dropped when media attention died down. The deputy (who happened to be the son of the chief of detectives for the city police) later quit after macing his fellow deputies. Add to that a sheriff who did time for running a protection racket (gambling machines and drugs), and another sheriff who was the original FBI agent involved in the Mississippi civil rights murders and had a "no humans involved" attitude, and we don't look so good.

Control Group

May 5, 2005, 11:09 AM

Spreadfire Arms: as pax said, whether I use my real name or my screen name, I stand by everything I say. I use the same nick here as I do on every other forum and website I frequent, and my "online rep" is of value to me. I could make a case for your attitude being exactly why it seems so many people hide behind "anonymity." But, since credibility in your eyes seems to demand it, here you go:

Matt Cherwin
Milwaukee, WI

You'll forgive me, I hope, if I don't also post my exact street address, my phone number, my SSN, my g.f.'s name and address, or whatever other forms of identification I'm required to provide if randomly asked by a cop. Of course, what do you really know about me now that you didn't before? And how does this make my opinions weightier? But I digress.

You seem to be deliberately missing the point that many people have so far made in this thread, and it has nothing to do with cop-bashing. The fact of the matter is that, if a cop turns his lights on when you're driving, you have to pull over. Period. If you don't, you're guilty of a crime even if you weren't before. Even if you were driving under the limit, with a perfectly functioning vehicle, and obeying every single rule of the road, you can be pulled over. Do you have recourse with the courts? Theoretically, yes. Practically, no. I dare you to go to court over an unjust stop and try to get recompense.

I'll go with personal experience, here - though I realize this is just "anecdotal," and therefore to be discarded out of hand. I was in a car with a friend of mine driving through Waukesha on I-94; he was driving, I was the passenger. He was speeding, and got pulled over. Not a problem; he was breaking the law. Of course, the officer also asked for my driver's license, though, to the best of my knowledge, I'm not required to be licensed to be a passenger in a vehicle. After taking out my wallet and handing it to him, he observed that I wasn't wearing my lap belt. I had removed it to get at my wallet, which I explained to him. Undeterred, he wrote me a $10 ticket for not wearing a seat belt.

Note that I'm not accusing the officer of malice; I'd be willing to bet he honestly believed I wasn't wearing my seat belt. But the situation then was either pay the $10 ticket, or spend far more than that in vacation time and travel costs to drive to Waukesha to fight it in court. What recourse, really, did I have? And how is this actively different than a police officer just handing me a ticket for nothing whatsoever, knowing full well it will cost me more than the ticket is worth to fight it?

As a stand on principle, I did take the appropriate time off and took it to court, and was cleared. Which simply means the state didn't get my money, a gas station and my employer did. And naturally, nothing happened to the officer.

You'll no doubt say this is just a case of an honest mistake, and you're right. But the fact that the system allows this to go on is a problem. The fact that the laws are written in such a fashion that you can always be detained for something is a problem. The problem isn't the cops trying to do a good job - literally, every officer I know (and I used to live across the street from my city's police station) certainly seems to honestly want to do the best job he or she can. That doesn't change the fact that they've been granted extraordinary powers under the law, which means that, if so inclined, they can seriously and unavoidably make my life infinitely more complex and inconvenient than it already is.

Most responses to this boil down to "yes, but it's for the greater good, and they don't often do that anyway, so don't worry about it." Which is exactly the same logic that argues for registration of all your firearms, "yes, but it will help us solve crimes, and we won't actually tax or confiscate them, so don't worry about it." It's bad logic in the latter case, and it's bad logic in the former case.

I'm sure someone will speak up and ask about that time he or his police officer friend stopped a car on general suspicion and found two dead bodies and fifteen pounds of coke in the back seat of the car, and ask if I'd rather that they went free. No one else so far has seemed willing to go out on this limb, but I will: yes. I would rather they go free than sacrifice my rights in the name of catching them. Isn't this what virtually everyone on this board argues when it comes to guns? We're all very sorry that Klebold shot up his high school, but it's not worth taking away my guns to prevent it? It's awful what happened in North Hollywood, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed fully-automatic weapons? Liberty comes with the cost that some people will abuse it, and it's a cost we have to be willing to pay if we want to maintain our liberty.

centac

May 5, 2005, 11:33 AM

"Liberty comes with the cost that some people will abuse it, and it's a cost we have to be willing to pay if we want to maintain our liberty."

And that cost includes having police on hand to deal with lawbreakers. The fact that a minority of them may abuse their position is no reason to restrict the "good" ones because they might. People use the same argument for gun control, and we dont buy it then. Submission to lawful authority is just part of the social contract.

Yes, the police do have a significant amount of authority. There is no research of which I am aware that indicates that there is widespread abuse of that authority. There are publicized cases where that has occurred, but there isnt any indication that it is systemic or endemic. There are hundreds of thousands of LEOs in the US. The good ones are the great invisible majority that no one ever hears about.

buzz_knox

May 5, 2005, 11:38 AM

The fact that a minority of them may abuse their position is no reason to restrict the "good" ones because they might

Restrict the good ones? No offense, but police have only those powers which they are specifically granted. It's not an issue of "restricting" them; it's an issue of how much we empower one group of civilians to "oversee" the remainder of the civilians.

As for systemic problems, there have been studies and cases that have shown exactly the problems you've described. They've been localized (in terms of a particular jursidiction) but the "bad apple" cases all too often have grown out of a fertile ground for abuse.

Control Group

May 5, 2005, 11:55 AM

Centac, it has nothing to do with whether or not police officers do abuse their authority, it has everything to do with a system which is prone to abuse of authority. A system such that an officer can stop you, demand your papers - sorry, I mean driver's license - on any pretext without any effective or meaningful recourse on the part of the person being stopped lends itself to abuse, both venal and mortal.

The fact that widespread abuse isn't happening is a credit to the vast majority of people who put on the uniform, but it doesn't mean the system is good. If I can manage to drive my car without brakes through creative use of shifting and the hand brake, I won't cause any accidents. That doesn't mean the car shouldn't be fixed.

And as buzz knox has already pointed out, there's no question of "restricting" officers, there's a question of how much extraordinary leeway they're granted. It would be a restriction if they were prevented from doing things that I could do as a civilian, but I don't get to serve no-knock warrants, and I don't get to pull people over, and I don't get to stop people walking down the sidewalk because I think they look suspicious. So I don't feel all that bad granting those powers to the police to a limited extent, and the curtailing that extent if I believe it has gone too far.

TheEgg

May 5, 2005, 12:51 PM

The thing is, the way the laws are these days, almost anything the police want to do is covered by one statute or another. And that's the problem. The police don't have to break any laws in order to mess up people's lives.

Interesting discussion on the news stations in Dallas last couple of days. The police are alarmed and confused about the behaviour of motorists when they try to pull them over. The motorists run, and high speed chases ensue, often ending in wrecks, injuries, or deaths. In more and more of these cases, after apprehending these people, the police are finding that they have no apparent reason to run -- no wants or warrants, no outstanding fines, no drugs or guns in the car, and they are not under the influence.

When asked why they ran, the individuals almost always say "because I was afraid".

It appears to me that, regardless of whether it is true or not about "police messing up peoples' lives", there are a growing number of people who believe it and are showing it by running, even when they have no tangible reason to do so.

This should be a huge WARNING sign to police and politicians that something is deeply wrong with the relationship between the police and the public. I have no idea if the fear these people are exhibiting is justified in fact or not -- if it is, the power structure needs to find out why and fix it. If it is not justified in fact, the power structure needs to do a much better job of 'splainin to the folks out here. Because perception matters as much, if not more, than reality.

centac

May 5, 2005, 12:56 PM

Police actions are already restricted by Constitutional strictures.

Where is the evidence that the modern American system of policing is prone to abuse, and what form does that abuse take? And an earlier poster is right, anecdotes are not really the same as empirical evidence. Sure there are problems, but what evidence is there that these problems rise to a level of a system-wide pandemic.

There are isolated pockets of bad cops, just like there are isolated pockets of bad priests, dentists, and yes, gun users.

Vernal45

May 5, 2005, 01:22 PM

You seem to have a problem with police officers, yet you claim to have been one. Did you leave under bad circumstances? Why don't you tell us why you hate your former profession?

Jeff,

I left law enforcement because I found out that I could make a lot more money in the Oil Industry, and I got tired of putting up with the influx of JBT's on a power trip.

I have Stated before, I know there are great cops out there. But the problem is increased when these great cops dont police the bad ones. The public has a great problem with trust in LEO's. I wonder why that is.

also. I still hold a peace officers license in Texas, so your implication of me leaving under bad/questionable circumstances is undounded.

Jeff, why do you get on the defensive when someone states an opinion, that happens to question LEO's behavior? Could it be you are ashamed of some of your behavior as a cop?

Control Group

May 5, 2005, 02:44 PM

Police actions are already restricted by Constitutional strictures.
The advent of the no-knock warrant, along with the overloading of the court system really call this statement into some doubt, but for the moment, I'll go with it.

As I mentioned "prone to abuse" and "causing abuse" are two different things. Whether or not police powers are being abused is not relevant, the point is that they shouldn't be designed such that they are easily abused. When the guy at the next bench swings around and covers you with his muzzle, he hasn't done any actual harm. Sighting down the barrel and putting his finger on the trigger also don't cause you any actual harm. This doesn't mean it's a good situation, and I'd imagine that almost everyone here would agree that it's a situation worth rectifying as quickly as possible. The situation is prone to harm, whether or not he actually shoots you, and therefore shouldn't exist.

The current situation between civilians and the police is similar. Does anyone here actually believe that they couldn't be stopped by a police officer at any time? No one I've seen has argued that the random stop on any pretext the officer can dream up can't happen, they've simply argued that, by and large, it doesn't. To me, that's not good enough. An officer shouldn't be able to stop me without concrete, definable cause. More importantly - because it is true in theory that they can't - I should have reasonable and practical recourse to be recompensed for my time and inconvenience, which is where the system really breaks down.

Let me emphasize again that this is not the fault of the police, it is the fault of the laws under which they operate.

First hand anecdotes, incidentally, are empirical evidence. As in, evidence gleaned by direct observation - if that doesn't qualify as empirical, I don't know what does. They're not evidence of widespread abuse, no, but I'm not claiming that there is widespread abuse. I'm claiming that my empirical evidence is indicative of a system that lends itself to abuse, and I'm objecting to that system.

Spreadfire Arms

May 5, 2005, 04:04 PM

im glad Control Group was the one and only THR member to put his money where his mouth is and put his real name, city, and state in his post.

does it make you any more credible? certainly. i think someone whose identity is known will certainly think before he acts. i think we all can agree with that. crooks would think twice about committing crimes if everyone knew who they were before they did it.

just the same, someone who cannot hide behind the anonymity of a user name or internet "handle" may think before he posts. especially things that are blatantly false or just plain ignorant.

and as for someone bringing up how it isn't safe for a "woman" to post her information on the internet becuase of fear of stalkers......i am curious as to how many stalkers have tried to track you down from things you are saying online? pardon me for asking, but do you have a problem with stalkers? i know alot of females and i don't know a single one who has a legitimate and real "stalker." if that is the case then you shouldn't ever show anyone your ID. your driver license has your residence address on it. nor should you tell anyone at your bank where you live.

nor should you register to vote, own a house in your name, or have a car registered in your name. if you really want to avoid stalkers then you'd go to these lengths, because these (voting records, car registration, drivers license, and landowner information) are all public record.

in addition you should also put a false address on your 4473 (which is a federal felony i might add) when you purchase a gun because the kid at the gun shop might be a stalker too.

so are you really serious about protecting yourself from stalkers, or is it more selective? :confused:

buzz_knox

May 5, 2005, 04:22 PM

does it make you any more credible? certainly. i think someone whose identity is known will certainly think before he acts. i think we all can agree with that. crooks would think twice about committing crimes if everyone knew who they were before they did it.

This is a joke, right? The worst and most harmful liars I've ever met were people whose names and addresses I knew. Civility tends to go out the door when it comes to the internet, but not honesty. And using one's real name isn't a guarantee of civility or honesty.

On this board, you're credibility is determined over time, based on how much BS you spread, or whether your commentary checks out over the long haul. And if you do cross the line, you're information is public record and can be dropped out there for all too see. You give up anonymity when you agree to most terms of service agreements. But the reciprocal to that agreement is that unless you violate the terms, this board (along with most others) allows you to stick your nickname.

Old Dog

May 5, 2005, 04:24 PM

Let me emphasize again that this is not the fault of the police, it is the fault of the laws under which they operate.
No, I submit it's more the "fault" of the way the laws are interpreted, particularly by the higher courts and the SCOTUS.
The situation is prone to harm, whether or not he actually shoots you, and therefore shouldn't exist.
There are many, many situations in life prone to harm ... does this mean that all laws should be adapted to prevent potential harm? If this is the case, then you've made an argument for gun control, or at least laws to prevent potential harm from firearms.
An officer shouldn't be able to stop me without concrete, definable cause.
Well, the problem is that we can't legislate human judgement. But giving law enforcement officers the power to make their own judgements is, in my estimation, far better than restricting them further from using their own judgement. Without the ability to enforce laws, society becomes lawless (a condition also known as anarchy).
I'm claiming that my empirical evidence is indicative of a system that lends itself to abuse, and I'm objecting to that system.
And isn't it wonderful that you live in a country where you are free to object to the way the system operates?

Spreadfire Arms: (to digress off topic momentarily) I am somewhat confused by your continued insistence that the opinions of those of us who chose to remain (somewhat) anonymous are not valid. Respectfully, I must disagree with you here. And consider another reason for some of us to use an internet handle -- we may just have visible positions in our occupation or work for an agency or an employer where our opinion could be construed as representing that agency or employer. Me - my opinions on internet forums are strictly mine, and I don't claim to represent (or be representative of those in) the DoD or U.S. armed forces.
just the same, someone who cannot hide behind the anonymity of a user name or internet "handle" may think before he posts. especially things that are blatantly false or just plain ignorant.
Plenty of blatantly false and ignorant stuff has been posted on the internet by folks using their real names.

Control Group

May 5, 2005, 05:28 PM

There are many, many situations in life prone to harm ... does this mean that all laws should be adapted to prevent potential harm? If this is the case, then you've made an argument for gun control, or at least laws to prevent potential harm from firearms.
The difference is that in this case, it is the laws themselves which are causing the harm, since it is the laws themselves that grant police powers. Of course there shouldn't be a law to prevent all potential harm, but that doesn't mean there should be laws which explicitly create a higher-risk situation. For example, there shouldn't be a law which prevents me from carrying a Glock with a round chambered, despite the fact that all the people around me are certainly at higher risk of being shot with it present than not (disregarding the probability of a BG who might be stopped by it, of course; this is just an example, after all). However, there also shouldn't be a law mandating that I carry a Glock with a round chambered.

The situation with the police is the latter one. The law itself creates the higher-risk environment by explicitly removing from me many of the protections I enjoy against other civilians, such as entering my home without my consent. If a civilian breaks into my home, I'm justified in defending myself against him, potentially with lethal force. The same is not true if an officer breaks into my home.
Well, the problem is that we can't legislate human judgement. But giving law enforcement officers the power to make their own judgements is, in my estimation, far better than restricting them further from using their own judgement. Without the ability to enforce laws, society becomes lawless (a condition also known as anarchy).
I agree with you in principle, but not in practicality. I'll reiterate my primary objection, that there is no reasonable recourse for the average person who undergoes unjust harassment - malicious or accidental - from a police officer. There is very little middle ground between "you can't fight city hall" and "Rodney King." This is what my seat belt ticket example was trying to illuminate: the officer didn't do anything wrong, but because of the design of the system, his honest mistake caused irreparable (minor, but irreperable) damage to me.

Police officers need to be allowed to use their judgement, just like any other critical profession (doctors, nuclear power plant operators). They also need to be held to rigorous and reasonable standards of responsibility. I don't advocate the current "sue the cops for millions if you feel insulted" cases, but I also object to the frustration one faces when one has been harassed, and has no reasonable recourse.

Police need to be aware of and accountable for the fact that, of necessity, there exists a significant balance of power advantage on their side in the average encounter. Most police - certainly all of the officers I know - fully comprehend the balance of power issue (in fact, if my friend who just graduated Police Academy is to be believed, isn't the first "level" of force simply wearing the uniform?). It's the accountability that bothers me. As far as I can tell, the only options right now are a situation where the police are hamstrung by the threat of ridiculous lawsuits, or a Hollywood-esque lack of accountability for the "minor" errors in judgement that get made. The problem is there are no "minor" errors in judgement when you're on the receiving end of a police officer being in the wrong.

I'll also point out again that it's not a question of "restricting" the officers, it's a question of not granting them as much leeway. Even if we were to pass a law that the police could only pull you over if he had at least two witnesses to the infraction, this would still not be a "restriction," since I, as a a citizen, can't pull you over even with a dozen witnesses. It's a curtailing of the extraordinary powers we have granted to the police in exchange for greater security. The use of the word "restricting," just like the "you've made an argument for gun control" statement seem to be based on an understanding that we're talking about officer's rights, when we're not. An officer doesn't have the "right" to pull you over, he's got the legally-granted authority. This is utterly unlike my right to carry a gun, which is a natural right legally recognized.

Ultimately, we're the ones who tell the police "you can pull me over for <x> reason," so it's not unreasonable to think that we should also be able to tell the police "you can't pull me over unless <y>." But the legislative and judicial systems have spun so far out of control that this fundamental truth has been all but lost, and civilians and police now "enjoy" a fairly adversarial relationship. Most people, even law-abiding ones, have a guilt/panic/nervous reaction to seeing a police car on the road, rather than one of feeling safer because there's an officer there. As TheEgg pointed out, this is a problem. The very fact that "cop bashing" is so common ought to be an indicator that there's something wrong.
And isn't it wonderful that you live in a country where you are free to object to the way the system operates?
Yes, it is, but I admit to being a bit miffed at the implication that because I have the gall to criticize the system, I don't appreciate how good I've got it. If one can only appreciate the system by shutting up and accepting it, the liberty inherent in it isn't of much use, now is it?

Jeff White

May 5, 2005, 05:50 PM

Vernal45 said;
I left law enforcement because I found out that I could make a lot more money in the Oil Industry, and I got tired of putting up with the influx of JBT's on a power trip.

I'm glad you're making more money in the oil industry. I can't disagree with you, you'll never be wealthy working in public service. If you were an experienced officer (10 years right?) why didn't you use your experience and mentor the young bulls?

I have Stated before, I know there are great cops out there. But the problem is increased when these great cops dont police the bad ones. The public has a great problem with trust in LEO's. I wonder why that is.

I am most concerned about the conflict between two groups that should be natural allies, the police and lawful firearms owners. I beleive our enemies have made it one of their goals to drive a wedge between us and they certainly seem to be succeeding. The perceived lack of accountability after some very public disasters by some law enforcement agencies, plus the Clinton gun bans (thankfully just a sad chapter in our history now) effect of making people fear that the police were going to kick in their door at 4am because something they indvertantly possesed now made them a federal felon. If you do have 10 years on the job, then you know that the very nature of the job will piss off (begging forgiveness from Art's grammaw) people. People don't like being told what to do. It's also the nature of the job to take the slings and arrows meant for the politicians because we're the visible representatives of the government.

also. I still hold a peace officers license in Texas, so your implication of me leaving under bad/questionable circumstances is undounded.

The tone of your posts is very bitter. That's why I asked.

Jeff, why do you get on the defensive when someone states an opinion, that happens to question LEO's behavior? Could it be you are ashamed of some of your behavior as a cop?

I have done nothing in my career that I am remotely ashamed of. I sleep very well at night. I get defensive because whenever the subject comes up, many members here just jump on it as an opportunity to say something bad about the police. You, my friend are one of the worst offenders. The concensus here is that we must be perfect and that any news report that could hold an officer in a bad light is automatically true and another example of why we live in a police state. Yet you don't hold private citizens to the same standard. Why? There was thread here a few days ago (if I wasn't going to be late for work I'd look it up) where a private citizen was involved in a questionable shooting. Everyone said that they hoped it wasn't true and that they would wait for the results of the investigation to be completed. To be true to the spirit of the board, the police officers here should have all jumped into the thread and demanded the man's head. But that didn't happen. So there is a big double standard here. Perhaps if members simply were interested in discussing the facts of an issue there wouldn't be any need to get so defensive.

The peace officers on this board come here because we share everyone's love of firearms, shooting and freedom. We share our experiences and knowledge. Yet we're consistantly bashed by many members here. That's the reason for the defensiveness.

Jeff

Old Dog

May 5, 2005, 06:13 PM

Yes, it is, but I admit to being a bit miffed at the implication that because I have the gall to criticize the system, I don't appreciate how good I've got it. If one can only appreciate the system by shutting up and accepting it, the liberty inherent in it isn't of much use, now is it?
Oh, CG, no, I was not implying that at all. Our system requires that citizens have the gall to criticize it. We should always question authority and should not be blind followers of some distant authority. I understand your arguments, and respect the passion with which you set forth your positions; however, I can't necessarily agree with much of what you've said ...
and civilians and police now "enjoy" a fairly adversarial relationship. Most people, even law-abiding ones, have a guilt/panic/nervous reaction to seeing a police car on the road, rather than one of feeling safer because there's an officer there.
There are, in fact, large segments of the populace that not only never personally encounter law enforcement figures, but also are never given cause to consider how law enforcement affects their lives. I'd suspect those who suffer a guilt/panic/nervous reaction to seeing a police car on the road have this reaction because they may be speeding, have forgotten to signal a turn, have a couple joints in the glovebox or are judging all cops based either on one negative encounter or because of all the crap they hear about bad cops from their friends or on internet forums.
The law itself creates the higher-risk environment by explicitly removing from me many of the protections I enjoy against other civilians, such as entering my home without my consent
Depending on where one lives, one has a better chance of being struck by lightning that suffering an unannounced or uncalled-for entry of one's home by a police officer ...
As TheEgg pointed out, this is a problem. The very fact that "cop bashing" is so common ought to be an indicator that there's something wrong.
One can find "indicators" everywhere and there are always a hundred different ways to interpret any one of them. There are a lot of things wrong in this country, but the cop bashing is an overreaction to the exceptions, rather than the rule, of what happens on a day to day basic in U.S. law enforcement. Frankly, I believe there are far more widespread problems in the political system, the legal profession and the medical profession in this country than within law enforcement.

Control Group

May 5, 2005, 08:04 PM

Frankly, I believe there are far more widespread problems in the political system, the legal profession and the medical profession in this country than within law enforcement.
I am, unfortunately, pressed for time at the moment, so I'm not going to be able to give your response the attention it deserves; I apologize for that. As a quick comment, however, I agree with the above. In point of fact, the widespread problems within the political and legal systems are precisely the cause of the problems I have with law enforcement.

Note that I don't say within law enforcement, because I maintain that literally every police officer I've ever dealt with has been polite and professional. It is the system of which I am critical, and the fact that it lends itself to abuses without adequate recourse.

Hopefully, I'll have more time for a fuller response later tonight or tomorrow.

Spreadfire Arms

May 5, 2005, 10:00 PM

OldDog wrote:

"I am somewhat confused by your continued insistence that the opinions of those of us who chose to remain (somewhat) anonymous are not valid. Respectfully, I must disagree with you here. And consider another reason for some of us to use an internet handle -- we may just have visible positions in our occupation or work for an agency or an employer where our opinion could be construed as representing that agency or employer. Me - my opinions on internet forums are strictly mine, and I don't claim to represent (or be representative of those in) the DoD or U.S. armed forces."

true for some on here, but many on THR are not in your position. they are not in the military, police, or in any official capacity where their comments could be misconstrued as the position of an entity they lead or take part in.

i am not saying people are more or less credible when they put their names on their posts, but it sure makes them think about it before they post some total garbage.

there are some who hide behind an alias and a computer and are quite content doing so, for not the reason you described above. they merely find the internet as a very anonymous place.

dev_null

May 5, 2005, 11:00 PM

I fail to see how this ad hominem nonsense about someone posting as "Joe Dobbs" vs posting as "MeSoGunny" has anything to do with whether it's right to be stopped for fishing expeditions.

Old Dog

May 5, 2005, 11:10 PM

I wanted to address one of Jeff White's statements, which I think is so true:
I am most concerned about the conflict between two groups that should be natural allies, the police and lawful firearms owners. I beleive our enemies have made it one of their goals to drive a wedge between us and they certainly seem to be succeeding.
In my experience, many folks in law enforcement understand entirely too well the need to keep strong the right to keep and bear arms in this country. Additionally (in my experience), many folks in law enforcement support the right of Americans to keep and bear arms ... I do know many (including close friends and immediate family members in the law enforcement community) who are saddened by the adversarial view of law enforcement on the part of a significant segment of the law-abiding citizens they encounter.

The result of the constant and casual references to "jack-booted thugs" and all the other commonplace, derogatory and demeaning remarks about police in conversation and even on internet forums has one overriding negative result: it does drive a wedge between gunowners and the police, who quite naturally come to view many gunowners as anti-police based on their own negative encounters with the citizenry. You're still hacked off about the one cheesy traffic stop and fine you got ten years ago? Try being a cop and being forced to meet ten or twelve incredibly rude, often drunk and obnoxious, and stupid people each shift (most of whom, even when caught in the act of violating a law, deny, deny, deny and then come up with a stupid reason for why they think you pulled them over). I know, I know, no one forces anyone to become a cop.

Jeff is right, though. These two groups should be natural allies. For those who would constantly participate in the often ruthless and always unnecessary cop-bashing, you're simply placing more obstacles in the path of the RKBA movement by alienating those who could be aiding us.

Spreadfire Arms

May 6, 2005, 08:41 AM

old dog and jeff white are correct. yet the question goes unanswered on THR. believe me, i don't see this attitude in daily life. i don't hear CHL holders or private citizen (gun owners) express their discontent for law enforcement in general. in fact, even in liberal Travis County, Texas, the citizens are still on the most part pro-LE. the mainstream citizen here is not anti-LE, nor is the typical gun owner. then when i log onto THR, which is a pro-2nd Amendment website, the attitude of many here is anti-LE. i can't figure out why.

perhaps the internet and its ANONYMITY allow people to speak their mind, but they prefer to shut up and keep their opinion to themselves at gun shows or just around town conducting their daily business about how much they despise LE. sure, it is a possibility but it does not seem probable. there are quite a few THR members in Central TX, i've met a few and they do not bash LE on here. in fact they are very nice people. so i'm wondering where all this resentment is coming from? it doesn't appear to be prevalent here at least.

oh well. i think alot of people on THR will continue to be outspoken but hide behind the anonymity of a user name. so be it. while for the most part i suppose it doesn't matter about your true identity if you are speaking the truth......however.....it's the guy spouting off lies and fabricated stories that i'm putting under the microscope. don't tell me that people whose identities were known wouldn't think twice before saying an outright lie or falsehood, or fabricating an incident? what planet do you live on? do you think a crook is going to rob a bank, burglarize your house, steal your car, rape your wife, etc., if he is forced to be identified prior to his commission of the crime?

that's an argument you won't win with anyone who has half a brain and is reasonable in his logic.

buzz_knox

May 6, 2005, 08:58 AM

do you think a crook is going to rob a bank, burglarize your house, steal your car, rape your wife, etc., if he is forced to be identified prior to his commission of the crime?

that's an argument you won't win with anyone who has half a brain and is reasonable in his logic.

First, equating using a screen name with commission of a crime is a blatant ad hominem attack.

Second, please explain the rampant recidivism among previously incarcerated individuals, who know that their fingerprints/videotape/etc. will be linked rather rapidly to the crime at issue. In particular, please explain how prior identification of sex offenders has completely failed to deter their future commission of crimes.

Finally, I suppose I should clarify your argument. You aren't suggesting that mere identification of a person will deter the crime; you are suggesting that identification of one's name AND intent to commit a crime is the deterrent. You see, walking up and saying "hi, I'm Joe Blow" won't deter anything, given that many crimes are committed by people the victim knows. Then again, "I'm Joe Blow and I'm going to kill you" won't buy the victim much, since information is good only if the victim survives.

As for being supportive of LE in person, and disdainful of LE when on the 'net, maybe that's something you have a temptation to do; I don't. I've had the same conversations and officers with local cops, federal officers whom I've represented and consulted for, and an FBI SWAT agent I know. I even told the latter officer that I didn't try for the Bureau because of Waco and Ruby Ridge. I'm not a coward with my opinions, regardless of the forum I offer them in. Nor do I unjustifiably suggest cowardice on the part of others, again regardless of the forum.

Spreadfire Arms

May 6, 2005, 09:36 AM

buzzknox wrote:

"First, equating using a screen name with commission of a crime is a blatant ad hominem attack."
there is no attack or equation. it is merely an example of how people think twice about doing or saying things before they do or say them because they would be responsible for what they would do or say. rest your soul, i'm not attacking anyone or accusing anyone who uses board anonymity as criminal.

"Second, please explain the rampant recidivism among previously incarcerated individuals, who know that their fingerprints/videotape/etc. will be linked rather rapidly to the crime at issue. In particular, please explain how prior identification of sex offenders has completely failed to deter their future commission of crimes."
I suppose you have never been a criminal investigator or police officer, because if you did, the answer is very obvious. they commit crimes hoping the evidence won't lead to them. they hope there is no camera, and that they left no fingerprints, DNA, etc. if that is the case then how come it takes so long for departments to identify criminals? for reference you can look at the BTK murderer who committed serial murders in the 1970's (leaving alot of evidence behind mind you) and wasn't identified until 2005?

"Finally, I suppose I should clarify your argument. You aren't suggesting that mere identification of a person will deter the crime; you are suggesting that identification of one's name AND intent to commit a crime is the deterrent. You see, walking up and saying "hi, I'm Joe Blow" won't deter anything, given that many crimes are committed by people the victim knows. Then again, "I'm Joe Blow and I'm going to kill you" won't buy the victim much, since information is good only if the victim survives."
hardly of any significance in my example, but i'll run with it. on the internet, what you say under your anonymity is archived here on the servers. similarly, if you were compelled to use your real name, it too would also be archived on THR servers. so, imagine a crook having to register, and have to be accountable for everything he has done in the past, and everything he does in the present and future. that is my argument. there is no issue of "dead witnesses" because of the THR server. do you understand how this board works? then you will see how your example of a "dead witness" does not hold true on the internet.

"I even told the latter officer that I didn't try for the Bureau because of Waco and Ruby Ridge. I'm not a coward with my opinions, regardless of the forum I offer them in. Nor do I unjustifiably suggest cowardice on the part of others, again regardless of the forum."
you're also assuming the FBI was eagerly recruiting you too. :rolleyes: there are two sides to every job: the employer wanting to hire the employee, and the employee wanting to work for the employer. not to mention the FBI has a huge applicant rate, and quite frankly, can pick and choose who they want to work for them. not bashing you, since i don't know you, but, i dare say it is quite arrogant of anyone to think they are so great of a person that the FBI suffered a loss by that person (not necessarily you) refusing to apply. believe me, the slot someone did not consider with them was most likely filled before they even decided not to do so. the FBI hires the cream of the crop, not just some guy/gal who decides one day he/she wants to go work for the FBI and that his/her decision not to apply was a sad day at the J. Edgar Hoover Building.