Self examination: Let's ask ourselves a question.


PDA






Powderman
October 24, 2005, 11:03 AM
I will open this with two quotes from other threads. I believe that this will illustrate the situation I am addressing.

First a quote from a thread concerning the theft of evidence:

Try to follow along, Joe. No-one lost anything as a result of the officers having taken the guns, which were already in the possession of the police department and were about to be destroyed.


Next, a passage from a thread about felons and firearms:

I guess what blackrazor is so eloquently trying to say is; When a New Orleans type situation comes down in your jurisdiction, and you are given orders to attempt to disarm law-abiding gun owners whose only "crime" is trying to prevent their untimely demise at the hands of those who think nothing of taking a life to gain a pack of cigarettes, you will have a decision to make. The Molon Labe in your sigline says one thing, you seem to be saying another. Food for thought.;)

We keep covering the same territory, over and over again.

It's like fighting a battle, taking a piece of territory and then retreating to say, "Let's do it again". Almost every thread that is written concerning an abrogation of rights, or an infringement on rights always falls back to cop bashing.

You who call yourselves the exemplars of society, the pinnacles of personal behavior; the standards for society to uphold. You, who espouse the freedoms that this country was founded on--the same ones who wail and cry each and every time some lawmaker proposes another restriction on gun ownership.

What do some of you have against police officers? Is it fear--the unreasoning fear of a child, railing against something they know nothing about?

Is it envy--longing for something you can not attain?

Is it sloth--the criticism of something else, a job you do not want, and will not do?

Or is it just plain indifference?

On one hand, you demand that law enforcement officers ensure that they hold themselves to a higher standard.

Yet, on the other hand, you want us to look the other way when someone breaks the law--such as a felon handling a firearm.

Heck, some of you are even saying that STEALING--outright THEFT of a firearm--is NOT a crime! That the misappropriation of property, the illegal conversion of property for your own use is EXCUSABLE--"hey, it's headed for the smelter, anyway!!!"

WHY DO YOU LIVE IN FEAR AND APPREHENSION? WHY DO YOU FEAR THOSE WHO WEAR BADGES AND ENFORCE THE LAW?

Because it looks like fear to me. Pure, simple fear.

Fear to step to the forefront to be an agent of change.
Fear to use peaceful means to effect change.
Fear of being in the limelight, fear of bucking the status quo.

In some cases, there have been people who have posted that they would be willing to even attack law enforcement officers who were in the performance of their duties. Why?

Why do some people seem to ache for violent confrontation? Or is it a case of being a paper tiger? Hiding behind a keyboard and a computer monitor?

We have the most effective means of making changes in our system--the vote! We have the tools to make change--tools that other countries ache for; the opportunities that simply do not exist elsewhere.

Yet, we refuse to make the change. We will not organize effectively, but we'll talk readily about jumping on cops who enforce the laws that WE allowed to become law.

Some of you will say that you are law abiding--yet you call for actively breaking the law. Instead of changing the law--which is within your power to do--you talk about openly breaking the law, and then attacking the ones who enforce the laws that YOU allowed to become law.

Anyone care to comment?

If you enjoyed reading about "Self examination: Let's ask ourselves a question." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
M-Rex
October 24, 2005, 11:10 AM
I maintain that society, in general, views law enforcement officers like 'societal parents'. Law enforcement officers are the people who tell other people 'no'. Most of the general public's contact with law enforcement is usually the result of some sort of infraction (read that as all inclusive). The citizen has done something, and the law enforcement officer is telling him/her, "No, you can't do that."

Most folks bristle when someone else tells them 'no', or in a larger sense, tells him/her what to do.

Then again, some folks are simply bigots and hate anyone they perceive as 'different'.

Art Eatman
October 24, 2005, 11:22 AM
Did I miss something? Did somebody claim that people are consistent? When did this change occur?

:D, Art

Old Dog
October 24, 2005, 11:36 AM
Powderman, you’re asking the same questions that I’ve asked myself so many times while reading so many posts on this forum.

For many posters, their remarks demonstrate some of the most blatant hypocrisy possible. Many members routinely display totally outrageous self-righteousness when attempting to represent their own values and ethics, yet are incredibly quick in their vicious attacks on all law enforcement (although they usually try to include some weak caveat such as “I personally know a cop who is a good guy” or “I’m sure not all police officers are like this”) whenever any thread arises that however tangentially touches on any aspect of law enforcement operations in this country. This usually occurs, amazingly enough, in response to posts in which media articles are reproduced verbatim … So, going on the “facts” reported in some initial reporting of an event, large numbers of forum members immediately dissect the media version of the occurrence and typically end up blaming bad law enforcement …

What is worse, to me, is the concept of “picking and choosing” which laws should be obeyed. Granted, there are hundreds, probably thousands, of bad laws on every level of government in this country, but to espouse disobedience of those laws which one doesn’t support leads only to something worse than bad laws – further breakdown of societal norms and possibly, anarchy. However, many forum members don’t see this as a problem. After all, they, in their infinite wisdom, know what’s best for this country, so why should they obey any law with which they do not agree?

For me, often what strikes me as most amusing, is the frequency of encounters with law enforcement that many members claim to experience. What goes unsaid, of course, is the fact that most Americans go through their entire lives with perhaps only two or three encounters with any level of law enforcement – and that experience is usually garnered as a result of having been caught exceeding the posted speed limit or when one’s automobile collides with another at an intersection … Yet, many THR members claim routine harassment by their local gendarmerie, which leads me to wonder what sort of lifestyle these individuals must be leading … Most middle and upper class Americans have never ever talked to a local police officer, let along been harassed by one … though many High Roaders would have us believe that police harassment is at an all-time high in this country, a veritable epidemic. … Frankly, if I’m out in a “bad” section of town at two-thirty a.m., and I happen to get pulled over by the police for failure to signal a left turn, I’m not gonna be too surprised. If the officer demonstrates a wariness upon approaching my vehicle, I’m not gonna be too offended. But, so many THR members turn routine experiences such as this into additional chapters of their episodic struggle against the evil blue empire in this country …

At any rate, Powderman, I appreciate you asking the question. I have no answer, save to observe that your well-meaning post will turn into yet another “us against them” thread that probably won’t last 50 posts …

walking arsenal
October 24, 2005, 11:37 AM
It's all a matter of what the situation is in my opinion.

For example.

Stealing a car is wrong.

Stealing a car so you and your children and wife can escape an angry mob, thats a different situation.

Also.

Shooting a person is wrong.

Shooting a person in self defense of you and your loved ones, again, different.

It's all a matter of perspective.

It all depends on what it comes down to.

If it's a normal day then it's a different set of rules then when armageddon comes and it's every man for hmiself.

Those are the rules we discuss.

TallPine
October 24, 2005, 11:39 AM
I didn't start out distrusting police - in fact I was raised to respect and admire them. But that is changing for me as I watch events unfold over the last few years, especially the War on People Using Some Drugs. (and no, I'm not an illegal drug user - I hate the stuff and the people using it for the most part, but much more harm to many more people has come from drug enforcement than ever did from the drugs themselves).

WHY DO YOU LIVE IN FEAR AND APPREHENSION? WHY DO YOU FEAR THOSE WHO WEAR BADGES AND ENFORCE THE LAW?
I don't, generally - at least in regards to the locals. But then, this is MT, not CA or NY or IL, etc... But when I hear about doors being busted down to "preserve evidence" I am both disgusted and concerned. (then there was the Norleans confiscations - a long way from here, both physically and culturally, but still..... :uhoh: )

Maybe something is wrong when you lose the respect and trust of those who have by nature and upbringing respected and trusted police for decades :confused:

We have the most effective means of making changes in our system--the vote!
Really...? If it is so effective, then why are things the way they are? I vote Republican and/or Libertarian depending on who is running, for all the good it does. Mostly I voted with my feet a few years ago.

Werewolf
October 24, 2005, 11:46 AM
Powderman asked:WHY DO YOU LIVE IN FEAR AND APPREHENSION? WHY DO YOU FEAR THOSE WHO WEAR BADGES AND ENFORCE THE LAW?
1. The Police represent the power and authority of government. A sizable proportion of human beings have a natural pre-disposition against authority. In other words they resent the power of others to take control of their lives.

If the police represented a power that was wholly benevolent it is unlikely that they would be feared or resented. BUT they do not represent such a power. Granted the US government at all levels, local, state and federal, may very well be the most benign and benevolent on the planet today but that's relative. The government has done some pretty bad things in the past 30 years or so and the police have participated. Unfortunately local police whether they participated or not must live with the fallout.

2. I will not argue whether or not the militarization of our police forces is necessary (I just don't know) but IMO the militarization goes a long way towards fostering fear of the police in the eyes of the general public.

Militaries exist for one reason - to kill the enemies of a government or enforce that government's will upon its enemies. That's scary. A police force exists to enforce the will of the government on its subjects. Militarize the police and you've got double scary.

Today's police forces often include a highly militarized SWAT force. SWAT teams seem to be called upon more and more to handle situations that may not call for the overwhelming level of force they are capable of applying. For good or bad these militarized portions of the police are highly visible and they are scary.

It is understandable that the militarization of the police would frighten people.

3. When I was young the police wore uniforms that fit like regular clothes, they had regular haircuts and looked like regular folk. They were not intimidating and I was taught that they were my friend and were there to help me and you know what - they were.

Today when I see a police officer he is more often than not wearing a uniform much too tight that makes him look musclebound - and many are. He's got a crew cut and is wearing sun glasses. This look is designed to intimidate and that is exactly what it does - intimidate. If the police don't want to be feared then they shouldn't dress and act in a manner designed to intimidate and engender fear. NOTE: I am not saying that the police shouldn't be in top physical condition - they should - just don't flaunt it.

It is entirely understandable that the attitudes towards the police are different today from that of 40 or 50 years ago. Is it their fault that attitudes have changed? Beats me - all I know is that attitudes have changed and mine has too.

I avoid interaction with the police at all costs. Their power to utterly and completely destroy one's life is too real. The fact that only 1 cop in a million might actually exercise that power is irrelevant. The very fact that the power exists is scary...

Camp David
October 24, 2005, 11:50 AM
I avoid interaction with the police at all costs. Their power to utterly and completely destroy one's life is too real. The fact that only 1 cop in a million might actually exercise that power is irrelevant. The very fact that the power exists is scary...

Amen!

The recent acts of police abuse of powers in New Orleans should be a wake up call; I don't trust government at any level now. State, Local, and Federal government, and their staff, have illustrated too much incompetence for me to trust them...

TexasRifleman
October 24, 2005, 11:52 AM
I avoid interaction with the police at all costs. Their power to utterly and completely destroy one's life is too real. The fact that only 1 cop in a million might actually exercise that power is irrelevant. The very fact that the power exists is scary...


And that sums it up better than I ever could have, that is exactly it.

Headless Thompson Gunner
October 24, 2005, 12:03 PM
Any number of thoughts come to mind here.

They mostly boil down to one fundamental concept: All cops have the legal authority to make your life miserable. This is power. Like any sort of power, it's "goodness" or "badness" depends entirely upon the character of the man who holds it.

Now, most cops are of "good" character, and won't hassle anybody who doesn't really deserve it. Problem is, there are "bad" cops too. Not many, in my experience. But enough. One "bad" cop is too many, when he's got his sights on you. All it takes is one experience to make you a firm believer that no man (cop or otherwise) should have that kind of power over another man.

It simply isn't prudent to assume that any particular police officer is one of the "good" ones. The stakes are (sometimes) too high.

This doesn't make me a hypocrit, or anti-cop, or anything of the sort. I realize that police officers are generally good men, and a tremedous value to the community. But I don't hold an idealized view of them.

It's a lot like the proper handling of firearms. Don't hold an irrational fear of them, they have the potential to improve your life. But at the same time realize that they can ruin your life too. Treat them always with caution and respect, 'cause you do NOT want to get burned by one.

EDIT: Looks like Werewolf beat me to it. He's right in all respects.

Powderman
October 24, 2005, 12:03 PM
Really...? If it is so effective, then why are things the way they are? I vote Republican and/or Libertarian depending on who is running, for all the good it does.

Because unfortunately, for everyone who DOES vote, there are at least one or two who do NOT. Consider our current population, which IIRC is now approaching 300 million, and the number of votes in the last Presidential election--which barely broke 80 million. I don't think that there are 220 million children in this country!

I have found that gun owners as a bloc tend to think in the same manner--usually responsible, mature and law-abiding as a whole.

Moreover, we suffer from a lack of collective focus. We are united in out BELIEFS--but when it comes time to vote, oh watch out! Some of us actually voted for Kerry in the last election...why? :confused:

Can you imagine what would happen if ALL of us got together, and voted the same way--according to our beliefs in just the 2nd Amendment?

GCA '68? Right out with the trash.
NFA '39? Gone with the bath water.
Importation bans, and restrictions on full auto? Poof! Vanish!
National carry, without permit? Stick a fork in it--it's done!

But for heaven's sake, we can't even agree collectively on that!!!

As far as the war on drugs is concerned, let me ask you this--first of all, you seem to be a good guy to me...

Let's talk about drugs for a bit.

Let's start with the "harmless" drug, marijuana. It has the same hazards--and addiction rate--of cigarettes. There is more of an intoxication factor, of course. But, it is still addictive, and still harmful to your body.

The organic drugs--coke, heroin, coke base, and the derivatives thereof--all have a place in medicine.

Let's shift focus for a bit. You know that if all of these were legal, the war on drugs would vanish. Surely, it would.

It would be come legal to possess and use these drugs.

Now, you and I know that kids smoke. That's a fact; sometimes they will sneak a smoke--just like they will sneak a sip of alcohol now and again--at least some kids will.

Now, I want you to be a parent. I want you to think of your kids in school. I want your kids to be teenagers--or even younger.

Think of your kid's best friend sneaking them a smoke behind the school. OK. Choke, cough, wheeze--ewwwww! This stuff is terrible!

Small snicker from the parent.

OK. Now, your kids over at the friend's house. Same scenario--a sip of blended whisky.

Choke, cough, wheeze--ewwwwwww!

Another small snicker from the parent.

Following me so far? Good.

Now, third scenario. Kids over at the friend's house.
Same scenario--only instead of whisky, or tobacco, they pull out a bottle. It says, "Cocaine Hydrochloride, USP". Hey! The stuff's legal!

Your son takes a snort, or a hit, or whatever.

Since your son is still young, and their bodies are in excellent shape, there is no buffer to the response. As soon as the cocaine is absorbed through the mucous membranes, into the bloodstream, the heart goes into fibrillation--and shuts down.

Small snicker? No? What do you feel?

Your son--or daughter--is now lying DEAD on the floor. Just like Len Bias--remember him?

And DON'T ask me about meth, or ice, or GHB, or roofies.

Still think that drugs should be legal?

oldfart
October 24, 2005, 12:15 PM
"We have the most effective means of making changes in our system--the vote!"

Sounds good, but unfortunately, as we've seen time and time again, 'taint neccesarily so.
I can go down to the local library and see a whole wall of books of laws, regulations, ordinances and rules, most of which were never voted on by the people who are now required to know and abide by them. Many of them weren't even voted on by our elected representatives, instead being passed by administrative fiat. Some. voted on and passed by our representatives, weren't read by them prior to passage. Is it any wonder that ordinary citizens bristle at a law that was passed without any input from those who are now required to obey it?
The USA PATRIOT ACT was passed with NO congressman or senator having read it! Closer to home for a gun board, many "felons," now unable to legally own firearms, were convicted of misdemeanors which were then elevated to the staus of felonies by administrative means.
As has been amply pointed out many times before, too much of any good thing is usually not good. Each of these laws or rules was formulated and passed to do some perceived good, but perceived by whom? When an agent of the ATF breaks down the door to Farmer Brown's house to relieve him of the .22 he used for pest control because Farmer Brown once failed to show up in court over a traffic ticket, we have a police agency running wild, at least in the opinion of Farmer Brown's neighbors. Just as everyone else in this world, those neighbors will ultimately paint nearly all other police with the same brush.
Is it fair to call the local deputy a JBT because of the actions of some federal goon? No, but life is seldom fair. When Deputy Fife put on that uniform and badge he should have known he had an uphill battle to maintain the goodwill of his fellow citizens. If he didn't realize it, he's dumber than a post and probably needs to be relieved of his duties before he hurts himself.
Compounding the problem is people like the recently publicized Sheriff Speziale (sp?) of New Jersey, who thinks that LEOs should have special consideration when it comes to traffic laws. Some of his men may appreciate his actions, but I doubt most Sheriffs across the country do.
We here on these boards remember all too well the fiascos at Ruby Ridge and Waco. While it's highly unlikely those things will happen again in the near future, they don't do much to foster a feeling of confidence among the citizenry. Like it or not, the officer who stops you in the middle of a rainstorm to tell you that your tail-light is out has to carry the burden of all his stupid, authoritarian, impolite predecessors on his shoulders.
I have, over the years, gotten to know several police officer fairly well. Some are good guys and some are not. Most fall in between. I know that and I can try to think of them all as being part of that 'average.' But when I see a cruiser pull into traffic behind me, I still don't experience a rush of relief that safety and protection is at hand, I glance at my speedometer instead. I imagine most of us are like that too.

cropcirclewalker
October 24, 2005, 12:23 PM
Mr. Powderman says WHY DO YOU LIVE IN FEAR AND APPREHENSION? WHY DO YOU FEAR THOSE WHO WEAR BADGES AND ENFORCE THE LAW?

Because it looks like fear to me. Pure, simple fear.
You got it. I am absolutely in fear that some cop will shoot me for a nervous tick or scratching without permission or something. I don't have a cell phone so it won't be for that.

My wife invited a friend and a couple of the friend's friends over a few months back for a dinner. The husband heard that I was into guns, reloading, etc and wanted to meet me.

He turned out to be a retired cop, moved down here after retirement. I guess he is the only cop I have talked to (other than locals) in a non-business, as it were, environment.

In the course of talking about guns, loads, velocities powders and like that, he just happened to mention (and he acted real proud) that his son was a sniper on some swat team or other. I can't remember exactly what, but I said, "Oh, you mean like Lon Horiuchi?"

He said, "Who is that?"

I told him and we sort of started talking about something else.

Based on our conversations, it was obvious to me that he was an authoritarian and he had raised an authoritarian for a son. An authoritarian can turn into a fascist without even knowing it. They are dangerous.

The local cops know me; we wave at each other when we drive past; they don't pull me over to see if my BAC is too high; I never see them in speed traps. They lead funeral processions, direct traffic around accidents and fire scenes and like that.

Those cops I don't fear.

As far as I know, most cops don't live lives like Bruce Willis. They normally get up and go to work just like everyone else who has a job.....BUT....

Their job is to protect and serve and maybe they do, but my experiences in the last several years with cops I don't know (Like on a multi-state road trip) consist of soberiety checks or being pulled over for driving while poor.

Yes, I got a speeding ticket back in '89 but from then on, every instance of my interaction with cops consists of me proving to them that I am not doing something wrong.

The cops that pull me over are trying to RUIN MY DAY. So far, at least since '89 they have failed. In my little episode in the LOO back in 2002 even though they had me chained to a bench for a few hours, they still failed since they hadda grudgingly return my piece and send me on my way.

I yam not a criminal who just hasn't been caught yet.

Just because they fail with me doesn't mean that they don't succeed with others. So, if one has a job the successful performance of which consists of ruining a citizen's day he has to be an authoritarian.

It takes a special kind of person to do a job like that.

Then he said, Yet, on the other hand, you want us to look the other way when someone breaks the law--such as a felon handling a firearm. You see? I know this question gets booted all over this forum, but, Nobody can show me in 2A where the constitution allows that infringement, yet the authoritarians will argue till the chickens roost that they are justified in doing so.

That single instance tells me that cops violate their oath every time they do it. If they will violate their oath there, where else?

Fear, yes, absolute fear.

Werewolf
October 24, 2005, 12:24 PM
We have the most effective means of making changes in our system--the vote! We have the tools to make change--tools that other countries ache for; the opportunities that simply do not exist elsewhere.http://members.cox.net/werewolf1326/images/Digital/ROFLMAO.gif
The notion that the people have the power to change things thru the voting process I find to be naive at best and dangerous at worst.

All the power to change things is tied up in the 2 political parties extant in the US. We know who they are. The power to run for elected office is controlled by the 2 political parties and starts at the primaries. If the party doesn't endorse you - you don't run under that party's banner. You can run as an independent of course - good luck with that.

It all boils down to a choice between dumb and dumber or bad and worse. In either case it is no choice at all.

The power of the people to influence our masters is illusionary. A real power of the people to influence the laws under which we live hasn't existed for at least a 140 years - maybe longer.

At best all we have the power to do is choose the lesser of two evils. I doubt if we ever had the power to choose the better of two goods.

Regarding gun owners Powderman stated:I have found that gun owners as a bloc tend to think in the same manner--usually responsible, mature and law-abiding as a whole.Gun owners on THR might think in the same manner (though I have serious doubts about that) but gun owners as a whole - puhleeez!

80 Million gun owners in the USA - only 4 million are members of the NRA. Let's add another 2 million that contribute to or belong to other pro-gun organizations. That's 6 million of 80 million that care enough about RKBA to actually join a pro-gun org. That doesn't mean though that all 6 million are pro-gun single issue voters.

Let's be generous and say that half of them are and then dilute that number across the 50 states. Yep - that sure goes a long ways to explaining our power. Sure explains why all the anti-gun laws on the books have been repealed. Sure explains why new ones are padded with anti-gun amendments. Yep sure does.

ASIDE:By the way Powderman what was your main question and point again? I'm having trouble keeping up... :D

dracphelan
October 24, 2005, 12:27 PM
I don't fear, and I do respect police officers (as a whole). Though, like all human beings, there are good and bad ones.
1. The reason that I hold them to a higher standard: They have more power than your ordinary citizen.
2. The reason I fear them: They are required (and most willingly do) enforce laws that I find immoral and/or unconstitutional.

Mad Man
October 24, 2005, 12:34 PM
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Are we supposed to believe that police officers are somehow immune from Lord Acton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton%2C_1st_Baron_Acton)'s axiom?

R.H. Lee
October 24, 2005, 12:39 PM
Well, let me ask you a question. Why is it necessary for local police departments to become increasingly 'militarized', looking more like small armies rather than traditional local law enforcement?

Mad Man
October 24, 2005, 12:43 PM
[deleted]

Sindawe
October 24, 2005, 12:46 PM
WHY DO YOU LIVE IN FEAR AND APPREHENSION? WHY DO YOU FEAR THOSE WHO WEAR BADGES AND ENFORCE THE LAW? I don't. My personal view on cops is that they are the same as big cats and short faced bears were to our ancestors. They are hazards in the environment to be avoid when ever possible. Interacted with in a cautious manner least they be needlessly provoked when encounters can not be avoided. If they prove to be overly grumpy and insistent on causing a problem, then the same rules apply for cops as it did for big cats and bears."Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Are we supposed to believe that police officers are somehow immune from Lord Acton's axiom? +1

Jim March
October 24, 2005, 12:50 PM
In California, sheriffs and police chiefs have control over who gets a CCW permit.

They (the chiefs and sheriffs) are often visibly abusing it - being way too restrictive AT BEST (except for about a dozen jurisdictions) and being outright corrupt and racist about permit handling at worst.

In many cases it's no secret among the rank and file of the department. One deputy in Sacramento released this gem to activists:

http://www.equalccw.com/colafrancescopapers.pdf

Now, that's a big agency. County population is 1.2mil...it was at least over a mil at the time that incident went down.

Why would the rank and file deputies be willing to keep working for people like that? And why would I possibly trust them?

Answer: I don't.

WT
October 24, 2005, 12:51 PM
An excerpt from The New York Post

"October 24, 2005 - An undercover narcotics cop has lodged a shocking brutality claim with the Civilian Complaint Review Board against four members of the NYPD’s elite Major Case Squad, charging they mistook him for an armed-robbery suspect and beat him up ......."

Edit: Link to article. Registration required.
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/56061.htm

David W. Gay
October 24, 2005, 12:55 PM
WHY DO YOU LIVE IN FEAR AND APPREHENSION? WHY DO YOU FEAR THOSE WHO WEAR BADGES AND ENFORCE THE LAW?
Well, maybe it's not knowing what park bench is legal to sit on.

Or, not knowing what exit of the highway is going to funnel me into some sobriety/seatbelt/whatever checkpoint.

Possibly it's having to worry about having a coffe can in my car used simply to keep odd-n-ends in.

And then there's my cell phone; while not new, it looks it from a casual glance, because I take care of it. To some, that is "evidence" of some type of criminal activity...

...Well, that and the fact that I keep my maps in my car, because that's where they are needed, and my car always has some sort of food wrapper/empty cup about, as I am a single guy, and that's just how it is.

All situations requiring "Proof of innocence"

Yup, I must be a bad guy...

As for Fear -vs- Respect, some will say that all respect is ultimately rooted in Fear. You have to think about that for awhile, but it's true.

Carry on.

Old Dog
October 24, 2005, 01:00 PM
The notion that the people have the power to change things thru the voting process I find to be naive at best and dangerous at worst. And I find this statement to be naive at best and ridiculous at worst. It all starts at the local level. Even given the appalling lack of participation by most citizens in local politics, many cities, counties and states can boast of well-earned victories and the enacting of common-sense legislation resulting from an educated electorate and dedicated efforts by ordinary people.

Why is it necessary for local police departments to become increasingly 'militarized', looking more like small armies rather than traditional local law enforcement?
Well, I'm no expert ... but I'd submit it's due in large part to the fact that even your local criminal enterprises have evolved to the point where they are (1), more organized (refer to documentation on many of the growing foreign immigrant gangs/mobs); (2) actually training to fight law enforcement and (3) have procured some pretty amazing firepower. I'm not sure you'd be asking that question if you'd ever spent any time on the other side of the badge ... If you'd ever been a participant in a raid on a meth lab with a bunch of exceedingly well-armed tweakers in residence ... or raided one of the sophisticated drug trafficking (or even human trafficking) operations run by some enterprising foreign immigrant criminals (Russian mob, Asian gangs, whoever) who happen to have ready access to automatic weapons ... Seen the video of the West Hollywood bank robbery? Read the accounts of the FBI's '86 Miami shoot-out? Plenty of sophisticated criminal operations out there with lots of sophisticated weaponry. Law enforcement, even local, should have an edge. Not to mention the fact that local law enforcement will, regrettably, probably be the first responders to any large-scale terrorist attacks ...
Well, maybe it's not knowing what park bench is legal to sit on.

Or, not knowing what exit of the highway is going to funnel me into some sobriety/seatbelt/whatever checkpoint.

Possibly it's having to worry about having a coffe can in my car used simply to keep odd-n-ends in.

And then there's my cell phone; while not new, it looks it from a casual glance, because I take care of it. To some, that is "evidence" of some type of criminal activity...

...Well, that and the fact that I keep my maps in my car, because that's where they are needed, and my car always has some sort of food wrapper/empty cup about, as I am a single guy, and that's just how If these are the only things some of y'all have to worry about, you've either got great lives or have too much time on your hands.

pax
October 24, 2005, 01:02 PM
"October 24, 2005 - An undercover narcotics cop has lodged a shocking brutality claim with the Civilian Complaint Review Board against four members of the NYPD’s elite Major Case Squad, charging they mistook him for an armed-robbery suspect and beat him up ......."
*shudder*

WT, could you post a link for that?

pax

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -- C.S. Lewis

TallPine
October 24, 2005, 01:07 PM
Still think that drugs should be legal?
Yes. I never said life would be perfect. Nothing keeping that from happening now with illegal drugs since they are readily available anyway (except that my girls knew better:) ). As far as the synthetics, I just don't know... :( IMO, the synthetics like meth are monsters of our own making due to the illegality of the organics. [I did not mean to hijack this thread, but still the WOPUSD is a big factor in the antagonism between private citizens and police.]

R.H. Lee
October 24, 2005, 01:08 PM
Well, Old Dog, why are occurrences of the reasons you list happening with ever increasing frequency proportional to the 'militarization' of local pd's and firearms restrictions on lawful citizens?

1) Aformentioned 'militarization' is not effective?
2) Criminals don't obey laws in the first place?
3) PD's unable to effectively fight crime with anything short of brute force/firepower? No more investigative 'gumshoe' work. It's much more fun to kick down the door and play with tacticool toys????

Baba Louie
October 24, 2005, 01:18 PM
This nation was founded by a group of men who did not like their government's actions. This mistrust was well-founded if you see things their way, be it religion or politics. Obviously, King George III and his men saw things differently.

Both were right.

Here we are today.

Do you really expect all of us here, or those in your neighborhood/county/state/nation to trust implicitly the actions of the King's men? Or his Parliament?

Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who watches the watchmen?)

Having said that... I am typically a police advocate. I think that LEO's are an "Evil" necessity. While it would be nice if everyone could play well with others... that just doesn't happen.

There are good, just and everlasting moral type laws which need to be enforced, and there are laws passed by do-gooder politicians who have been bought and sold so many times they pander to only the highest bidder. Rarely, do all the laws they pass make common sense. Compromise is the law of the land. Pass a law or motion that no one likes and pleases only those who vote on it and call it a success (I've actually heard an elected official say that... in public). Yet try to get that law changed without big corporate-type bucks behind you...

Other than that... Why do you ask? :D Ya just want to hear everyone rant for a bit more?

We gripe because we can.


So far.

Mad Man
October 24, 2005, 01:25 PM
[deleted]

zahc
October 24, 2005, 01:41 PM
It has the same hazards--and addiction rate--of cigarettes.

I laugh.

Still think that drugs should be legal?

Yes. If your son dies from it, that's tragic and all, but I shouldn't be asked to pay a price in freedom for his mistake; I'm smart enought to stay off drugs.

Old Dog
October 24, 2005, 01:42 PM
Well, Old Dog, why are occurrences of the reasons you list happening with ever increasing frequency proportional to the 'militarization' of local pd's and firearms restrictions on lawful citizens?

1) Aformentioned 'militarization' is not effective?
2) Criminals don't obey laws in the first place?
3) PD's unable to effectively fight crime with anything short of brute force/firepower? No more investigative 'gumshoe' work. It's much more fun to kick down the door and play with tacticool toys?Which came first -- the chicken or the egg? The militarization is not effective? I'd say there are mixed reviews, and that it is an unfortunate, but necessary, outgrowth of the society in which we live. No, of course criminals don't obey laws ... but if you want to continue owning and using a wide variety of firearms, so too will the criminals ... As far as your #3 -- you may want to become a bit more familiar with current crime-fighting techniques. Sure, the door-kicking SWAT raids get the publicity, but for every event like that, there are hundreds more low-key investigations taking place with actual detective work going on ...

antarti
October 24, 2005, 01:50 PM
Werewolf +P+

I'll add my own prattle..

WHY DO YOU LIVE IN FEAR AND APPREHENSION? WHY DO YOU FEAR THOSE WHO WEAR BADGES AND ENFORCE THE LAW?

you talk about openly breaking the law, and then attacking the ones who enforce the laws that YOU allowed to become law.

Reason #1:

Because if "the law" said that (ahem) all white couch-potato-lardasses with a firearm who mow their lawn on Saturday and pee standing up (hey, thats me!) were to be rounded up tomorrow and sent to "reeducation camp" along with their families, most would carry it out without question.

That would simply be "enforcing the law" wouldn't it? A lot of LEOs are very good at that, and damn proud of it. I've shot with plenty of them at police ranges.

Reason #2 :

Most LEOs I've encountered are of the opinion that "I didn't make the law, and I'm not going to sort any situations between people out, just arrest 'em all and let a judge sort it out". Makes their job simple, and a victims life as complex as the perpetrators should be. That kind of "justice" I don't like seeing dispensed nonchalantly.

Reason #3:

I have seen first-hand what happens when a total drunk drives 65mph on the wrong side of a major highway, narrowly missing my brothers car and my car, only to be pulled over. Finally, I thought, a policeman right when you needed one! Unfortunately, since the other driver was an off duty cop, he was allowed to continue on his way, after being escorted back across the median, thanks to "professional courtesy". Of course, the officer threatened to arrest me for bitching about it afterwards. That kind of "equality under the law" I don't need or want.

Yes, thats MANY LEOs, not ALL. But even "some" with the above traits, given power and sanctioned to use deadly force... yeah, it scares hell outta people... but not just the kind of "scare" that makes them wet the bed. The kind of "scare" that makes them think they don't have much to lose when confronted with the rotten variety of officer. The fear/feeling of being cornered and helpless. Thats when the .45 in the citizens holster starts looking like their best option.

It's also when you have to start justifying suspicion about the police in terms of envy, sloth, cowardice, etc. to make yourself feel better. Then you go on to bolster your ego by making "paper tiger" remarks. As if anybody who would call somebody out on the internet would be taken seriously, with or without a badge.

I genuinely feel sorry for you having to resort to that, but I am more sorry for those who you patrol around.

Regularly watching or reading about LEOs abusing somebody and getting 2 week suspensions (if that) for what could ruin (or end) a life isn't exactly winning people over to your POV either.

Want complete respect? Want most law-abiding gun owners to risk their lives if they see you getting beaten or shot at? Great! Become a firefighter. They are respected universaly (except maybe in Philly) for their altruism (something that LEOs should aspire to shouldn't they?), and I wouldn't hesitate to get heavily involved if somebody took a potshot at one of them around me. Then again, I'm just a paper tiger, what do I know?

Was that envious enough for you?

I'd go on, but it's time for me to go back to my daily "envy, gluttony, and sloth marathon" now.

Fletchette
October 24, 2005, 01:55 PM
WHY DO YOU LIVE IN FEAR AND APPREHENSION? WHY DO YOU FEAR THOSE WHO WEAR BADGES AND ENFORCE THE LAW?

Short answer: because it is the police that will eventually be the people that enforce gun control.

Still think that drugs should be legal?

Yup. I find it amusing that you used the "for the children" arguement as bait.

David W. Gay
October 24, 2005, 01:58 PM
If these are the only things some of y'all have to worry about, you've either got great lives or have too much time on your hands.A simple dismisal, with a subtle ad-hominem slant, does not an argument make.

The points offhandedly dismissed have all been discussed at length on THR. A good many people here, and "in the real world", have experienced the cause of such concerns.

It's not a matter of too much time, but simply a matter of time...

That is the point, and the why, to the question of this thread.

Werewolf
October 24, 2005, 02:16 PM
The notion that the people have the power to change things thru the voting process I find to be naive at best and dangerous at worst.
And I find this statement to be naive at best and ridiculous at worst. It all starts at the local level.You're right it does all start at the local level as I pointed out in the post you quoted but so conveniently chose not to mention.

The parties control who runs for elected office at anything higher than the township level and even at the local level to some extent (think grooming). You want to run as a Dem or Rep you get their approval and endorsement or you don't run as a Dem or Rep. AND if you aren't a Dem or Rep you don't win. It's really that simple.

Then again quite often city councilmen and school boarders often run without claiming any party affiliation but their power and ability to influence our society is so limited as to be irrelevant and anyone with a lick of sense knows it; if they don't then their either stupid or living in a fantasy world with pink skies and blue bunnies.

The power in the USA resides at the state and federal levels and if you aren't endorsed by one of the two major parties you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a seat at either level.

Them's the facts! That's reality. But anyone is welcome to prove otherwise - you can start by pointing out all the independents and third party members that hold state or national office and have any influence at all on the legislative process. Anyone? Anyone... Beuhler?

Old Dog
October 24, 2005, 02:17 PM
Aw, David (may I call you David?) ... yes, I'm off-handedly (and with no offense intended, really) dismissing these "concerns" of yours:

WHY DO YOU LIVE IN FEAR AND APPREHENSION? WHY DO YOU FEAR THOSE WHO WEAR BADGES AND ENFORCE THE LAW?

Well, maybe it's not knowing what park bench is legal to sit on.

Or, not knowing what exit of the highway is going to funnel me into some sobriety/seatbelt/whatever checkpoint.

Possibly it's having to worry about having a coffe can in my car used simply to keep odd-n-ends in.

And then there's my cell phone; while not new, it looks it from a casual glance, because I take care of it. To some, that is "evidence" of some type of criminal activity...

...Well, that and the fact that I keep my maps in my car, because that's where they are needed, and my car always has some sort of food wrapper/empty cup about, as I am a single guy, and that's just how it is.

All situations requiring "Proof of innocence" Because, every one of these instances that "have been discussed at length here on THR" are isolated examples of the misuse of a type of profiling which is commonly used in almost every aspect of daily life, not just in law enforcement. The simple fact is, your chances of getting hassled on the roadside by the state trooper or, heaven forbid, getting hauled downtown for interrogation by overzealous cops due to the coffee can or maps in your back seat noted by that ever-observant highway patrolman (who pulled you over for speeding), are so infinitesmal that it's just not worth worrying about. And the chances of you running into a law enforcement officer who would break the law, assault you or otherwise deprive you of your Constitutional rights (not just temporarily inconvenience you) are even slimmer. But, the bottom line still is, should something such as this happen, in our country, you have ample recourse for redress.

Again, if you live your life in fear of this country's law enforcement officers because you don't philosophically support the concept of sobriety checkpoints, or you like to carry coffee cans in your car, or you worry about getting busted for sitting on a park bench that's marked for adults with small children (or senior citizens or handicapped people), well, you should, as Powderman recommended, do something about these situations rather than just post how dire the situation has become on internet forums ...

longeyes
October 24, 2005, 02:18 PM
I'll answer your query:

Lurking deep in the heart of America is one motto:

NON SERVIAM.

I will not serve.

Yes, we love The Rule of Law.

We also love Disobedience.

Old Dog
October 24, 2005, 02:22 PM
Then again quite often city councilmen and school boarders often run without claiming any party affiliation but their power and ability to influence our society is so limited as to be irrelevant and anyone with a lick of sense knows it; if they don't then their either stupid or living in a fantasy world with pink skies and blue bunnies.So, Werewolf, what level of government impacts your life, and the life of your children, the most? What level of regulation does your local law enforcement agency enforce the most? Who makes the decisions on your local public school curriculum? What level of government do you deal with getting your building permits, fighting that speeding ticket, lobbying for new ordinances, backing that millage increase or bond issue? Those pink skies out there look so nice today ... and that blue bunny in the back yard is sure cute.

Werewolf
October 24, 2005, 02:34 PM
So, Werewolf, what level of government impacts your life, and the life of your children, the most? What level of regulation does your local law enforcement agency enforce the most? Who makes the decisions on your local public school curriculum? What level of government do you deal with getting your building permits, fighting that speeding ticket, lobbying for new ordinances, backing that millage increase or bond issue? Those pink skies out there look so nice today ... and that blue bunny in the back yard is sure cute.<Sigh...> Yes local governments do impact our daily lives at a micro level. They do not however impact our lives at the macro level.

If I don't like the way the schools are run or paying what I consider a too high property tax I can move. I can avoid the speed trap; I can move to a place where the building regulations are more to my liking.

But it's a whole lot easier to move out of a town than it is to move out of a state or a nation.

Here is just one glaring example: look at all the Californians who complain about the draconian gun laws there. Ask them why they don't move. Better yet check on how well they're doing getting the gun laws changed by exercising their right to vote at the local level? We all know how well that's working out.

Implementing change thru the vote is indeed the ideal. AND a laudable ideal it is. It is the way the system should work. BUT IT DOESN'T. And no amount of shuda, cuda, wudas is going to change that.

To be honest I don't know what will work to change the system to one where voters actually have a real impact on the system. I am open to suggestions...

Mr. James
October 24, 2005, 02:34 PM
Errr, longeyes, do you really want to quote Lucifer, the Prince of Darkness, the Father of Lies, as an authority?

:p

But, yes, you are right - there is that contrarian, small-L libertarian, strain of disobedience and suspicion of authority woven into the American fabric.

MikeIsaj
October 24, 2005, 02:35 PM
Well Powderman, did you get your answer yet? It is a diverse crowd. And some make a good point.

A lot of departments have forgotten the impact of a uniform as a level of force. I also shudder when I see police routinely wearing BDU's. It impacts both sides. It's why we don't wear them in the prison I work in. The AJA has studies that link the number of use of force incidents with the BDU uniform. Same guards, differient clothes, differient behavior. And they say clothes don't make the man.

The fact is, police have become more militarized in the larger metro areas. Eventually they may see the fault in this and take a step back to center.

It's self-fulfilling prophecy. People have bad experience with a cop, so next time they meet a cop they are abrasive. Or the cop has dealt with 25 buttheads tonight and approachs you with an attitude.

And then there are those here that seem to have more police encounters in a month than I've had in my life. If you don't like the police, and don't want to be around them, don't break the law. I suspect that many having so many encounters with police, probably live a life at odds with the society in general.

Anyway, consider the posts in total, and you will have your answers.

longeyes
October 24, 2005, 02:40 PM
Errr, longeyes, do you really want to quote Lucifer, the Prince of Darkness, the Father of Lies, as an authority?


The trouble with the Peaceable Kingdom is that a) it's a little too peaceful and b) it's a kingdom.

I'll ride on, thank you.:D

45acpSHOOTER
October 24, 2005, 02:43 PM
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4897809/detail.html?subid=22100484&qs=1;bp=t


Want reasons why cops are in a bad light, its because of actions of a very few, covered up by a great many.

Werewolf
October 24, 2005, 02:58 PM
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4897809/detail.html?subid=22100484&qs=1;bp=t


Want reasons why cops are in a bad light, its because of actions of a very few, covered up by a great many.Hmmmm... I wonder how long it will take for someone to say sometimes a citizen must be inconvenienced in the name of law and order. Wonder what they'd say if it was them that was inconvenienced.

jashobeam
October 24, 2005, 03:02 PM
Many of my friends have had "watershed experiences" with LEO's in which they were harassed by cops who were acting like Good ol' boys. Typically, this treatment stops happening in adulthood, but the damage has been done and the distrust has been well-ingrained. Why couldn't these cops have taken the opportunity to provide thoughtful discipline or advice that would direct a wayward youth toward the straight path and engender respect toward LE instead of brute harassment?

Please stop dismissing these stories by blindly asserting that there must be more to the story, implying that the victims were actually the antagonists and that the cops did nothing inappropriate or that these stories are all lies.

My friend, when he was about 16 or 17, was pulled over by a police officer. My friend had a friend with him also. The cop was verbally abusing my friend's friend when suddenly the cop turned around and said to my friend, "Were you going for my gun?"

My friend said, "No, I was just standing here where you told me to stand."

The cop kept insisting that my friend had been trying to take his gun. The cop threatened that he could and would beat them both up and/or shoot them.

My friend said, "Look, I'm just going to sit down on the ground. Is that okay?"
He also asked if the cop could call for another cop to come.

Finally, neighbors came out and insisted that the cop quit harassing them and to either arrest them or let them go. The cop left.

Another friend of mine, who is a cop, has told me of an account he witnessed--as a cop--of LEO's from another agency aggravating a citizen that my friend and his trianing officer had taken the time to calm down and instill trust. The other officers showed up and, before long, had the man face down on the ground being cuffed. My friend was a rookie at the time and left the scene at the request of his superior.

While these accounts may be 'rare', they can't be dismissed. And none of us knows which cops are likely to play the role of the "bad cop".

Old Dog
October 24, 2005, 03:08 PM
Implementing change thru the vote is indeed the ideal. AND a laudable ideal it is. It is the way the system should work. BUT IT DOESN'T. Would the AWB have been allowed to expire had we not voted out the Democrat majority in Congress? Would there have been an AWB in the first place had that majority not been previously voted in?

Here is just one glaring example: look at all the Californians who complain about the draconian gun laws there. Ask them why they don't move. Better yet check on how well they're doing getting the gun laws changed by exercising their right to vote at the local level? We all know how well that's working outI'm not sure that state is the best example to use ... given the incredible diversity and huge numbers of illegal aliens in that state, not to mention the crisis level existing in most aspects of that state's infrastructure. However, one can point out that in California, the availability of CCW permits is only restricted in a handful of counties, and in many other counties, it's been possible to elect sheriffs who are far more supportive of individuals' gun rights... Hence, an example where grass roots politics can achieve success.

And none of us knows which cops are likely to play the role of the "bad cop".So, thus one should "live in fear" of ALL cops?

Chris Rhines
October 24, 2005, 03:21 PM
Where to begin?

What do some of you have against police officers? Is it fear--the unreasoning fear of a child, railing against something they know nothing about?

Is it envy--longing for something you can not attain?

Is it sloth--the criticism of something else, a job you do not want, and will not do?

Or is it just plain indifference? I'm not exactly sure why I'm writing this. The tone of the question seems to indicate that a well-thought-out response is not really wanted; rather, that the question should make us cop-haters crawl off into the corner, thinking, "How could I have ever been so wrong about those heroic men and women of law enforcement?"

Not likely, I'm afraid.

So anyhow, what do I have against police officers? Good question. Is it fear? Yeah, maybe a little. Not unreasoning fear, though - to my mind it's very reasonable to excersise some caution around a person who can detain me, interrogate me, beat me up, have me imprisoned, or even murder me at a whim. Don't lie to me and tell me that this never happens.

Envy? Nah. I've never really wanted the power to tell people what they should and should not do - not since puberty, anyway. Must be some kind of personality flaw.

Sloth? Maybe a little. I don't want the cops job, I don't care to do it, and I'll go one further - I don't think that it needs to be done.

Indifference. That's it. I am indifferent. I'm indifferent to how my neighbors live their lives, how much money they have, what kind of cars they drive, whether they eat a balanced diet, or what sex positions they prefer. I don't care.

Sadly, the cops and the government aren't willing to extend me the same courtesy. They DO care. Ohhh, do they ever. They care so much that they're willing to put me in prison to protect me from myself.

I already have a Mommy and Daddy, thanks. I don't need another.

On one hand, you demand that law enforcement officers ensure that they hold themselves to a higher standard.

Yet, on the other hand, you want us to look the other way when someone breaks the law--such as a felon handling a firearm. No contradiction here. Part of an officer holding himself to a high standard is declining to enforce immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional laws.

If the police stayed with ingestigating murder, assault, and theft, and if the court system limited itself to providing restitution for victims of the above, then I would never say another word on this subject. How I wish...

We have the most effective means of making changes in our system--the vote! We have the tools to make change--tools that other countries ache for; the opportunities that simply do not exist elsewhere. Don't be naive. We have the vote, sure. We can vote for one of a handful of the members of the political class, as long as they're not too far outside the mainstream. Or course, once they're elected we have no means to ensure that they keep their campaign promises, nor that they uphold the constitution. Not to mention that once in power, any politician worth his salt can spread around enough pork to insure his continual reelection no matter what else he does. Yeah, we can vote. For all the good that voting does you, you may as well stay home and do something productive with your time.

Some of you will say that you are law abiding--yet you call for actively breaking the law. Instead of changing the law--which is within your power to do--you talk about openly breaking the law, and then attacking the ones who enforce the laws that YOU allowed to become law. That I allowed to become law? ***? Where exactly did I sign off on any of these gun laws, drug laws, taxes, or tarrifs? When did I give my consent to anything that the government does? Don't you DARE blame me for the existence of the laws that you enforce.

Anyone care to comment? Sure.

When you go out and arrest somebody for drug posession, or for firearms violations, or for sodomy, or any of the thousands of other non-crimes, you are taking positive action in favor of that law. I hear a lot of cops whine, "But I didn't make the laws! I just enforce them..." Sorry, but that dog won't hunt no more. If the police are really not the enemy, let's see some police officers publicly resign rather than go on drug busts. Let's see some police departments state that they'll decline to enforce gun laws. Let's see some cops, on their own time, testify in favor of pro-gun legislation. That's the kind of good faith I'd love to see - some hard evidence that at least some police officers/departments want to be defenders of freedom rather than tools of the state.

Whew. Okay, I'm done.

Werewolf
October 24, 2005, 03:40 PM
I'm not sure that state is the best example to use ... given the incredible diversity and huge numbers of illegal aliens in that state, not to mention the crisis level existing in most aspects of that state's infrastructure. However, one can point out that in California, the availability of CCW permits is only restricted in a handful of counties, and in many other counties, it's been possible to elect sheriffs who are far more supportive of individuals' gun rights... Hence, an example where grass roots politics can achieve success.Assuming you are correct -Touche' - and that is where I think I'll leave it - once again - with you and I - as usual - on opposite sides of an issue. :)

GunnySkox
October 24, 2005, 03:42 PM
Still think that drugs should be legal?

Now, you know, and I know, that kids get into stuff they ain't supposed to get into.

OK, your kid's over at a friend's house. They're playing games, and the friend's parents are gone (for whatever reason). Hey, your kid's friend says, you wanna see something cool? They root around in a dresser drawer, and withdraw a device labeled "Heckler & Koch, USP" Hey! That thing's legal!

Moments later...

--BANG-- Your kid's friend didn't know how to handle the firearm safely, and now your kid's got a hole in his skull and he's very much dead on the floor.

Still think guns should be legal?

~GnSx
Either espouse freedom or demand its destruction. "Don't pine for one and f@#% the other."

Mad Man
October 24, 2005, 04:00 PM
And none of us knows which cops are likely to play the role of the "bad cop".


So, thus one should "live in fear" of ALL cops?


When making a traffic stop, are you prepared for the worst?

thereisnospoon
October 24, 2005, 04:21 PM
Wow!

Powderman, how long have you been holding that in?

The venom of your post notwithatsning, I'll give you a reason I have a very distinct fear of Law Enforcement Officers (even though to this date I have never had a bad run-in with an LEO even when I was in the wrong).

LEOs have the authority to and have proven to also have the want to to invade my privacy "for the good of the people". Here's what I mean. Remeber a post a while back about Coffee Cans? There was an LEO (taking him at his word) who said having coffee cans visible in your car was probable cause for searching the vehicle for drugs.

While I never carry illegal drugs in my vehicle, I constantly carry coffee cans of empty brass that I have picked up at the range. Criminal...no. Unreasonable search...absolutely. Has it happened to me? No. Could it? According to this LEO, he did it all the time.

The "power" "We the People" supposedly possess went out the window with the War on Drugs and the Patriot Act.

Old Dog
October 24, 2005, 04:38 PM
While I never carry illegal drugs in my vehicle, I constantly carry coffee cans of empty brass that I have picked up at the range. Criminal...no. Unreasonable search...absolutely. Has it happened to me? No. Could it? According to this LEO, he did it all the time.
Ah, back to the ol' coffee can thing ... Somehow I envision squadrooms and lounges in PDs and SOs across the country with groups of officers and deputies standing around, drinkin' coffee, eatin' doughnuts ... and laughing hysterically about how one of their brothers got hundreds of folks on an internet discussion forum all riled up about empty coffee cans in backseats ...

TallPine
October 24, 2005, 05:06 PM
and laughing hysterically about how one of their brothers got hundreds of folks on an internet discussion forum all riled up about empty coffee cans in backseats ...
Really....? Well, I'm all for a good joke now and then. :D

I can't even remember the nick-name of the (purported) LEO member who posted the coffee can threat originally, but he doesn't seem to be around anymore (he probably got behind on his traffic ticket quota or something:p ).

I guess we should take the postings of any (purported) LEO member seriously anymore, including the originator of this post:confused:

Anyway, much of my current distrust of LEO arises from some of the things that I have read posted by some of the supposed LEO members of THR :uhoh:

Oh, and anything bad I might have to say about the cops is a joke, okay? :rolleyes: :D

Molon Labe
October 24, 2005, 05:22 PM
it is the police that will eventually be the people that enforce gun control.Gun control is enforced at gun point.

Ah, the irony...

roo_ster
October 24, 2005, 05:47 PM
Ah, back to the ol' coffee can thing ... Somehow I envision squadrooms and lounges in PDs and SOs across the country with groups of officers and deputies standing around, drinkin' coffee, eatin' doughnuts ... and laughing hysterically about how one of their brothers got hundreds of folks on an internet discussion forum all riled up about empty coffee cans in backseats ...

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=1708550&postcount=30

The cop may very well have a reason for making a stop, you just may not be aware of it, and we dont always have the time and inclination to explain our every action. The odds of being hassled are directly proportionate to engaging in activity that is subject to multiple interpretations.

Let's parse the cigarette paper example: If I see a male in his 70s or 80s handrolling I dont pay a whole lot of attention because given that person's age it is likely a part of his cultural heritage, as I work in a impoverished rural environment. If I see a male in his forties I get a little more curious, because his age is such that he may have picked up the habit in prison where it is very common and inexpensive from the commissary, in those instututions that still permit smoking. It doesnt mean he is a convict, but it does mean that he is engaging in the same behaviors as some convicts. If I see a person in their teens or twenties I become curious also, because empirically it is relatively uncommon behavior. I know, I know, everybody knows a college kid who does, but you know far more who dont. However, approximately 100% of people who smoke dope, not in a pipe, handroll. Therefore it is just probability that seeing a young person do that is liable to attract attention.

Now personally I doubt I would stop a kid who handrolled while sitting at an outdoor cafe in broad daylight. The same may not be true if I see one do it behind the dumpster after dark at the same cafe.

The point I am trying to make is that police work involves the constant evaluation of constellations of possible explanations for human behavior. Many civilians may not consider or even know of some of these issues. While in a perfect world we may try to explain ourselves, that may not always take place. For example, if during a traffic stop I observe an empty coffee can or bag in your car, your car is getting searched, no ifs ands or buts. Some of you know why, and I'll bet some dont. Depending on the interaction I may explain why, or I may not, but your car is still getting searched regardless. Seeing that coffee can or bag means something to me that to you it may or may not, but to me it can appear to be evidence of a crime.

TallPine
October 24, 2005, 06:15 PM
ah yes, dear old centac ... thanks, jfruser

For example, if during a traffic stop I observe an empty coffee can or bag in your car, your car is getting searched, no ifs ands or buts.
Somehow I missed the audacious humor in that the first time I read it :D

Too much caffeine, maybe...? ;)

Old Dog
October 24, 2005, 06:56 PM
Well, it was quite subtle humor ... But what did, in fact, turn out to be outright hilarious, was the subsequent (and totally serious) acceptance of "dear old Centac's" comments as gospel (well, at least as law enforcement doctrine) by so many, even though other forum members (of the law enforcement community) and even Centac himself did try to put the whole profiling and probable cause thing into context ... while Centac's statements were over the top, the ensuing reaction was even more so ...

Gordon Fink
October 24, 2005, 07:04 PM
I am not much more afraid of the police than I am of the criminals. Both present a potential threat to my life and liberty. Fortunately, through my conduct, I minimize my interactions with the more dangerous elements of either group. However, the police have the authority to stop me at will, while I may flee from criminals or even fight back.

That said, I don’t hate the police by any stretch of the imagination. Nevertheless, it would be nice if the cops were so busy trying to catch murderers, rapists, and robbers that I didn’t have to worry about them wrongly suspecting me of being a much more minor “criminal.”

~G. Fink

Standing Wolf
October 24, 2005, 07:11 PM
Altogether too many cops in uniform have stepped up in public to help leftist extremist politicians further infringe our Second Amendment civil rights.

I certainly don't mean to suggest all cops do such things; unfortunately, a great many have and will continue to do so.

I don't live in fear of cops; having worked with more than a few some years ago, however, I tend to be somewhat wary of them. Almost without exception, they were authoritarian and hostile toward non-cops. About a third were deliberately abusive toward the prisoners. To be sure, many of the prisoners were deliberately obnoxious, and some were homicidal maniacs, but there were times when only the uniforms distinguished the cops from the prisoners.

The increasing militarization of police forces isn't helping matters.

Mad Man
October 24, 2005, 09:22 PM
What do some of you have against police officers? Is it fear--the unreasoning fear of a child, railing against something they know nothing about?

Is it envy--longing for something you can not attain?

Is it sloth--the criticism of something else, a job you do not want, and will not do?

Or is it just plain indifference?


You forgot to mention Pride, Gluttony, Lust, Anger, and Greed.

spartacus2002
October 24, 2005, 09:37 PM
I don't fear cops.

I do fear the slow, gradual transition from peace officers to law enforcement officers. And I fear the ultimate consequences of the militarization of the police.

Fletchette
October 24, 2005, 10:02 PM
Altogether too many cops in uniform have stepped up in public to help leftist extremist politicians further infringe our Second Amendment civil rights.

I certainly don't mean to suggest all cops do such things; unfortunately, a great many have and will continue to do so.

Has any cop ever, just once, refused to arrest someone because it would violate their Oath to Uphold and Defend the Constitution?

I cannot remember such a case. I hope someone can...:confused:

Mad Man
October 24, 2005, 11:09 PM
What is worse, to me, is the concept of “picking and choosing” which laws should be obeyed. Granted, there are hundreds, probably thousands, of bad laws on every level of government in this country, but to espouse disobedience of those laws which one doesn’t support leads only to something worse than bad laws – further breakdown of societal norms and possibly, anarchy.



http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=30344&d=1130209756 (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/24/parks.obit/index.html)


Conversely, law enforcement (police and prosecutors) "pick and choose (http://instapundit.com/lawrev/conradrv.htm)" which laws to enforce every day. And whom to enforce them against.

Or should the police ticket every jaywalker (http://www.wesh.com/news/5029280/detail.html) and speeder (1 MPH or more over the limit) they see -- including their fellow officers?

Laws are like currency: the more you make, the less value they have.

FireBreather01
October 24, 2005, 11:34 PM
[QUOTE=cropcirclewalker] In the course of talking about guns, loads, velocities powders and like that, he just happened to mention (and he acted real proud) that his son was a sniper on some swat team or other. I can't remember exactly what, but I said, "Oh, you mean like Lon Horiuchi?"

Gee - you essentially state that his son, of whom you state he is quite proud, is an assassin, and you think HE has an attitude?

Ridiculous!

jashobeam
October 25, 2005, 02:41 AM
Quote:
And none of us knows which cops are likely to play the role of the "bad cop".

So, thus one should "live in fear" of ALL cops?

I didn't say that one should "live in fear" of ALL cops.

Look, I don't dislike cops. I have received help from the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Deputies on numerous occassions. I work in a grocery store and have detained shoplifters and bad check writers many times and have always been very relieved when the LEO's arrived. On those instances I was treated almost like a peer by certain officers; like we were cool. However, on other occassions, by other agencies, I have been treated with poorly-veiled contempt, like an enemy or an opponent; the way a con man feels towards a mark, or how a prostitute views a John. I'm not an equal. I'm not an important citizen or a fellow man. I'm more like an annoying customer that a DMV clerk is all too busy to be bothered by to actually do his job. But even this I can live with.

I don't "live in fear" of ALL cops. Nor do I distrust ALL cops; I simply DO NOT trust ALL cops. I don't trust ALL people. People earn trust. I give everyone I meet the benefit of the doubt and bestow upon them some unearned trust-credits. The good stewards of these trust-credits receive more of my trust.

When you pass someone in a dark alley do you TRUST that person, or do you HOPE that he is a decent person and a respecter of your life, liberty, and property? When I get pulled over or find myself subject to an LEO's scrutiny, I HOPE that he/she is an honest cop attempting to uphold and enforce the spirit of the law. I have imagined myself at the hands of abusive cops and found my options to always have unfavorable results.

Do you find this sort of imagined scenario ridiculous? Is it any more ridiculous than imagining various scenarios of Home Defense? Or how you would react if confronted by a BG in such and such a manner? Why can't some of the cops on this forum imagine themselves in the very vulnerable position of being a mere lowly citizen at the mercy of a potential bully cop? I can imagine being a cop who has no idea what type of person I have just pulled over for a routine traffic stop. The apparent inability or unwillingness of some police officers on this forum to put themselves in our shoes or comprehend our fears and distrust only serves as another indicator that there does indeed exist a prevalent "us-them" mentality among LE. Are you so far removed that you really cannot understand? Do you really not believe any of the stories of police brutality? Have you honestly NEVER witnessed a fellow officer acting inappropriately? Have you, as an LEO, NEVER referred to citizens in general in derrogatory terms? Have you NEVER overheard a "citizen-bashing" discussion among other LEO's?

MTMilitiaman
October 25, 2005, 04:37 AM
I am skeptical of law enforcement for several reasons. For breivity, I'll try to remain concise:

1. Distrust of authority is in the founding spirit of this country. Police are agents of the state and the state is to be viewed objectively at best and with a pessemistic acknowledgement of its inevitable tendency to grow in power and oppress its citizenry.

2. Police officers enforce laws. But our legal code may not at all times run parallel to our moral code. What is legal is not always right. But police must enforce even the laws that run contrary to morality, even if it is only our individual moral code. Police are legally obligated to give MIPs to "underage" soldiers home on break, for example. Even if they sometimes turn a blind eye, that simply means they are not doing their job, and I don't think this should be relied on. Minors can be tried as adults for drinking. I think is wrong, but it law. More food for thought, police are the ones enforcing anti-gun laws. As gun owners and law enforcement officers, how do you feel about this? This is one reason why I also remain skeptical to giving police automatic weapons or high-powered rifles. "Cruel irony" can be legitimately defined as giving cops guns I can't legally own to enforce the laws that say I can't legally own the guns used by the cops.

3. Personal experience tells me that police officers can be prone to irresponsible, dangerous, and simply rude behavior. I have had a gun drawn on me three times by police, none of which were deserved. One was a hunting accident in which a Pine Cone Cop drew his service pistol on me from a concealed location when I worked the action of my hunting rifle to confirm it was unloaded. I didn't even see the officer until he rose and drew his pistol, and the rifle was at no time pointed even remotely in his direction. The second time was an incident involving some friends and I paintballing on public property. It was quickly resolved but I was apalled by the way one of the responding officers seemed generally disappointed he didn't get to shoot somebody. And the third incident involved a case where some friends and I were sitting on a park bench waiting for someone to pick us up. We had planned on going shooting but my friend's car started losing oil. We removed the guns from the car as it was being serviced and called his brother to pick us up. Open carry is completely legal in Montana yet we still found ourselves on the ground in handcuffs at gunpoint. Even then I could understand precautionary measures taken by the police, but not the openly rude and condensending attitude taken by the lead officer, even though we had been as polite and forthcoming as possible. I am only 23 and already I have enough experience with police to believe many of them are simply kids that got picked on in elementary school taking 12 years of pent up aggression out on the rest of us because they got their lunch money stolen one too many times. Which brings me to my final point...

4. Power corrupts. You give a certain element of the population a badge and a gun and the authority to not only enforce the law, but often even limited ability to interpret the law, and it can go to their heads. We have term limits for most of our elected officials, who are, by the way, elected. Police have no such boundaries to abide by. They serve voluntarily for as long as they wish and then have the gall to complain about public scrutiny. I believe police are over used. If the general concensus was for people to protect themselves, there would be fewer problems. The ability of the people to be self-determined was a goal of the Framers for a reason--dependence on others reduces freedom. I believe law enforcement should be restricted to chasing down the more hardened, violent, or repeat offenders and that people should not only be allowed to fend for themselves, but required to.

I suppose more thought could expand this list but it is 2:30 in the morning here and I promised to keep it as concise as possible.

roo_ster
October 25, 2005, 07:24 AM
It is generally best to minimize one's interaction with those who have the power to make one miserable or destroy everything one has worked for in one's life.

This sentiment is held by nearly all on the planet and at all times throughout history. The intensity or advisability of this sentiment changes with regard to time & place. It is very high in corrupt kleptocracies and less so in western countries (though still present).

Frankly, there is very little upside to dealing with the authorities. Very few leave their dealings with them richer or better off for the experience, even when both authorities and citizens have the best of intensions and are not criminally-minded or corrupt.

All it takes is one honest mistake on the part of the authorities for Joe Citizen's life to be upturned and strewn about. It is rational to want to avoid such an occurance.

Then there are those in authority who do not act in good faith or those who cover up honest mistakes and don't make it right. Such types make dealing with the authorities an even riskier proposition.

About the only time the general population chooses to deal with the authorities is when it is either unavoidable or the perceived benefit outweights the perceived risk.

In most states of the Union, common criminals can be resisted...those criminals who threaten life/injury can be resisted with commensurate force. Criminals with law enforcement powers, however, make such resistance much more costly and risky, as the collective response of the authorities is to crush the resistor (no matter how right he may be) and sort it out later.

Mad Man
October 25, 2005, 09:01 AM
In most states of the Union, common criminals can be resisted...those criminals who threaten life/injury can be resisted with commensurate force. Criminals with law enforcement powers, however, make such resistance much more costly and risky, as the collective response of the authorities is to crush the resistor (no matter how right he may be) and sort it out later.


The most dangerous weapon a criminal can have is a badge.

I don't know if other states have similar provisions, but this is from the Colorado Revised Statutes (http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/HTML/colorado_revised_statutes.htm):


18-8-103. Resisting arrest.


(1) A person commits resisting arrest if he knowingly prevents or attempts to prevent a peace officer, acting under color of his official authority, from effecting an arrest of the actor or another, by:

(a) Using or threatening to use physical force or violence against the peace officer or another; or

(b) Using any other means which creates a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to the peace officer or another.

(2) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was attempting to make an arrest which in fact was unlawful, if he was acting under color of his official authority, and in attempting to make the arrest he was not resorting to unreasonable or excessive force giving rise to the right of self-defense. A peace officer acts "under color of his official authority" when, in the regular course of assigned duties, he is called upon to make, and does make, a judgment in good faith based upon surrounding facts and circumstances that an arrest should be made by him.

(3) The term "peace officer" as used in this section and section 18-8-104 means a peace officer in uniform or, if out of uniform, one who has identified himself by exhibiting his credentials as such peace officer to the person whose arrest is attempted.

(4) Resisting arrest is a class 2 misdemeanor.

(emphasis added)


CASE HISTORY:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/575552/posts

Police officer to face discipline
Rocky Mountain News | 11/21/01 | Peggy Lowe and Lynn Bartels

Posted on 11/21/2001 6:28:17 AM PST by sakic

A Denver police officer embroiled in a bitter dispute with his former wife faces disciplinary action after his wife was arrested the night before a court hearing involving their divorce. Valerie Serna, 38, contends that her former husband, officer Thomas Steen, also 38, had his friends on the force jail her so she would miss the hearing. Steen, an officer in District 1, appeared before the deputy chief Tuesday for a pre-disciplinary hearing. Three other officers who were involved in some way in the arrest last year also appeared Tuesday for hearings, Deputy Chief Dave Abrams said. He declined to release their names or any information, saying it was a personnel matter.

But Serna had plenty to say.

"It was horrible and that's your Denver police," she said.

Steen, through his attorney, declined to comment. Denver court records reveal a trail of acrimony between Steen and Serna, who ended their 12-year-marriage on May 5, 2001. She has two restraining orders against him and neither is allowed to contact the other. In addition, Serna called police after she discovered wiretapping equipment in her attic, where she also found tape-recordings of her phone conversations.

Steen pleaded guilty this month of a misdemeanor charge of possession of wiretapping equipment. He received unsupervised probation and was ordered to pay a $500 fine to Project Safeguard, a domestic violence group, court records show. Abrams said the wiretapping conviction was not part of the disciplinary hearing.

The deputy chief has made a recommendation to the manager of public safety on what discipline, if any, the four officers should receive. He said that recommendation is not public unless the officers appeal. Serna said she was asleep last October when police came to her home with a warrant for her arrest on grounds she some six weeks earlier had violated the no-contact order.

Serna said the contact was unavoidable. She was dropping their son off at his school and her husband, who was working, had pulled over a car in the area. Serna said she had to stop in front of the cruiser. Serna said after her arrest her attorney called Internal Affairs. A week earlier, she said she had filed a complaint with Internal Affairs to say her former husband was stalking her.

An Internal Affairs sergeant interviewed her at the jail and she was released. She was never charged, court records show.

"They made it all go away," she said.


This appears to be a simple case of a kidnapping conspiracy for the purposes of obstructing justice. But because the perpetrators were police officers, this was handled as an internal matter. We have no idea what punishment -- if any -- these criminals received.

Yet if Ms. Serna had defended herself against her kidnappers, she would have been charged with resisting arrest, and who knows what else.

Mad Man
October 25, 2005, 09:04 AM
18-8-104. Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer.

(1) (a) A person commits obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, such person knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer, acting under color of his or her official authority; knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the prevention, control, or abatement of fire by a firefighter, acting under color of his or her official authority; knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the administration of medical treatment or emergency assistance by an emergency medical service provider or rescue specialist, acting under color of his or her official authority; or knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the administration of emergency care or emergency assistance by a volunteer, acting in good faith to render such care or assistance without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident.

(b) To assure that animals used in law enforcement or fire prevention activities are protected from harm, a person commits obstructing a peace officer or firefighter when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, he or she knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders any such animal.

(2) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was acting in an illegal manner, if he was acting under color of his official authority as defined in section 18-8-103 (2).

(3) Repealed.

(4) Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical service provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer is a class 2 misdemeanor.

(5) For purposes of this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) "Emergency medical service provider" means a member of a public or private emergency medical service agency, whether that person is a volunteer or receives compensation for services rendered as such emergency medical service provider.

(b) "Rescue specialist" means a member of a public or private rescue agency, whether that person is a volunteer or receives compensation for services rendered as such rescue specialist.

(emphasis added)


Why are not firefighters, medical technicians, and other rescue personnel covered by the "acting in an illegal manner" clause in CRS 18-8-104 (2)?

cropcirclewalker
October 25, 2005, 09:48 AM
In the course of talking about guns, loads, velocities powders and like that, he just happened to mention (and he acted real proud) that his son was a sniper on some swat team or other. I can't remember exactly what, but I said, "Oh, you mean like Lon Horiuchi?"

Gee - you essentially state that his son, of whom you state he is quite proud, is an assassin, and you think HE has an attitude?

Ridiculous!
I never called Lon Horiuchi an assasin. Even when I told him who Horiuchi was, I was non-committal. I never called him a bad guy. I never made any qualitative remarks about his actions, character or career. For all I know the guy I was talking to thought that Mrs. Weaver SHOULD have been shot. For all I know his son aspires to be JUST LIKE Lon Horiuchi.

I told you he was an authoritarian.

Do YOU personally think Lon Horiuchi is a bad guy? Are you a LEO here making a judgement about the character or actions of another in the LE business? Who has the attitude?

R.H. Lee
October 25, 2005, 10:16 AM
You don't tug on Superman's cape....
You don't spit into the wind....
You don't pull the mask of the old Long Ranger.......
etc., et yada...
There's a lot to be said for low profile stealth. Think about what you're doing. Pay attention. Don't break traffic laws. Make sure your registration is current and all your lights work. Don't call attention to yourself. If you're stopped, have your license, registration and insurance information in hand. Keep it all together where you can get at it quickly. Be polite, if not courteous. Don't leave firearms, ammo, holsters or coffee cans in plain view. You can avoid 99% of problems by thinking ahead just a little.

longeyes
October 25, 2005, 01:26 PM
Look out kid
Don't matter what you did
Walk on your tip toes
Don't try "No Doz"
Better stay away from those
That carry around a fire hose
Keep a clean nose
Watch the plain clothes
You don't need a weather man
To know which way the wind blows

pax
October 25, 2005, 01:55 PM
Don't break traffic laws.
Heh, that's a laugh and I think most or all of us know it.

This was posted on another thread by someone who's probably a good guy, but it very clearly illustrates the problem from my point of view:
"...I have over 1000 pages of Oklahoma State Vehicle Code, not to mention City Orinances. I have a hard believing anyone is pulled over for 'no reason'. If I want to make a stop, I can, and do it legally."

I've heard the exact same quote from several other officers at different times. The only variant is which state codes the officer refers to -- I've heard the same claim from officers in Oregon, Washington, California, and Arizona. Is it different where you are? I doubt it. Get talking friendly-like to an officer, and listen carefully to what he or she says about vehicle stops. Most officers are comfortably aware of the fact that if they want to pull you over badly enough, they will always be able to find some legal justification for doing it.

The underlying point is that it is literally impossible for a citizen to obey the law well enough that the police have no legal excuse to pester her as she goes about her own business.

Somehow, being aware of, and loathing this fact makes me anti-police. I'm not. I'm just bitterly and cynically aware of the farce our legal system has become.

We have "a government of laws, and not of men..." Sure we do. We have so many laws that any officer can find a perfectly legal reason to stop any citizen at any time, costing the citizen both time and money. The good ones don't use this power except when they believe it is justified, but the system itself is corrupt.

How is this different from having no laws, with the police able to stop you at any time? It really isn't, because in any case your ability to go about your business unhampered doesn't rest upon the law or your ability to obey the law. It instead rests upon the whim of someone wearing a uniform.

The only real reason you can drive to work without getting a ticket every single morning is because even the most ardent fisherman never pulls in every fish in the lake.

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

NCP24
October 25, 2005, 01:59 PM
Sounds like a lot of people have grievances toward law enforcement, but what about remedies? What is the answer and how do we bridge the gab between the sub-cultures.

Police are agents of the state and the state is to be viewed objectively at best and with a pessemistic acknowledgement of its inevitable tendency to grow in power and oppress its citizenry. Is the state not an agent of the people?

Joejojoba111
October 25, 2005, 02:14 PM
"What do some of you have against police officers? Is it fear--the unreasoning fear of a child, railing against something they know nothing about?"

By golly I think you nailed it. Good shoot old chap!

I think you are onto a winning strategy. When you read a thread and people complain about whatever the newest horrible act some officers engaged in, just ignore the act, ignore the discussion of it, and pretend that they all just 'hate cops'.

"If you believe it, it's not a lie."
George Kastanza

Old Dog
October 25, 2005, 02:26 PM
Quote:
Don't break traffic laws.

Heh, that's a laugh and I think most or all of us know it.
Well now. I've been driving for 30 years and have been pulled over exactly FOUR times. I've lived in urban areas, slum areas and rural areas in seven states. I've commonly driven in the wee hours of the mornings, in bad neighborhoods, or on rural roads ... I've driven beater cars, outright junkers, luxury cars, trucks, SUVs ... Every time I was pulled over, I was, in fact, grossly exceeding the speed limit. I'd say I do have a tendency to speed, at least when driving on the interstate. I simply cannot understand the point of view of many that holds that you all get pulled over routinely for no reason, or live in fear of getting pulled over for no reason ...

Sounds like a lot of people have grievances toward law enforcement, but what about remedies? What is the answer and how do we bridge the gab between the sub-cultures.Well, clearly, for a start -- when need to take the human element out of traffic control ... Let's just put cameras and speed monitors on all roads. Obviously, real live human beings are incapable of impartial interaction with the public ... On a serious note:
Most officers are comfortably aware of the fact that if they want to pull you over badly enough, they will always be able to find some legal justification for doing it. Then perhaps one could take a little bit of comfort if one is not getting constantly pulled over? Sheesh, the fact that you don't get pulled over every day means that 99.9% of the police out there are conducting themselves in a rational, aboveboard fashion ...

Werewolf
October 25, 2005, 02:39 PM
Sounds like a lot of people have grievances toward law enforcement, but what about remedies?
Remedies? http://members.cox.net/werewolf1326/images/Digital/ROFLMAO.gif

Imagine that the Fox is caught raiding the henhouse...

The way our system works is that the police are foxes, most lawyers are foxes, the judge is a fox and the jury consists of chickens.

One would think that with a jury of chickens the fox would be found guilty until one realizes that the chicken house is wide open to the foxes and well...

R.H. Lee
October 25, 2005, 04:31 PM
Most officers are comfortably aware of the fact that if they want to pull you over badly enough, they will always be able to find some legal justification for doing it.
No argument with that, but the point being, why did they want to 'pull you over' in the first place? Why are you standing out? The goal is for them not even to see you, and if they do see you, it doesn't even register.

pax
October 25, 2005, 05:28 PM
RH Lee ~

On a practical level, you're right. As I said in my previous post, most police are good -- and the good don't use their power except when they believe it is justified.

The problem is that the system itself is corrupt, when the merest whim of a civil servant can louse up your whole day.

pax

In a society in which it is a moral offense to be different from your neighbor your only escape is never to let them find out. -- Robert Heinlein

wahsben
October 25, 2005, 05:28 PM
Some recommended reading that may explain why at least for some people.

The State vs The People(the Rise of the American Police State)

Dial 911 and Die

Just be careful when reading these if you have high blood pressure because these will raise it more.

GunnySkox
October 25, 2005, 05:31 PM
No argument with that, but the point being, why did they want to 'pull you over' in the first place? Why are you standing out? The goal is for them not even to see you, and if they do see you, it doesn't even register.

I can't believe the answer to a highly suspect system of insane laws is to just tuck your tail down between your legs, lay your ear back and roll over on your back and wriggle around, and hope you're doing it well enough that the Alphas with the badges don't take it upon themselves to see which part of the "Being a Submissive Pansy Code" page 667, section D, paragraph four that you're violating for laying on your back in the dirt on a sunday in the presence of an Alpha and not wriggling at the proscribed fifty six wriggles per minute.

I shouldn't have to "stay below the radar" to avoid being hassled by Tha Po-Leece. I shouldn't have to get pulled over for listening to Cop Killa by Ice T (happened to my friend Max. He didn't get a ticket, and I'm wagering that he didn't because he's white, and the cop was expecting someone wholly otherwise), and no allegations of any sort of misconduct were laid against him. I should be able to listen to what I want, be whatever color I am, and do whatever I want (even if it makes me stand head and shoulders above or lay ankles and toes beneath the rest of the herd) so long as I'm not endangering anyone or violating anyone's rights.

The solution to "discretionary hassling" isn't to just roll around in Condition Black (Double Secret Ninja Mode While Giving Off The Appearance Of Absolute Normalcy With Optional Sheep Tail And Ears), it's to eliminate the laws that give people the power to stick their shiny legislation-approved boot up anybody's butt who "stands out".

Sure, most cops are good people. Most cops probably don't excercise that "Nine Jillion Law" capability, because they aren't jerks. But the fact that any weasel among them could just up and throw the fourteen hundred page book at someone under the banner of "protect and serv[ing]" is [i]disgusting, and is abhorrent to the very freedom that is supposed to define this country.

We crap our collective RKBA pants everytime someone thinks about giving the police "discretion" in disarming anybody they want, or anybody they see with a gun; how's that any different from searching or detaining or pulling over or ticketing anybody who "Stands Out"? Why should "getting noticed" be tantamount to committing a crime?

~GnSx

Old Dog
October 25, 2005, 05:43 PM
I can't believe the answer to a highly suspect system of insane laws is to just tuck your tail down between your legs, lay your ear back and roll over on your back and wriggle around, and hope you're doing it well enough that the Alphas with the badges don't take it upon themselves to see which part of the "Being a Submissive Pansy Code" page 667, section D, paragraph four that you're violating for laying on your back in the dirt on a sunday in the presence of an Alpha and not wriggling at the proscribed fifty six wriggles per minute.Huh? Whoa there! I'm sure most of us read Mr. Lee's post as meaning that simply attempting to stay within the traffic laws most of the time will keep you from getting noticed ... "Alphas with badges?" All righty-then ...
I shouldn't have to "stay below the radar" to avoid being hassled by Tha Po-Leece.Aw, it's an art form, I guess, to "stay below the radar" with no effort ... Although ... one time, I even played my dinosaur rock real loud with my windows down while cruising past a po-lice car ...
it's to eliminate the laws that give people the power to stick their shiny legislation-approved boot up anybody's butt who "stands out".Ya think? Never happen while everyone insists on blaming the cops for the plethora of bad laws while continuing to reelect morons and puppets of special-interest groups into office ...

R.H. Lee
October 25, 2005, 05:48 PM
Why should "getting noticed" be tantamount to committing a crime?
Sheesh. I didn't say it was. All I said is that if you stick it out there, somebody might lop it off. The stealth, low profile, blend in approach is much less hassle, that's all.

GunnySkox
October 25, 2005, 05:55 PM
Sheesh. I didn't say it was. All I said is that if you stick it out there, somebody might lop it off. The stealth, low profile, blend in approach is much less hassle, that's all.


I 'pologize for that and for the vitriolic...ness of my previous post, but the very idea of having to avoid and lay low and be stealthy for fear of being hassled just hacks me off.

And I know it isn't the cops' fault that there's just a pro-damned-liferation of maddeningly complex, ridiculous laws, but they're on the pointy end of the stick, so they catch all the ire for it (and those who exercise such bastardy are deserving of such ire, though the profession at large is not). The problem is that at lot of people don't seem to really care about much beyond the business end of the legislative stick, and just hate on the officers (clear example: me, when I'm not thinking), without the slightest thought to the weasels who fashioned the jabby-hassly stick in the first place (and are deserving of a Vicious Sack Beating, either via vote, or via rebar and burlap sack).

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure it'd be borderline _impossible_ to get a lot of the madness and overbearing complexity peeled out of the laws. The people who fund their pet projects on the multitude of irrelevant (ticketable, fineable, etc.) transgressions would shriek Public Safety and For The Children and Blibbity Blibbity Blah so loudly that all the Blissninnies would get the vapors and cry on the news and paint all the people who don't care for paying fines for non-crimes as evil scumbags who run over babies in big gas-guzzling SUVs while blasting subversive music and not wearing their seatbelts.

~GnSx

MTMilitiaman
October 25, 2005, 06:12 PM
Is the state not an agent of the people?

In theory...

Not that it does us a lot of good anyways. Police don't follow the same means to their jobs as other members of the state. They are not elected and thus their only accountability comes from public scrutiny, which doesn't do us a lot of good unless the police officer is dumb or careless enough to get caught on camera.

Gordon Fink
October 25, 2005, 06:38 PM
Sounds like a lot of people have grievances toward law enforcement, but what about remedies?

Unfortunately, I fear there aren’t any. As pax said, the system is inherently flawed. That means we would have to start over with a new constitution, and I think we were pretty damned lucky the first time around.

~G. Fink

junyo
October 25, 2005, 06:56 PM
The police are demonstrably more dangerous than any criminal organization. Some small time crook has to evaluate whether his potential victim will be able to resist him, then assuming he's succesful with the crime, he still has to ponder whether or not the legal system will be able to track him down and punish him. The police usually only face the first part of the equation.

We all hear (constantly) from officers on the board about how tough their job is, how great a sacrifice they make, how they're sued if they do something wrong... Do you think plumbers don't face the same thing? Accountants? You don't like getting shot at and called bad names? Get another job. You voluntarily choose to, for whatever reasons, make yourselves the face of (often oppressive) government, and all of it's various confusing, conflicting, ill considered, and ill informed laws, then want the adulation and honor due the protector of the good, but without the contempt due the enforcer of the bad. And time and time again we see any complaint against the police or their actions dismissed as "bashing".

The police ideally are citizens, who agree to patrol the community full time so that the rest of us can build, repair, and administer things without having to stand a midnight watch. From that ideal, a simple division and specialization of labor,we've somehow devolved to multiple classes of citizens: "civilian" sheep who must be protected by the police, and the government which hands down the laws which are increasingly disconnected from the "civilian's" reality. And of course, to protect us, the police need better guns, and special rules; I can't tint my windows in some states so that Officer Friendly doesn't feel threatened, and can more easily search my vehicle without a warrant. We all know the speed limit doesn't apply to police. In fact, a good chunk of the rules that apply to the "civilians" don't apply to the protectors because of "professional courtesy". In a country built on equality before law for all citizens, the police have built, support, and routinely enforce a de facto caste system, with one set of rules and laws for some and a different set for others. A system where we grant some citizens the power to summarily punish other citizens on the basis of them being in the wrong caste and not genuflecting correctly during a police encounter.
Because it looks like fear to me. Pure, simple fear.
Only stupid people don't fear dangerous things. I fear any group of people running around my neighborhood that can shoot me on my doorstep while reaching for my wallet and get away with it, and frankly, I challenge you to show me why that's not a reasonable fear.

The vote as an instrument of change is lovely, but in the end all government is force. History shows again and again that governments only respect votes that are backed with the credible threat of negative consequences if the votes are not counted. With our "protectors" constantly affirming their willingness to blindly enforce any law no matter how outrageous (and by the use of any tactic, no matter how extreme) is it any real wonder that the citizens feel the need to remind them of those negative consequences now and again?

Oh, and it's a complete cop out (get it? Cop out... never mind) to say, "We don't make the laws, we just enforce them. Blame the guy that made them." A law, good, bad, or indifferent, has no power without someone willing to enforce it. A great many Bad Things in this world would've been avoided by people just refusing the order.

Old Dog
October 25, 2005, 07:16 PM
The police are demonstrably more dangerous than any criminal organization.Wow. Hmm. To whom? Those who are guilty of being in the wrong caste and not genuflecting correctly during a police encounter.?
And time and time again we see any complaint against the police or their actions dismissed as "bashing".No, I dismiss only the usual idiotic statements that contain amazing thoughts such as those I've quoted above; I dismiss only those statements that consistently, without fail, stereotype and condemn an entire class of hardworking people, who, above all, are citizens, loving parents, children of loving parents, and Americans the same as you or me ... For a forum in which members are routinely admonished to use "the high road," I remain awestruck by the rampant prejudice against certain groups that is so in evidence whenever threads such as this arise ...

cropcirclewalker
October 25, 2005, 07:47 PM
Yo, Mr. Dog, Crop here:

Post No. 4 in this thread is where you said, At any rate, Powderman, I appreciate you asking the question. I have no answer, save to observe that your well-meaning post will turn into yet another “us against them” thread that probably won’t last 50 posts … and here we are on 86.

I think the discourse on this string has been dispositive. Even some mods have and are contributing.

As much as you cannot or will not accept many comments, the're here, the're relevant and they will only get more abundant as we progress down our "police state" path.

Enjoy.

junyo
October 25, 2005, 07:55 PM
Wow. Hmm. To whom? Those who are guilty of ?...Yep Old Dog, time and time again the police have demonstrated their overwhelming desire and commitment to only harass and inconveniance those guilty of something... We've seen on this forum, officers defend the beating of an elderly man asking the police a question, and you're incredulous over my statement? :rolleyes:
No, I dismiss only the usual idiotic statements that contain amazing thoughts such as those I've quoted above; I dismiss only those statements that consistently, without fail, stereotype and condemn an entire class of hardworking people, who, above all, are citizens, loving parents, children of loving parents, and Americans the same as you or me ... For a forum in which members are routinely admonished to use "the high road," I remain awestruck by the rampant prejudice against certain groups that is so in evidence whenever threads such as this arise ...My heartbreaks, and I'm playing the world's tiniest violin for ya'. Many groups are maligned here on the High Road, and a lot more unjustly than cops. Most just don't a) whine as much, or b) make excuses for the problem elements in their group. Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas. Unwaveringly defend the thugs in your midst and reap the results.

pax
October 25, 2005, 08:14 PM
Well, I hate to close one that I participated in, because it always looks bad -- but in this case, I'll make an exception.

Down to Us vs. Them ... and thus Closed.

pax

If you enjoyed reading about "Self examination: Let's ask ourselves a question." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!