The "officer 4473 dilema"


PDA






StopTheGrays
June 2, 2005, 03:38 PM
I was snooping for some info on another topic and ran across this thread on the Officer.com forum. (http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=361595#post361595) I found it interesting and did not realize this was even a problem.

Warning For All Officers Re: Firearm Purchases
After nearly 2 weeks with an ATF inspection in our shop we wanted to get the word out to all Florida dealers and law enforcement officers about Federal Firearms Law ATF is now enforcing.

Background.

Under Florida law, law enforcement officers (for obvious reasons) are entitled to list their agency address on ALL legal documents as well as on their driver's license to ensure that their residence address information does not get into the wrong hands. Hence, a vast majority of Florida law enforcement officers from the local, state, and federal level have exercised their right to this protection and the agency address is reflected on their driver's license.

The "officer 4473 dilema".

ATF notified us that we cannot accept ANY GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION with anything other than the firearm purchaser's actual, real physical address on it for any reason, period. Further, if the address on the driver's license or other state issued ID does not match the address on the 4473, we also cannot sell them a gun.

End Net Result.
No officer who exercises his right to privacy under Florida law can legally purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer....period. Why you ask?

1. If he exercises this right, his driver's license will show the agency address, not his home address.
2. His physical residential address will obviously be different than the agency address on the license and because of that, even if the officer lists his real residential address on the 4473 the dealer cannot sell him the firearm because the address is different than that on his license, according to ATF inspectors today.
3. If he lists the agency address on the 4473 then he's perjuring himself since obviously, he doesn't reside at the agency even though that residence address is protected under Florida privacy law for law enforcement and is authorized for use on ANY DOCUMENT WHERE THE OFFICER'S PRIVACY MAY BE COMPROMISED.

(I assume this is when a LEO buys a personal firearm and not one for the job.)

If you enjoyed reading about "The "officer 4473 dilema"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
GreenFurniture
June 2, 2005, 03:41 PM
Interesting and good to know.

shermacman
June 2, 2005, 03:46 PM
Why does this surprise you? You obviously haven't read the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is all spelled out there: bayonet lugs, the temperature for the solder on a flash suppressor, forward pistol grips, the legality of the 4473 form. Read it! :eek:

We clearly need a few more gun laws... they make for great reading!

Blackcloud6
June 2, 2005, 03:57 PM
No officer who exercises his right to privacy under Florida law can legally purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer....period.

Why does a LEO get this "right" and I don't?

If they want this soc-called protection, then get go get a non-drivers license state ID with their home address on it and use it to purchase firearms.

Smurfslayer
June 2, 2005, 04:16 PM
Their privacy is no more important than mine.

centac
June 2, 2005, 04:19 PM
And how many people have you put in prison?

It is really rare for law officers to be the victim of revenge crimes, but it is by no means out of the realm of possibility. Complaining that they have a distinction that you dont seems petty and spiteful. You would deprive us of this just because you cannot have it?

Gordon Fink
June 2, 2005, 04:27 PM
Yes.

~G. Fink

VARifleman
June 2, 2005, 04:32 PM
centac, that attitude that you're better than us is EXACTLY why some of us despise a lot of cops. You are not better, and you have apparently forgot who you work for. You're supposed to work for us. Instead, you just go on trashing liberty in your wake.

rick_reno
June 2, 2005, 04:37 PM
Why does this surprise you? You obviously haven't read the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is all spelled out there: bayonet lugs, the temperature for the solder on a flash suppressor, forward pistol grips, the legality of the 4473 form. Read it!

You're RIGHT! Amazing. I just read it and found all those clauses, right after "shall not be infringed - unless bla, bla, bla"

dasmi
June 2, 2005, 04:41 PM
Complaining that they have a distinction that you dont seems petty and spiteful. You would deprive us of this just because you cannot have it?
Until the police can guarantee my safety, then yes, I would. Why should police have more privacy than me? Why should they be better protected?

skidmark
June 2, 2005, 04:43 PM
Please play nicely!

There are many reasons why LEO would not want their residence info on a publically available document, just as there are many reasons "ordinary" citizens would not want that information publically available.

But did I forget something? IIRC, the 4473 is not a public document. Unless I'm wrong there, there is no NEED for LEO to have any greater degree of privacy protection offered to them.

If I'm wrong, then I'm going to change my residence address to where I spend the greatest portion of the week - to right here behind this desk. :D Dual-residency laws allow the person to choose between locations, but favor the location where the majority of time is spent. Maybe my lack of a real life will finally provide some benefit.

stay safe.

skidmark

Blue Jays
June 2, 2005, 05:02 PM
Hi All-

Centac, that's awfully high-falootin' of you to want extended privacy protections for LEO personnel.

As a matter-of-fact, my compelling testimony in a murder trial eleven years ago resulted in a man (already with a lengthy criminal record) being sentenced to nearly seventy years in prison. Pretty risky for a technology professional with no special protections under law. Now, can someone please provide me with a sterile Driver License?

~ Blue Jays ~

TallPine
June 2, 2005, 05:08 PM
Yeah, but at least we're keeping ex-cons from buying guns ... :rolleyes:

jefnvk
June 2, 2005, 05:17 PM
Sorry, but 'regular people' can testify and put people away for a long time, too. Why can't they have their address hidden?

If the risk is too great, get into witness protection. Else, officers buying personal weapons follow the same rules as everyone else.

If you really are that concerned, maybe being an officer isn't for you.

mitchshrader
June 2, 2005, 05:18 PM
Police officers should have privacy, and the ATF should get their 'legal address' (as required ) and the officer who needs to purchase a weapon CAN get the paperwork (ID) required to so do.

Hassle? Did I hear anyone say being a policeman avoided hassle? Conflicting legal requirements? Not EXACTLY.. just inconvenient ones.

Blue Jays
June 2, 2005, 05:22 PM
Hi jefnvk-

Regular people testifying is exactly my point! I'm a law-abiding technology professional who was thrust into the midst of a murder trial without warning.

Can someone please send me a sterile Driver License now?

~ Blue Jays ~

cordex
June 2, 2005, 05:43 PM
I'm all for offering protection to police officers and (more importantly, IMO) their families. Concealing their real address seems like a fine step to me. Of course, I'm not sure the same policy shouldn't be offered to others who might be "at risk" - after all, police aren't the only ones at risk.

But ... the law is the law and it must be upheld. Your elected officials made the laws. Don't dog and moan about it, use your vote. Anyone who thinks we should just throw out laws that someone doesn't like is just an anarchist. Who are you to decide for yourself that the law is wrong? The courts get to decide that.

Isn't that the canned response when someone doesn't like a law? No reason it shouldn't apply here, right?

Lone_Gunman
June 2, 2005, 06:46 PM
You would deprive us of this just because you cannot have it?

I would be more than happy to deprive you of special priviledges just because I can't have them.

NHBB
June 2, 2005, 06:59 PM
I have to agree with the sentiment that if an LEO is allowed a phantom residence, than citizens concerned with their own well being should not be excluded.

jefnvk
June 2, 2005, 07:06 PM
Oops, Blue, thought you were a police oficer saying that. But my point remains the same, officers are not the only ones that have to worry about retaliation.

RevDisk
June 2, 2005, 07:48 PM
And how many people have you put in prison?

Two. How many do I need to qualify as special? From what I understand, this protection does not apply to only police officers that have put people in prison. (ie, you need to have sent X number of dangerous persons to prison before you can get a sterile ID.)


It is really rare for law officers to be the victim of revenge crimes, but it is by no means out of the realm of possibility. Complaining that they have a distinction that you dont seems petty and spiteful. You would deprive us of this just because you cannot have it?

I have had to deal with revenge crimes. But that really doesn't have to do with anything, does it? No meantion in the law saying "Officer needs to have been subject to x number of revenge crimes." from what I saw. Please explain to me why I should not be extended the same level of rights?

Yes, if I could, I would deprive you of this because I cannot have it. Why? Because I swore an oath to support the Constitution. Did you? It's called "equal protection under the law".

In case you are unfamiliar with this rule, it's called Amendment XIV, Section 1.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


But ... the law is the law and it must be upheld. Your elected officials made the laws. Don't dog and moan about it, use your vote. Anyone who thinks we should just throw out laws that someone doesn't like is just an anarchist. Who are you to decide for yourself that the law is wrong? The courts get to decide that.

Nope. Unconstitutional laws do not have to be upheld. However, that's just theory. Putting it in practice is not so easy. Sometimes all the branches of govt violate the Constitution and get away with it. You can do your best with the ballot box and the jury box.

The example I use here is NFA. NFA is clearly unconstitutional in its current form. It's an illegal law.

centac
June 2, 2005, 08:55 PM
This just reeks of "If I can't have an ice cream cone, aint nobody having an ice cream cone"

Your need to conceal your addy equals that of an officer in the organized crime bureau? Y'all must lead some exciting lives.

orionengnr
June 2, 2005, 08:57 PM
who decided to publish the names and addresses of law-abiding CCW licensees...

If LEO's get privacy protection, so should other law-abiding citizens who happen to have exercised their right to complete the paperwork, take the class and, in general...act lawfully.

In TX, it is specified that the information gathered in the licensing process is NOT public information. Problem solved?

shermacman
June 2, 2005, 09:04 PM
RevDisk, great analysis; centac, where did you get that attitude?
There is only one thing I would add to the issue of: "how many people have you put in prison?"

I was involved as a witness to an assault and battery, like an idiot I trusted the arresting officer that my personal information would not be publicly available until the actual court hearing. Didn't work that way. Everything about me and my family was made available to the wack-job who tried to run down an absolutely innocent group of people who were walking to lunch. The driver/assailant admitted it was a case of mistaken identity...he thought someone he wanted to kill was in the group.

So, I have put away exactly zero people; and my life (and my family's) was threatened. I want, at the very least, the same anonymity that the police get. Ain't about ice cream cones, centac.

kel
June 2, 2005, 09:09 PM
Have they done something they are going to regret? Why don't I get that protection?

Art Eatman
June 2, 2005, 09:28 PM
Sorry, folks, but I gotta weigh in on the cops' side on this one. Absolutely, for sure.

Look: It's not because cops are "better". It is that the probability of their being specific targets is much higher than for us because of the job.

I'm walking down the street, and some mugger is in "to whom it may concern" mode. Or a burglar figures my house is an easy target. Same deal. I'm not a specific target as "Art Eatman". I or my house is just "there" and available.

But a cop's job is far more likely to make him a specific target for some idiot. As I see it, he has a much stronger NEED for privacy as to his residence address, and it's due to his line of work.

Art

Hkmp5sd
June 2, 2005, 09:28 PM
What is funny is that it isn't all that hard to find out a LEOs address, or anyone elses address for that matter. Maybe it just makes them feel safer.

RevDisk
June 2, 2005, 09:34 PM
Why let them hide?

Have they done something they are going to regret? Why don't I get that protection?

Kel, I disagree with your implied comment that they need to hide or have done something they regret. They are sometimes in a dangerous line of work and need to hide their personal information.

However, that said. I already posted about equal protection. If it's a legal option for them to hide their information, it should be for citizens also.


This just reeks of "If I can't have an ice cream cone, aint nobody having an ice cream cone"

Your need to conceal your addy equals that of an officer in the organized crime bureau? Y'all must lead some exciting lives.

No offense, centac, but I feel you have misplaced values when you equate human lives and equal protection under the law to ice cream cones. I'm trying to decide if you are merely being sarcastic because you cannot come up with a better responce, or because you actually believe your line of work supercedes the Constitition.

Yes, my life does equal that of an officer in an organized crime bureau. Need's got nothing to do with it. I do not need to justify my life, nor my rights under the Constitution.

And yes, I do lead an unfortunately exciting life.


Look: It's not because cops are "better". It is that the probability of their being specific targets is much higher than for us because of the job.

I'm walking down the street, and some mugger is in "to whom it may concern" mode. Or a burglar figures my house is an easy target. Same deal. I'm not a specific target as "Art Eatman". I or my house is just "there" and available.

Art, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.

Stalking victims are usually more at risk than the average police officers. Often so are spouses from an abusive relationship. Witnesses testifying against gang members or murderers. etc, etc.

I'm glad you do not have someone looking for a specific target as "Art Eatman". Some people are specific targets. Obviously their lives are not less valuable?

lunaslide
June 2, 2005, 09:43 PM
This just reeks of "If I can't have an ice cream cone, aint nobody having an ice cream cone"

Your need to conceal your addy equals that of an officer in the organized crime bureau? Y'all must lead some exciting lives.
Of course, thats not what this is about. It's about ALL citizens having the right to maintain that privacy. Those CCW holders who's addresses were revealed by the Florida paper are now vulnerable to all manner of harrassment and possibly to attempts to break into their homes to steal their weapons. What did they do to deserve that? Even if that paper had not published the list, it was still publicly available. What was the purpose in exposing them to potential harm and harrassment by making their addresses public?

What if you were the one being denied that privacy, but another group of citizens (thats right, police are citizens just like us) had special protections to keep them from harm? Would you then feel it's unfair for them to "have an ice cream cone" when you can't?

By the way, in a sense this already happens. There are laws in many states that explicitly protect the privacy of an alleged rape victim throughout a trial, but no such protections for the person accused of the crime. The defendent has his reputation tarnished badly just on the implication that he is a rapist and the consequences of that accusal, even when false, can follow him for the rest of his life. But for the accuser, if they lie about the rape and ruin the life of the man she accuses of false charges, there is no justice taken upon her, and it is unlikely anyone will ever know who she was. Do you consider this state of affairs fair?

Class differentiation always looks good to those it benefits, but it sure doesn't make it just.

O.F.Fascist
June 2, 2005, 09:48 PM
Why should my address or anyone elses address be kept on record anywhere just because I purchased a firearm?

pax
June 2, 2005, 09:50 PM
Art ~

A LEO arrests a guy, and puts the guy in jail. The guy vows revenge. When he gets out, he finds the LEOs personal info, and goes after the LEO and his family. Result: one dead LEO, one dead LEO's wife, two dead children.

A middle-management type fires a guy, and the guy vows revenge. The guy finds the manager's personal info, and goes after the manager and his family. Result: one dead manager, one dead manager's wife, two dead children.

A single, attractive female turns down a jerk for a date. The jerk vows revenge and begins stalking her. She, being smart, does the smart things about this: she moves, she gets a new job, she gets an unlisted number and she gets a gun. But the creep finds her personal info anyway, and goes after her. Result: one dead woman, one dead cat.

A judge sentences a criminal to ten years in prison. The criminal vows revenge. When he gets out, he finds the judge's personal info, and goes after the judge and her family. Result: one dead judge, one dead husband, one dead teenage daughter.

You know what? Death comes one to a customer. If you're the one who's targeted, and you believe you have a need to keep your physical address out of the very public databases, why should anyone else be able to say that your life isn't important enough to matter??

The LEOs should be able to keep their physical addresses private if they so wish. So should any other citizen. To do otherwise is to say that the LEO's life is worth more than yours or any other citizen's.

And that's just wrong.

Oh, Centac? The right to privacy is more than an ice cream cone.

pax

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. -- Thomas Paine

Derek Zeanah
June 2, 2005, 10:07 PM
My take on this:

If you're worried, get a P.O. Box and use that on your driver's license. Or go further and get a "stealth" mailbox like Luna and B.T.Party talk about.

There's more to privacy than what's on your driver's license.

Having said that, the cops have the same option as well -- don't know that I like the implied classism in these sorts of policies.

Art Eatman
June 2, 2005, 10:07 PM
pax, I follow your point and don't disagree, overall. What I'm saying is that the odds are more likely for the average cop than for the average Joe or Joanie SixPack.

That is, what are the probabilities for a woman being stalked by an ex-, out of all women with exes? (And exes don't already know the residence?) Same for bosses; how many people do they fire, for starters--and of those firings, how many were acrimonious? And in both situations, the specific individuals involved as possible victims have some awareness of a particular hazard. IMO, by and large, cops can't.

I'm just looking at what I think the odds are, in today's world.

Art

Werewolf
June 2, 2005, 10:10 PM
It is really rare for law officers to be the victim of revenge crimes, but it is by no means out of the realm of possibility. Sorry but that dog just don't hunt. Risks like that come with the job. Don't want to assume the risk don't become a LEO.Complaining that they have a distinction that you dont seems petty and spiteful.It is actually neither and quite disingenuous to suggest it is. I believe that the constitution prohibits special classes of citizens being created - hmmmmmm... You would deprive us of this just because you cannot have it?Yes. LEO's are citizens, not special citizens (most tend to forget that IMO). Do they have a dangerous job - yep. Tough - can't handle it don't become a LEO.

Why is Officer Safety of such paramount performance (officer safety is the reason for no-knock warrants - it is the reason if you let a LEO in your home they can now search it if they feel unsafe (thanks SCOTUS) - officer safety=death of 4th Amendment)? If the military worried as much about soldier safety as LEO's do about officer safety the US would have never won a war - hey - maybe that's why cops are cops and not soldiers.

DMF
June 2, 2005, 10:16 PM
Wow, all this debate, just because someone got their facts wrong. Your DL does not need to have your actual residence on it to purchase a firearm. Read what the ATF has to say on the matter:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#d5 (D5) Is a Social Security card a proper means of identification? [Back]

No. A Social Security card, alien registration card, or military identification alone does not contain sufficient information to identify a firearms purchaser. However, a purchaser may be identified by any combination of documents which together establish all of the required information: Name, residence address, date of birth or age, signature, and photograph of the holder. In addition, the documents used to establish the purchaser's identity must have been issued by a government agency. [27 CFR 178.124( c)] You may use any government issued documents, not just a DL, as long as you have proof of your residence address, along with the other required items. If you don't want your home address on your DL, you just need to think outside the box about using the proper government documents to establish residency. Even a dumb cop like me can figure this stuff out. ;)

All this "us v. them," "cops need more protection," "everyone faces risks," "cops are just citizens, not special citizens," blah, blah, blah, blah, when all anyone had to do was find out what the rules really are, and learn how to play by them. :rolleyes:

EasternShore
June 2, 2005, 10:19 PM
Well said Werewolf, and that is really the point, I don't know a single LEO that can't resign or in one form or another makes the choice every day to continue in that line of work. You make the choice you live with the consequences. It's called personal accountability. I live with it so should you...

Fletchette
June 2, 2005, 10:22 PM
/sacasm on/

Why, you have to tell the Government where you live! Terrible! What have you got to hide?.. :scrutiny:

Only a paranoid person would worry that this personal information would fall "into the wrong hands". Sheesh. Next it will be black helicopters...


/sarcasm off/

Yup. It sucks to be a prole, doesn't it?

LEOs, please, PLEASE think about this the next time your police chief wants a law passed that infringes on our privacy!

lunaslide
June 2, 2005, 10:55 PM
Wow, all this debate, just because someone got their facts wrong. Your DL does not need to have your actual residence on it to purchase a firearm. Read what the ATF has to say on the matter:
The debate is valid, because your assertion misses the point. First there is this:
Under Florida law, law enforcement officers (for obvious reasons) are entitled to list their agency address on ALL legal documents as well as on their driver's license to ensure that their residence address information does not get into the wrong hands.

Which means that any average citizen must put their home address on any of those documents they wish to use to purchase a firearm, but that a LEO does not. Therein lies the debate.

Lets go back to what the ATF requires and take a look:
(D5) Is a Social Security card a proper means of identification?

No. A Social Security card, alien registration card, or military identification alone does not contain sufficient information to identify a firearms purchaser. However, a purchaser may be identified by any combination of documents which together establish all of the required information: Name, [B]residence address, date of birth or age, signature, and photograph of the holder. In addition, the documents used to establish the purchaser's identity must have been issued by a government agency. [27 CFR 178.124( c)]

The ATF clearly requires that the document you produce to "establish all of the required information" have your home address on it. By requiring LEOs to provide the same information, the ATF is setting the same standard for all citizens in it's requirements for purchasing a firearm.

If you don't want your home address on your DL, you just need to think outside the box about using the proper government documents to establish residency. Even a dumb cop like me can figure this stuff out.
Well, thats nice that you don't mind that my home address isn't the one on my DL, but it's also irrelevant. The privacy issue is about the availability of the residence address to the public and not the police. I'm not worried about the police looking up my address in public records and coming to steal my firearms from my home in the middle of the night (uhh... :uhoh: hmm, thats another topic). Its the people who get my address from other official documentation that I am more concerned about. I went looking for what documents they do accept for these purposes, but was unable to find a reference. Perhaps someone can enlighten us.

I find this sentence particularly interesting in it's wording:
Hence, a vast majority of Florida law enforcement officers from the local, state, and federal level have exercised their right to this protection and the agency address is reflected on their driver's license.

Government entities don't have rights. They also cannot grant rights. Citizens have rights. Government entities are assigned powers by the people to perform their functions. Those powers do not exceed the rights of citizens, for if they do they are by definition, unconstitutional. If the individual LEOs have this right, they derive that right from being a citizen and not from being a LEO. That means every other citizen should enjoy that same right. Clearly in this instance, that is not the case.

wprebeck
June 2, 2005, 11:08 PM
maybe that's why cops are cops and not soldiers.

A bit off-topic, but hey, whatever...



Maybe you should check the makeup of your local agency. I'd be willing to bet that close to 50%, if not more, of the officers have some connection to the military. Connection to, meaning one of the following:

Were prior active duty
Were prior reserve/National Guard
Current reserve/National Guard
Married to one
Close family member who is/was active/reserve


Just after 9/11, we had about 20-25 members of my agency alone activated. The 223rd MP CO is located here, and many of it's members are local officers. That's not counting the artillery guys we have, the psyop guy that's currently over there, the navy harbor security guy who just came back this week from a year, the ANG guy who's been active for almost 2 years, the scout who's TDY to Knox until 08/06 (been gone almost a year already), or the guy who's been activated 3 times in the 5 years I've worked here.

Plus, many more of our people are preparing for a second trip since 9/11. Another one of our sgt's is preparing for an extended tour in the litter box across the way.

All three of my shift LT's are prior service, and from three different branches, too. Air Force, Army, and Marines, to be precise. The Marine is one of the best bosses I've ever worked for, as well. Many people in my academy were prior service, and a number of our new people are, as well.

So, wanna keep slamming cops? The ones I know that are prior service would, more than likely, take exception to your asinine comment. Not only have they served their country, they now serve their community. Keep that in mind when you start insulting officers, mmkay?

On topic -
CHL holders ALSO assume a risk when they apply for a permit. Why shouldn't they have their addresses out there?

And, for the record, I signed myself up for this job. My wife also signed up for the same thing, but neither of us put our kids out there for possible injury due to retaliation. Anything I can do to help keep the job from coming home with me, is a good thing. Matter of fact, anyone screws with my kids, better disappear before I find them...and I WILL find them eventually.

You know, speaking of kids....some members of this forum sound just like children:

"Mommy, he has something I don't....take it away from him if I can't have it, too"

How many of you all have been out in public, and had the following happen?

Going to your local grocery, and the guy at the register is someone with whom you have fought on multiple occasions

At your local O'Charley's, and the girl who's putting the garnishes on your plate is the crack wh*** you just saw last week in jail

At your local grocery (again), and see the same girl as before, walking around, shopping (or shoplifting, who knows?)

Sitting at a late night eatery, and a guy who's threatened you numerous times, has a history of violent behavior, including fighting with officer and playing with poop, walk up to you and say "Hi"

Going to eat at a wing-joint with the family, and a guy walks up to you and asks, "Hey, don't you work at the jail?"

Walked into two different stores within 30 minutes of each other, and running into former inmates who recognize you

Seeing your neighbor in jail, who KNOWS where you live...seems he just likes to beat his old lady up.

Seeing one of the guys previously mentioned BACK in jail, and having him threaten you, saying that he knows where you live now, and he'll be coming to see you when he gets out

Going out, in pubic, pretty much anywhere, and seeing people you've
a) arrested
b) sent to prison
c) fought with
d) who have threatened you

You know, in five short years with the jail, I've had ALL of the above happen. I'd say it's pretty common with anyone who works in LE, but especially those of us in the local jails. After all, there are 8 police divisions in my city, plus numerous smaller cities, but only ONE jail. And, since I work in the booking area where all the incoming prisoners go to, I see a large number of them. And, for some reason, they get mad at me when I find the contraband they try to bring in (like the half ounce of crack cocaine being the most recent). Yeah, like going to prison for 10 years or so is gonna make him happy...

So, we've got 1 or 2 civilians with "war" stories...anyone else NOT in LE wanna chip in? Because I'm sure we've got ya beat....(Remember that Marine I mentioned I worked for...he had a guy show up at his residence armed with a bat one time....)

R.H. Lee
June 2, 2005, 11:09 PM
The real problem is the 4473. No American should have to fill out a form to buy a firearm. A criminal background check can be done directly from positive ID without a paper record.

wprebeck
June 2, 2005, 11:17 PM
The real problem is the 4473. No American should have to fill out a form to buy a firearm. A criminal background check can be done directly from positive ID without a paper record.

Well, that makes too much sense. We can't have that now, can we?

(Yes, I work for the government. As does a large portion of my family.....I've been around enough to know that almost NOTHING any government does makes sense)

lunaslide
June 2, 2005, 11:30 PM
CHL holders ALSO assume a risk when they apply for a permit. Why shouldn't they have their addresses out there?

They shouldn't, no one should. Maybe you're missing the point people are trying to make here. It isn't that police shouldn't have privacy protection in the interest of their saftey. I'm all for it, as it seems many on this thread are. It's that every other citizen should enjoy that privacy protection as well. It's that the rights of all citizens should be held in the same high regard, and not differentiated based on classification.

RevDisk
June 2, 2005, 11:48 PM
So, we've got 1 or 2 civilians with "war" stories...anyone else NOT in LE wanna chip in? Because I'm sure we've got ya beat....(Remember that Marine I mentioned I worked for...he had a guy show up at his residence armed with a bat one time....)

A bit OT, but the gauntlet has been tossed down. :D

Ok. I once accidently videotaped some infantry guys doing something they shouldn't. Within 30 minutes, nearly a thousand (well, closer to 800) grunts wanted my head on a pike and everyone knew I had the evidence. Word filtered down that a good number of them wanted me and the evidence to disappear.

800 trained infantry soldiers with access to all kinds of automatic weapons, all of which are annoyed at me and an unknown number wanting to kill me.

Beat that. ;)

Greg L
June 3, 2005, 12:20 AM
It might be the bourbon talking but are the details of the 4473's that are filled out in FL regularly released to the public? If not (which would be my guess), have the #@$#!! agency issue the officers an id which would comply with the requirements. Chances are that a gunshop owner isn't going to let a goblin know where the random LEO who bought a pistol at his shop lives. Said random LEO shouldn't expect preferential treatment because he wanders around with a whole bunch of extra gear on his work belt.

Some people do need an extra layer of privacy protection - most of those same people need to get off their high horse where they think they "deserve" it because they took a job opening.

Lone_Gunman
June 3, 2005, 12:33 AM
What I'm saying is that the odds are more likely for the average cop than for the average Joe or Joanie SixPack.

Art, where do you get that statistic or draw that conclusion?

How many police are killed because a criminal gets their address off a drivers license, tracks them down, and kills them? Has that ever actually happened?

I would hypothesize that the number of police officers stalked and murdered annually is less than the number of regular people stalked and murdered annually.

Not having their address on driver's licenses may make the police feel better, but I suspect no life has ever been saved because of this.

rock jock
June 3, 2005, 01:05 AM
I really don't see this as any kind of special "right." It is more a matter of practicality. I don't show my DL to anybody that I would be concerned about.

VARifleman
June 3, 2005, 01:12 AM
So, we've got 1 or 2 civilians with "war" stories...anyone else NOT in LE wanna chip in? Because I'm sure we've got ya beat....(Remember that Marine I mentioned I worked for...he had a guy show up at his residence armed with a bat one time....)
A friend of mine shot an off duty LEO that tried to rob his store. Because my friend is white, and the BG was black, he got all sorts of threats of violence for simply protecting himself, his employees, and his buisness.

As pointed out, there should be no 4473, and information on addresses and such should not be available due to privacy. This goes for EVERYONE, not just LEO's, that's the problem we have with the current law. It's not constitutional per the 14th amendment.

Kestrel
June 3, 2005, 01:37 AM
pax - WELL SAID!

I don't think anyone here is saying LEOs shouldn't have privacy... We are saying WE SHOULD ALL BE ALLOWED OUR PRIVACY. Whether LEO or Civilian. Odds and percentages have NOTHING to do with it.

Good grief - is that so hard for LE and GVMT to understand?

stevelyn
June 3, 2005, 09:55 AM
My DL says I live in a post office box. :neener: When filling out the 4473 you are asked to put down your residence address. You are also asked if you are addicted to drugs and alcohol, convicted of crimes.........ya'll know the drill.
My point is that there is no documentation required to show you told the truth on the questions and in my experience I haven't had to show anything confirming my physical address. My identity is what's being confirmed as well as my criminal history on the NICS check.

Now as far as LE trying to remain anonymous by using a front address on their DLs, having a marked take-home vehicle parked in the driveway kinda makes that one a useless argument. :rolleyes:

Walt Sherrill
June 3, 2005, 10:15 AM
Centac wrote:

And how many people have you put in prison?

It is really rare for law officers to be the victim of revenge crimes, but it is by no means out of the realm of possibility. Complaining that they have a distinction that you dont seems petty and spiteful. You would deprive us of this just because you cannot have it?I don't think anyone really wants to make your life more dangerous. (My son is an LEO and I'm sensitive to some of the issues associated with that profession.)

The puzzling part of this discussion, for me, is seeing how writing anything on a 4473 puts you or any other LEO at risk? Get a second ID for FFLs, maybe?

How in hell is using an LEO agency's address going to do anything to make an LEO life less danagerous? Do you think the bad guys, when they come to get you, are going to go flipping through an FFL's files to find you? Are they going to rifle through cash register receipts at the grocery store to find out where you live? If they know you SHOP THERE, they know how to find you.

Do the checks you write have that same ID address? How about your wife's checks?

Do your power, phone and electricity bills go that that Agency's address? How 'bout your charge cards? If not, someone with a friend at any of those businesses can find you. Easily.

If the bad guy wants you, can't he just follow you home at night, or ask around? Or come after you on duty? It shouldn't take a private investigator to find out where a particular LEO lives or works.

That special ID thing seems like very superficial protection, at best.

DMF
June 3, 2005, 11:11 AM
Now as far as LE trying to remain anonymous by using a front address on their DLs, having a marked take-home vehicle parked in the driveway kinda makes that one a useless argument. Well not every cop has a take home, and not all take homes are marked, and even those that have option to take home a marked ride, are sometimes smart enough not to do it, because they don't want to advertise what they do and where they live.

Lone_Gunman
June 3, 2005, 11:18 AM
I have a question to the LEO's here, and people who support them not having to have their personal info on their driver's licenses...

Are you opposed to this policy being applied to non-LEO's as well? In other words, what difference does it make what address is listed on my driver's license from a law enforcement stand point?

TheFederalistWeasel
June 3, 2005, 12:00 PM
As an LEO I'm not against anyone being able to use a PO Box or work addy on a D/L for privacy purposes, as long as I or any LEO could run your D/L number thru NCIC/GCIC and still have access to your real addy, when issuing a citation or any other offical and lawful need.

It would appear to me that the ATF is still at the root of all this BS were mostly upset about.

:(

Waitone
June 3, 2005, 12:16 PM
Hey! What about me? I've had to fire people and I am not government of any type except for being an official taxpayer? Who knows when someone will go postal? They know where I work and they know where I live. I'm cooked. :eek:

armoredman
June 3, 2005, 12:35 PM
Stevlyn, if you had tried to purchase a firearm in the shop I worked at in AZ, with a PO box on your DL, you would have been turned away. We got an update from ATF that was VERY specific that PO boxes are NOT acceptable, and anyone selling from an FFL to a DL with a PO box is in violation. I don't like 4473sm either, NOR do I like background checks, as both conflict with 2A, but idid them so I could stay out of jail and keep my own firearms. I also contacted, and continue to contact my elected critters to change those laws.
As a correctional sergeant in AZ, I get my share of death threats from inmates, former inmates, etc. In AZ street LEO and prosecuters/judges can press charges against anyone disclosing thier personal info/addy. etc. We cannot....
I also agree that the 4473 info is NOT a public document. I can't see BGs breaking into a gunshop to steal 4473 info -they're already where they can get the guns! They have great ways of tracking us down, from Google to the ex-felon buddy who works at DMV, to the neighbor three doors down whos' brother happens to be with the Aryan Brotherhood.
We do get attacked off duty, not very much, but it does happen, which is why my CZ P01 rides with me alla time, and the wife also carrys her CZ RAMI 9mm. Backup.

centac
June 3, 2005, 01:14 PM
I dont think cops in general would be opposed to civilians using PO boxes and the like, as long as TFW pointed out we could get access to a physical address in some means.

What baffles me is the line of reasoning that we shouldnt have it because other people dont. Heck, it isnt just cops, but judges and a number of public officials have mechanisms to camoflage their home addys (at least they did at one time, I havent had to run any lately)

stevelyn
June 3, 2005, 01:17 PM
Although my mailing address is on my DL, I still have to put my physical address on the 4473. My physical address is confirmed as a result of the NICS check. I also have a C&R. I don't know if that makes a difference or not. BTW I don't even have a photo on my DL. :D Alaska allows us bushkins to obtain a "Valid Without Photo" licenses since we're still required to have licenses off the road system. The nearest DMV office almost 700 miles away. My department ID has a photo on it though. :evil:

Most of the larger agencies up here give their officers take home vehicles especially the Troopers, Anchorage, Fairbanks, mine and a few others. Never heard of a problem occuring as a result of it.

Control Group
June 3, 2005, 01:47 PM
*blink*

Centac, mark this day in history; I agree with you completely.

There's something wrong with allowing cops to hide their addresses and not letting me hide mine, and it's not that cops can hide their addresses. But nothing is served by trying to strip that ability from the police. The women's suffrage movement didn't try to stop men from voting, it tried to get women the right to vote. The civil rights movement didn't try to strip civil rights from whites, it tried to secure civil rights for blacks.

The argument that "we don't have it, so they shouldn't" puts me in mind of a joke I once heard. An American, a Brit, and a Soviet were in the airport when a genie suddenly appeared to them, and offered to grant each one wish. The American went first, saying, "I'm jealous of do-nothing actors living better than me. I want a Hollywood mansion with all the frills." The Brit went second, saying, "I'm jealoud of only having my Cooper Mini when the royals ride in style, I want a classic Rolls-Royce that's been completely restored." The Soviet went third, saying, "Ah, I have no such greedy capitalistic desires. I am simply jealous that my neighbor has two chickens, while I have none. Kill his chickens."

Does this issue annoy me? Sure, but the answer isn't to penalize the cops, who do have - on the average, compared to non-officer citizens - a higher risk of being singled out by BGs. It can be argued they need the privacy. What needs to be argued is that we shouldn't have to "need" the privacy to have it.

GunGoBoom
June 3, 2005, 02:01 PM
Pretty much a no-brainer, it seems.

1. If it's a duty gun, let the LEO agency buy it and issue; no form 4473 "problem". If it's a personal gun for the cop, then he gets no different treatment from any other person buying a gun for personal use. If your agency makes you buy your own duty weapon, then take it up with your cheap and/or lazy agency heads.

2. In any event, how exactly is it anyway that security is compromised by giving a home address to the NICS check people and gun store people, whether LEO or not? It's not leaked out into the public in any way. Only security risk, is if someone who wanted revenge, or knew someone who did, worked in the gun store and thumbed through the 4473s when no one is looking. Pretty remote possibility.

Henry Bowman
June 3, 2005, 02:48 PM
In any event, how exactly is it anyway that security is compromised by giving a home address to the NICS check people and gun store people It appears that is not the security risk. The security problem must be having the home address in the DL records or on the actual card. My question: How is it that the BG is getting access to the DL records or getting a looksee at the officer's DL card?

rock jock
June 3, 2005, 02:55 PM
My question: How is it that the BG is getting access to the DL records or getting a looksee at the officer's DL card?
+1. This whole issue is stupid. No one needs to see your address on your DL except for LE and possibly utilities, banks, etc. If you need to show your DL to a Wal-mart clerk for CC ID confirmation, just place your thumb over the address.

centac
June 3, 2005, 02:58 PM
There is leakage from clerks and computer workers at different records facilities. In one case the girlfriend of an organized crime figure was running records for his gang, in another cocaine was being traded for info. I dont know how common it is but it does happen with some fequency. Like so many instances, the people with the closest access to some really valuable info are pretty poorly paid for their responsibility.

Gordon Fink
June 3, 2005, 03:15 PM
Law enforcement is a difficult, dangerous job … thankfully.

~G. Fink, non-cop who has sent felons to prison, fired employees, and angered the occasional taxpayer

rock jock
June 3, 2005, 04:16 PM
There is leakage from clerks and computer workers at different records facilities. In one case the girlfriend of an organized crime figure was running records for his gang, in another cocaine was being traded for info. I dont know how common it is but it does happen with some fequency. Like so many instances, the people with the closest access to some really valuable info are pretty poorly paid for their responsibility. OK, good example. But, if I were you, I would be much more concerned about the very common crime of ID theft then some BG you locked up getting your address. The latter is pretty rare and if someone was determined enough, they could find you.

Art Eatman
June 3, 2005, 04:20 PM
Lone Gunman, I never claimed to have any facts. I think I made a reasonable argument as to "odds".

This doesn't mean I'm against similar privacy for all of us. It's just that I don't object to LEOs getting this bit of possible help. I note that TPTB never have particularly worried about me in that regard; they never will--and anybody who does get a bit extra, hey, good for them.

My DL sez "Three miles NW Terlingua PO". All somebody has to do is figure out if that's 2.6 or 3.4 miles, rounded off. And, it it's NNW or WNW as to compass direction. You run me through Google and you can find a street address that makes UPS happy. Trouble is, the little red star on the Google map is about four miles off from reality. (Which is a good description of Terlingua, come to think of it.) However, the UPS guy knows where my buddy's house is, where my stuff gets dropped off. :)

Oh, well. My CHL sez four miles. I didn't move; the feds built a new post office. Not my doing. :D

Sometimes, privacy just happens.

Art

Nietzsche
June 3, 2005, 05:47 PM
It's not because cops are "better". It is that the probability of their being specific targets is much higher than for us because of the job.

I would have thought that bank employees, men who work at security guard companies driving armored cars, and teachers might have a higher chance of being targets also. Threatening a bank manager's family and telling the bank manager to bring out a million or else would be a lot easier than walking into the bank with a sawed off shotgun.

Police seem to fear the public too much in my opinion. They act like their neighbors don't know who they are and what they do.

If it is good enough for average citizens then it ought to be good enough for police. After all, they are just average citizens who happen to have a high stressful and dangerous job. Not unlike 99% of the rest of the population.

Nietzsche
June 3, 2005, 06:00 PM
Maybe this will be a wake up call to some of those police officers who have favored stronger gun control legislation. What few of them seem to realize is that legislation here is moving toward controls being placed on all firearms, including those in the hands of the police.

Why would I say that? Because they have a similar system in many European countries already. Police officers there are allowed to keep their firearm WHILE ON DUTY but must surrender it before going home at the end of the day. I believe that many of TPTB would like to see the same system here.

Now ask a working police officer if he would be willing to trade his right to take his gun home every night in exchange for the rest of the population being disarmed. Ask him if he will feel as safe when he spends 16 hours of the day disarmed. Cause I think that is where we are headed.

TheFederalistWeasel
June 3, 2005, 06:22 PM
Police seem to fear the public too much in my opinion.


I feel, speaking from my personal experience as an LEO we do fear “some” of the public and for a good reason.

When was the last time you had your car pelted with bricks or beer bottles, while on patrol?

Ever been followed while on foot patrol in a housing project?

Ever had a unknown subject approach you car at night while you are parked in front of a closed gas station where you just bought a coke out of a vending machine, trying to walk up on your blind spot with something in his hand, it looked like a small glass jar with a liquid in it, when you turned to confront him he runs?

Ever had someone try to throw a burning road flare into your car while on patrol?

When was the last time you got out on foot walking thru a park known for high drug activity, one where a lot of foot chases ensue and found trip wires, sharpened sticks and old ten speed bicycle spokes buried in the ground protruding up about 6 inches?

When was the last time you had someone turn loose a pit bull on you and you heard very plainly, to the point your body mic caught it as well, the persons voice commanding the dog to “sic him”!

When was the last time you searched a person you arrested and found him to be holding a pocket full of fish hooks or razor blades, the same pocket you found his dope? This on a 19-year-old city kid…

When was the last time you encountered a male with his thumbnail cut in a manor, which left a very pointed tip? A common thing now with gang members, some will do all their nails this way and paint them with many coats of clear polish to strengthen them and they use them to gouge or slash at your eyes.


I can answer yes to all of these and yes we do have a good reason to be suspicious of the public.

Walt Sherrill
June 3, 2005, 06:59 PM
To TheFederalistWeasel:

All of that is bad, and I'm sorry it happens to you and other LEOs.

But...all of the things described happen to officers on duty, driving police cars, etc.

What has THAT to do with the use of special ID cards, etc., when buying weapons. Wasn't that the initial point of discussion? Isn't that what's THIS is about?

With regard to pelting, rocks thrown, people out to do you harm: firemen sometimes get the same treatment. As do EMTs. Its sad. I'm not downplaying the risk or the potential damage. Its sad that anyone has to put up with that.

But none of this has anything to do with the original point -- the need for special ID when buying a gun, etc. As I asked earlier -- and haven't seen an answer -- how does a special ID prevent problems?

Gordon Fink
June 3, 2005, 08:12 PM
Federalist, some people are just bad, and when they’re not making trouble for the police, they’re usually making trouble for the rest of us.

~G. Fink, non-cop whose car has been pelted on more than one occasion

armoredman
June 3, 2005, 09:11 PM
Fink, what do you do?

TheFederalistWeasel
June 3, 2005, 09:55 PM
Federalist, some people are just bad, and when they’re not making trouble for the police, they’re usually making trouble for the rest of us.


Absolutely!


But once the actions of those folks causing trouble [for you] arrive at a certain personal comfort level most reasonable people will call 911 and who then shows up and is expected to by virtue of their position, to do something about it?

Elmer
June 4, 2005, 01:04 AM
You know, I think I remember why I first pinned a badge on, all those years ago.



For the life of me, I can't imagine why anyone would today......

R.H. Lee
June 4, 2005, 01:08 AM
~G. Fink, non-cop whose car has been pelted on more than one occasion
That's a tactic to get you to stop, so that you can be robbed and/or carjacked. But I'm sure you know that.

Nietzsche
June 4, 2005, 02:36 AM
I feel, speaking from my personal experience as an LEO we do fear “some” of the public and for a good reason.

When was the last time you had your car pelted with bricks or beer bottles, while on patrol?

{edited}

I can answer yes to all of these and yes we do have a good reason to be suspicious of the public.


The last time? I'll admit it's been awhile. Probably about 3 years now. I did work for a mental health hospital though. My duties involved traveling to "the poor and disadvantaged among socio-economically destabilized public housing" (that was actually written in one of our company flyers) and providing "expert advice on mental health problems among our client base" {quote BS company line unquote}.

I handled crack baby cases. Kids hearing voices. Clients who had murdered other people. Drugs addicts. Sexually abused 5 year old girls (I hope you have never experienced, and can't imagine, what it feels like to interview a sexually abused 5 year old). And tons of gang kids. BGD, Crips...you name it and I've done it.

So picture everything that you described to me as having happened to you, and then imagine that you had to go into those same neighborhoods armed only with your winning smile and a size eight by eleven wooden clipboard. :)

And I pissed off quite a few of my clients. One of my classic lines was "If you stay in a gang you'll either be in jail or dead by age 25." The leaders in the gangs didn't like me saying these things to their recruits. They leaned on me hard a few times.

Am I right in assuming that you don't encounter these types of attacks in EVERY neighborhood that you patrol? Aren't some neighborhoods better than others? That was certainly my experience while on the job.

To clarify my earlier statements: I do think that there has developed among the police community a belief that it's "us versus them". Almost a militarized view of the public. The public is seen as somehow constantly threatening the police, and constantly concerned with trying to kill police officers. To me, the statistics just don't bear this out. The number of officers killed in the line of duty has stayed within the 130-200 range for the last decade. I'm told by my relatives (police officers all) that the 1970's was the time to be scared if you were a police officer. This is what they tell me. If the public was ACTIVELY moving against the police, there would be a LOT more policemen being killed. For that matter, there would be a lot more of the public being killed as well.

(Of course, I could be wrong. If you are personally seeing a lot more public outcry/violence against the police while on the job then ignore what I'm saying. But then ask yourself "why is the public turning against us?" If you figure that one out then you'll make Officer of the Year, I'm sure.)

Are certain segments of the public going to attack police officers? Yes...and they always have. That's why you grow trees in your front lawn as a barrier to gun fire, and keep a 870 with mag extention next to the door. :) It wasn't much different in Wyatt Earp's day. :) But those same sections of society that MIGHT attack the police are also the same sections that know the COSTS of attacking the police. Would you really want to be a gang banger in a gang that was at war with the police???!!!! "Hey...he resisted arrest...what could I do? That's when I shot the gang leader 95 times, your Honor."

As an aside: Do you know who is most likely to shoot a police officer? A relative, an ex-wife, or himself (suicide). Sad but true...and exactly like 99% of the rest of society.

No, I think what bothered me most about the privledged address that police were being allowed on the 4473 was that it was designed to further separate you guys from the public. It was another one of those "differences" that cops are allowed to have. Truthfully, I don't see why you guys don't have to jump thru the same hoops that we do. If it is good enough for the rest of society, then it ought to be good enough for you guys as well. Anything else just fosters that whole "it's the thin blue line versus the rabble" mentality. Even my relatives are guilty of this attitude on occasion.

The second post I posted earlier was intended as a cautionary reminder of this. Many police officers have no problem with repealing the second amendment....as long as THEY are allowed to keep their firearms. "Us vs. them" again. I wanted to point out that TPTB don't necessarily want a strongly armed police force anymore than they want a strongly armed civilian population. Thus my point about some police organizations in Europe only allowing their officers to be armed while on duty.

I do know that a lot of people are nervous about the direction of both our laws, and the various powers that LEO's are being given under these laws. Where that will go, in both political terms and how hard it is for you on the streets, I can't know.

What I'd like to say is that there really isn't a difference between you fellow citizen humans that wear blue and us fellow citizen humans that don't. Perpetuating the idea that there IS a difference is only going to further isolate the police and the public from one another. That's how fear and envy arise.
Results: Who can say? More LA riots?...New York Jamacian immigrants gunned down in the streets?...worse?....I don't know. I think isolation from the public is a bad idea for both the public AND the police though.

beerslurpy
June 4, 2005, 02:47 AM
Well put nietzsche.

I can see how certain cops who patrol certain colorful urban neighborhoods get that sort of an attitude, but I dont think there is an excuse for the rest of them.

Nietzsche
June 4, 2005, 03:24 AM
From everything I've seen, being a cop is a tough job.

When cops are at their best, they are the unbiased enforcers of our societies laws; the guardians of our lives, our property, and our civil rights; and the rope that keeps our society from dropping over the cliff into Anarchy.

When they are at their worst, they are self-serving and corrupt. Interested in protecting only the interests of the well-to-do and the influencial who can, in turn, benefit them. These are the kinds of cops who sell dope out of their squad cars, shake down motorists or whatever.

There are bad cops out there. Hell, there are bad DEPARTMENTS of cops out there. (Read "Serpico" sometime.) But I wouldn't go so far as to say that the MAJORITY of cops are corrupt. Quite the opposite in fact. I think the majority of cops are decent and hard working. A little crazy maybe...and maybe too inclined to think of themselves as being a Hero or getting an Award of Valour from the city or something...but, hey, what's wrong with that, eh? Most of the cops I've met started out just wanting to help people...then they see how screwed up the system is and get cynical. "Frustrated idealist" ought to be a clinical diagnosis in mental health. I'd have handed out a hundred diagnoses of FI to cops (yes...I've actually had police officers in counseling sessions...and you aren't any less of a man for going,either you stubborn :cuss: ), firemen, soldiers, and social workers.

As long as the public sees the police as being more like "the good cops" and not like "the bad guys", then you'll see basically what we have now society-wise. If that ever changes anytime soon, then we'll find out what a highly armed population does when faced by rampant illegality and inequality of treatment on the part of it's police force. A situation that has never happened before in history, either...that I'm aware of. If this was Russia under Communism, then I could make a prediction...but a country with 120 million armed citizens? I'm not sure that has ever happened before. Makes us unique.

But then again, being American, we ought to be use to being unique. Can I get a "Hell Yeah" for America? :)


P.S. Good cop or bad...you can count on the police to provide one important service. Finders of Quality Donuts. If you see a group of police cars at a pastry, stop and buy some donuts. I thought it was a stereotype for many years, but I've tested this now in three states, and across ten years of time. These jokers can FIND some good pastries. I'd vote to keep the police for this reason alone. :)

JohnKSa
June 4, 2005, 03:32 AM
What I'm saying is that the odds are more likely for the average cop than for the average Joe or Joanie SixPack.This is almost identical to the argument that is often used to explain why cops should be able to carry handguns and the rest of us should not.

Since when did the low probability of needing a right become a rationale for restricting it? Either privacy is a right, or it is not a right. If it's a right, then the fact that someone has a low probability of NEEDING it is TOTALLY irrelevant. In fact, even if it can be shown that they don't need it at all, that is still irrelevant because rights are not based on need.

On the other hand, if it's NOT a right--if it is a privilege--then it is the government's right to assign that privilege to whom it wills.

Every free man should detest the idea of RIGHTS being handed out selectively by the government as if they were PRIVILEGES.

It's not that I begrudge the police the right to privacy--it's just that it's MY right too and it's not the government's place to allow them to exercise it while preventing me from doing the same.

It's not that I want to punish the police by taking this right from them, Control Group, it's that I want them to fight WITH me so that everyone can exercise this right equally. They have no motivation to do so now.

beerslurpy
June 4, 2005, 03:43 AM
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

We all bleed the same color and we all have the same right to privacy, self defense and property. I shouldnt have to join the blue shirt gang just to be treated as more than a second class citizen.

c_yeager
June 4, 2005, 03:48 AM
Theres a lot of really tough jobs out there. If i have to put MY address on that form, so does everyone else.

Houndawg
June 4, 2005, 06:04 AM
As a correctional officer in a maximum security state institution, I deal with more felons than any cop. Yes, lots of them get pissed off at me for doing my job. Some of the inmates whom I've pissed off are on the streets right now. I've seen former inmates at the grocery store, mall, and many other places where I've been alone and with my family. Outside the walls I'm just a normal citizen with no right to carry, no powers of arrest, and no special privileges. I have to put my real address on my license. Cops are no more special than me or anybody else, and they shouldn't have any more special rights or privileges than me or anybody else.

Powderman
June 4, 2005, 06:25 AM
centac, that attitude that you're better than us is EXACTLY why some of us despise a lot of cops. You are not better, and you have apparently forgot who you work for. You're supposed to work for us. Instead, you just go on trashing liberty in your wake.

Oh, please.

Can't someone post something JUST ONCE, without whining about LEO's, and the supposed privileges we have?

For your information, before you start flaming away, you CAN request and receive a number of steps that can be taken to ensure your privacy:

1. Unlisted/unpublished numbers.
2. Removal of your address from all directories.
3. Protection of your address.

All it takes is a bit of legwork, and you too can vanish.

So, some of you have taken steps to put away some criminals. Good on ya, wish there were more people like you.

But please--do NOT sit there and tell me how wrong I am because I don't want some idiot I gave a ticket to looking up my address!! :banghead:

And for those of you who are still predisposed to whining about cops, here's a suggestion:

LEAVE US ALONE!!

Since we're obviously JBT's, the next time you hear something go bump in the night, find a burglar in your house, have a purse snatched or a car vandalized, or have someone bent on committing a crime of violence, TAKE CARE OF IT YOURSELF!!! Since you hate me and those like me so much, don't bother me. Just leave me alone, will ya?

:(

c_yeager
June 4, 2005, 06:51 AM
For your information, before you start flaming away, you CAN request and receive a number of steps that can be taken to ensure your privacy:

So please explain why police cannot take these same steps?

Werewolf
June 4, 2005, 10:55 AM
Since we're obviously JBT's, the next time you hear something go bump in the night, find a burglar in your house, have a purse snatched or a car vandalized, or have someone bent on committing a crime of violence, TAKE CARE OF IT YOURSELF!!!Uhhhhhh.... I'd bet that that is the plan of about 99% of the folks here! I know that it is my plan. Since you hate me and those like me so much, don't bother me. Just leave me alone, will ya?Sounds like a plan to me - problem is the ma and pa gubmint just don't allow that. :banghead:

Seriously though...

The police are a very necessary part of any society. There's gotta be rules to hold it together and someone's gotta enforce 'em. That someone is the police.

Unfortunately a lot of stuff that is dangerous, frustrating or otherwise unpleasant goes with the job. Face it no one likes an enforcer. That's life. Deal with it or don't be a police officer.

In my experiences with the police in 53 years all but one have been good guys who were friendly and acted professionally. When I was much younger more than one sent me on my way when he probably should have run me in. Hell - at 19 I had an auto accident in LA. The officer gave me $20 bucks out of his own pocket for a bus ride back to San Bernardino and called a wrecker and made sure my car was towed all the way back too. He should have given me a ticket for being stupid. I sent the LA police chief a very complimentary letter about that gentleman.

That said my last official interaction with the police was well over 10 years ago. Since then I've heard too many bad stories about them. Maybe it's only the bad stuff that gets related. In addition the militarization of the police really, really bothers me as well as the loss of 4th Amendment rights in the name of officer safety.

I had an unofficial interaction with a police officer where I work. The police were using out factory as a place to train in a workplace hostage scenario. I was involved. While in the cafeteria waiting for the exercise to start I got into a conversation with one of the swat guys. IMO he was an arrogant, supercilious a'hole. If he was half as good as he thought he was supeman would quake in his boots in this guy's presence. The results of the exercise pretty much validated my opinion of him.

I figure where there's smoke there's fire.

I hope my negative attitude about the police of today is wrong.

I fear though that I am not.

ASIDE: I believe that the positive experiences I've had with the police are because I never BS 'em, always tell 'em the 100% truth and treat the individual with the respect due his office and his actions. Or maybe I've just been lucky.

armoredman
June 4, 2005, 11:17 AM
Houndawg, move to AZ. We'll adjust your pay for the years worked in Illinios, put you in a state that is very firearm rights friendly, and after you graduate the academy, you get the same carry privlidges as all other sworn officers. We need some more down here who can work max. http://www.adcprisoninfo.az.gov/index.html

Art Eatman
June 4, 2005, 12:06 PM
JohnKSa:


Originally Posted by Art Eatman
What I'm saying is that the odds are more likely for the average cop than for the average Joe or Joanie SixPack.


"This is almost identical to the argument that is often used to explain why cops should be able to carry handguns and the rest of us should not."

Not at all, John. Nowhere did I ever say you and I should not have the same right. I just said that I can understand the point of view of those who set up that deal, and the point of view of the cops who benefit. And, I have no objection.

If that sort of effort at anonymity were important to me, I'd lobby the legislature to include me. I'm not interested in taking away somebody else's right, regardless of occupation.

I guess I'm seeing a molehill where others are seeing mountains. I put out energy and money and time on issues that have negative impacts on me--and this ain't one of them.

Art

beerslurpy
June 4, 2005, 12:23 PM
Since we're obviously JBT's, the next time you hear something go bump in the night, find a burglar in your house, have a purse snatched or a car vandalized, or have someone bent on committing a crime of violence, TAKE CARE OF IT YOURSELF!!! Since you hate me and those like me so much, don't bother me. Just leave me alone, will ya?

But isnt this the world we already live in?

If someone snatches my purse er I mean TV, are the cops going to retreive it for me? No, the best hope I have is to find out who did it myself and track them down and THEN call the police to have them do the arrest. I could do the arrest myself except that the police would then arrest me.

If someone breaks into my house, I will have to fend for myself. If I relied on the cops, it would take a miracle for them to arrive in time to save me. In many areas, you will not even get someone to talk to if you dial 911. Woooo 15 minute callbacks. Lol bleeding to death.

If you dial 1911, you live- if you dial 911, you die. You would think something like this would be a truism by now considering how many people have been killed waiting on the cops.

I live my life like I preach it. I keep an AK47 closer to my bed than I keep a phone. It would take me half a second to find a gun and probably 10-15 minutes to find my cell phone. When something goes bump in the night, it is the man of the house's responsibility to investigate it. You need to seriously consider growing a pair if your first instinct is to call the cops.

TheFederalistWeasel
June 4, 2005, 01:50 PM
Ever wonder why cops…

Do you ever wonder why so many cops are becoming so jaded towards the public?

Do you ever wonder why so many of the good cops, those who do truly care about you and yours, those who do truly care about your safety and your ability to protect your own hide, ever wonder why those cops are leaving the service and what you have left are the Para-Military JBT’s everyone here so fears?

Do you ever wonder why cops more or less tune out 99% of the public and put up that blue wall of silence?

http://sigforum.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/230601935/m/306107482

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=141299

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=141454

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=141491

These are just the most recent ones which are raging as we speak, if I had the energy I could probably crash the Forums server with the shear volume of threads where the public attacks every action of every cop simply because we are cops. Lumping all cops into the category of the worst bloodhounds the BATF can offer up.

As a cop I deal with all that is wrong with society, it’s my job and I accept that. But what is becoming more disturbing to me is the shear number of John Q. Publics who feel they are on some type of crusade to drag down every cop they meet.

I realize this is the internet and that folks say and post stuff here they would never in a million years say to a persons face, for fear of getting punched on the nose, but damn…

Cops are becoming so jaded because they deal with the lowest common denominators society has to offer up, the morally bankrupt and the gracefully stupid.

Now we have to hear it from the public, those law abiding folks who just have it in their minds that I am a uniformed JBT, corrupt @SS kisser who is just salivating and chomping at the bit to jack you up for some obscure law.

This type of behavior day in and day out makes even the strongest heart weary and speaking from experience, more and more of the “Andy Griffith” style cops are waking up each and everyday asking themselves why the hell do I keep on doing this job for a public that is growing more and more ungrateful each and everyday.

Why do I keep on doing this job for a paycheck that won’t even pay my rent, car payment and insurance on both, leaving me with red ink in the check book at the end of each month?

Why the hell do I stay?

We are leaving your service and what you are being left with are the JBT’s who thrive on the Us. Vs Them.

Enjoy what you are slowly creating my friends, in the end you need to be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.

Signed,
One Weary “Andy Griffith” Cop


:(

Elmer
June 4, 2005, 02:06 PM
Well, Nietz,

If you are who you say you are, maybe you could illuminate us on the psychologist's world. Why don't regale us with some stories of your profession? I'm sure we'd all get a giggle out of the illegal drug use, sexual battery and rape, frequently of children, and high suicide rates.

Cops take a hit for policing ourselves, but we're rank amateurs compared to you guys. No one evaluates your "success" rate but your own profession. Doesn't matter that data says everything you claim to do is a failure. You can keep declaring sexual predators and murderers "cured," and when they continue to commit their crimes, you just shrug and send another bill.

It must be such a feeling of power for you, to sit in judgment of a young cop, who ran towards the screams, and ended up using deadly force. If he feels good about his actions, you can tell him he's not a hero, and that he has serious problems. Courage and Duty are such foreign concepts in your little world and you're threatened by them.

You can vicariously lash out at the Father that left you, or the Mother that made you wear dresses, or the Jr. High School counselor who sodomized you. And get paid for it! You definitely picked the right profession....

beerslurpy
June 4, 2005, 02:44 PM
If people are unwilling to fend for themselves, there is only so much that a limited number of government officials can do for them, no matter how well-intentioned or hardworking they may be.

My only modes of dealing with the police so far have been:
-revenue collection
-reporting a property crime and being told to bugger off (NYC)
-reporting armed robbery (when I was in JHS in NYC) and being told that there was nothing they could do since I didnt know who the other teenagers were who took my wallet

What sort of attitude do you think this will foster towards the police? I think my experiences are fairly normal for a law abiding citizen.

Vernal45
June 4, 2005, 03:39 PM
Cops are becoming so jaded because they deal with the lowest common denominators society has to offer up, the morally bankrupt and the gracefully stupid.


If you cant handle the job, you need to find a new one.

Elmer
June 4, 2005, 04:18 PM
If you cant handle the job, you need to find a new one.

Good advice!

I did just that!

And I suggest it to my friends often. The good guys will continue to leave the profession, and soon, the attitudes seen here will reflect the truth. You will get exactly the law enforcement you deserve. The tin hat crowd will look like geniuses.

And I, and guys like me, will continue to take care of ourselves and our families. Unlike the tough talking, cowardly little punks, who show up on these boards.

Have a nice day, and drive carefully now, Sir! :)

Vernal45
June 4, 2005, 05:30 PM
And I, and guys like me, will continue to take care of ourselves and our families.

I guess it is easier to leave, than to hold the bad cops accountable.

centac
June 4, 2005, 05:47 PM
And exactly why did you leave, Vernal? :scrutiny:

Vernal45
June 4, 2005, 05:50 PM
The first reason was money, the second, cops like you that have a fetish with searching. :neener:

centac
June 4, 2005, 05:56 PM
So you were in it for the money, not to serve the public

:neener: right back atcha

Vernal45
June 4, 2005, 06:07 PM
So you were in it for the money, not to serve the public

Wrong.

The other reason I spoke of, was the growing numbers of officers, who wanted to serve the public by keeping them safe from empy coffee cans.

2nd Amendment
June 4, 2005, 06:34 PM
The tin hat crowd will look like geniuses.

*yawn*

At least when compared to the alternative we ARE geniuses. Of course that might have something to do with the ability to see things as they are and not feel the need to resort to silly little labels in place of legitimate defense and credibility. What do you think, or do you?

DMF
June 4, 2005, 06:36 PM
Oh this is priceless to me from an entertainment standpoint. Vernal who claims to have been a cop wants to debate the issue of leaving LE, and posts this:

Originally posted by Vernal at 1530 4 June 05:
I guess it is easier to leave, than to hold the bad cops accountable.

Then later as to why he allegedly left LE:
Originally posted by Vernal at 1550 4 June 05:
The first reason was money, the second, cops like you that have a fetish with searching.
Then this:
Originally posted by Vernal at 1607 4 June 05:
The other reason I spoke of, was the growing numbers of officers, who wanted to serve the public by keeping them safe from empy coffee cans.


Vernal, your hypocrisy is hilarious. First you deride Elmer for not sticking around to hold bad cops accountable, then you claim it was bad cops that allegedly caused you to leave LE.

"Paging Mr. Vernal . . . Paging Mr. Vernal . . . you have a call from The Kettle on the white courtesy phone."

2nd Amendment
June 4, 2005, 06:41 PM
You're hardly qualified to comment on anyone's credibility. Your consistency, OTOH, is noted. :rolleyes:

Vernal45
June 4, 2005, 06:55 PM
EHH, no, DMF. I left, as I have stated several times, for a job that paid a hell of a lot more, 2nd reason, was the influx of JBT like officers. The 2nd reason was not the deciding factor, however it played a minor role. More money, and a kid on the way was why I left LE for more money. It does not matter how ever you want to view it, twist it.


Cops get extra perks, that citizens do not. That is not right. YOU, and Centac seem to think LEO's should be treated like ELITES. That is not right.

Powderman
June 4, 2005, 07:12 PM
It must be such a feeling of power for you, to sit in judgment of a young cop, who ran towards the screams, and ended up using deadly force. If he feels good about his actions, you can tell him he's not a hero, and that he has serious problems. Courage and Duty are such foreign concepts in your little world and you're threatened by them.

Thank you, sir.

LawDog
June 4, 2005, 07:16 PM
Enough.

Lights out.

LawDog

If you enjoyed reading about "The "officer 4473 dilema"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!