So you think the majority of LEO's are anti-gun?


PDA






DC300a
August 28, 2008, 02:02 PM
I am a member of this forum and a member of a forum for LEO's. Gun Control is a topic that comes up often and I thought my friend's on the HighRoad might find it interesting.

http://www.policelink.com/topics/19486-gun-control/posts

I am not sure if you have to be a member of the page to read the forums or not. If so, I apologize for the inconvenience. Just thought you might like to see the view from the other side of the badge.

If you enjoyed reading about "So you think the majority of LEO's are anti-gun?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ohio Rifleman
August 28, 2008, 02:04 PM
I just checked; no you do not need to be a member to view it. Might be an interesting read.

Edit: Wow. I just read the first page of that thread. I assume most of those people are LEOs. Looks like law enforcement is on our side.

Zundfolge
August 28, 2008, 02:12 PM
One rather telling bit is that once public opinion turned against the OP, he (she?) never posted again.

Many of us here acknowledge that a large percentage of rank and file officers are somewhere between neutral and pro-gun.

The problem is that as you move up in rank, the percentage that are outright anti-gun grows.

Thankfully I like in a county where the Sheriff is staunchly pro-gun.

Hoppy590
August 28, 2008, 02:13 PM
doesnt matter what the officers are.

it only takes one guy at the top, then everyone below them is "just following orders"

DC300a
August 28, 2008, 02:19 PM
I agree Zundfolge. The higher ups seem to be less pro-gun. I don't particularly know why.

Maybe while all the "I want to be in charge" people are busy climbing the ladder. All the good "I want to help people" guys/gals are busy doing their jobs.

Could also be because as they climb the ladder, their jobs are less protected by contract and more subject to the whims of politicians...

In my particular job, supervisor's are not covered by the collective bargaining contract and work at the whim of the Department.

akodo
August 28, 2008, 02:19 PM
I cannot say as to all LEOs US wide, but I CAN say I have lived in some areas where the vast majority of LEOs were gun friendly, or at least gun neutral.

However, I currently live in a city where the majority of LEOs are anti-gun. (or the head LEO is anti-enough that they must all act anti to keep him happy)

jerkface11
August 28, 2008, 02:27 PM
Hoppy is right. Pro-gun or not they'd still confiscate all of your arms if ordered.

McKnife
August 28, 2008, 02:28 PM
Whenever I think of LEO's and CHL -- this thread comes to mind back from March/April of 2008 from Officer.com.

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87148&highlight=CHL

True, just a few spoil the whole bunch -- and it has for me.:mad:

Just scares the hell out of me when I see some of the responses. I was actively updating the page during the onslaught... there are about 7 or 8 posts that were deleted at the end of the argument due to the complete absurdity and endorsement of illegal acts [by police]. I also recall that several posts from within the meat of the argument were deleted, probably the result of a few permanent bans of corrupt posters.

*sigh*

Carl N. Brown
August 28, 2008, 02:33 PM
Most LEOs I have known personally were pro-gun and
pro-self-defense with handguns. It was my LEO acquaintances
who convinced me to get a handgun for self-defense use.

The CLEOs quoted on the news media will be anti-gun,
but that reflects the views of the news media more than
it reflects the views of most CLEOs or LEOs.

Federal LE tends to be more anti-gun than local LE.

All general rules have exceptions.

DC300a
August 28, 2008, 02:42 PM
McKnife---

Sounds to me that thread is more about whether someone should be disarmed during a traffic stop or not. Not whether or not the officer's are pro-2ndAmendment.

However, I will note that the loudest officer's in that thread were from Detroit and Washington, DC. Two cities who are known to be antigun.

As for being disarmed during a traffic stop. First don't speed, run stop lights, or break sound ordinances and you will not get stopped. Second, if you are stopped... I can almost assume you with 98.667% certainty that if you are unarmed during the 15 minutes of said traffic stop; you will not be robbed, carjacked, raped, acosted, or otherwise offended by persons who may pass your way... so, maybe you will not have the need of said firearm until you are on your merry way. :D

JohnnyOrygun
August 28, 2008, 02:50 PM
Very Good thread over there, I joined their forum so I could see the 20/20 video. My experience with most LEO's is they are very 2nd Amendment Friendly, one of the gun clubs I used to belong to had several very active LEO's and they WERE good!

Other officers I have known have all been very reasonable and understanding of the uselessness of gun control laws, they are after laws and I seem to recall that criminals are people who break, wait who break, LAWS! :what: Woa, I know here that "I am preaching to the choir", but I can't understand why gun control advocates think if a criminal breaks laws, then why would gun control laws work.

Here is a link to the 20/20 John Stossel Video referenced by one of the posters on that thread.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

John

Deanimator
August 28, 2008, 02:51 PM
As for being disarmed during a traffic stop. First don't speed, run stop lights, or break sound ordinances and you will not get stopped. Second, if you are stopped
That is an unsupportably broad statement. You are LESS likely to be stopped. It's not a GUARANTEE.

Cops stop people for all sorts of reasons, good and bad. Any claim to the contrary is simply nonsense and any meaningful review of the media and legal system is absolute proof of it.

Every cop isn't looking for an excuse to stop you. Every cop isn't NOT looking for an excuse to stop you either.

DC300a
August 28, 2008, 02:53 PM
I like the quote in you sig line Deanimator.

McKnife
August 28, 2008, 03:10 PM
However, I will note that the loudest officer's in that thread were from Detroit and Washington, DC. Two cities who are known to be antigun.

+1 I noticed that too... makes me wonder what that DC cop was thinking after DC v Heller. haha

I can almost assume you with 98.667% certainty that if you are unarmed during the 15 minutes of said traffic stop; you will not be robbed, carjacked, raped, acosted, or otherwise offended by persons who may pass your way... so, maybe you will not have the need of said firearm until you are on your merry way.

Totally Irrelevant. If you disarm for the sake of disarming, you've already offended me and you're wrong. If I'm not a criminal (nor a threat), then give me my cite (if deserved) and have a good day. Otherwise, hands off.


I'm very professional and personable. I've never been in that situation, but I have a sick feeling that my first traffic stop with my .45 on my hip, it's going to get confiscated. -- Just a gut feeling. So, in relation to the OP, I know of NO pro-gun cops until I meet one in person, but it doesn't mean I hate them.

Phil DeGraves
August 28, 2008, 03:22 PM
Pro-gun or not they'd still confiscate all of your arms if ordered.


I doubt it. Maybe about 30% would. The other 70% would require the proper Court Authorized paperwork before following an arbitrary (and illegal) order. I tried this in a scenario based training exercise with recruits and was pleasantly surprised with the result.

gripper
August 28, 2008, 03:23 PM
The politics of the place they police often influences who gets rank amongst THE police...
Where I used to live;when the current CLEO took over;those that did not shear his views often got other than what they wanted RE assignments/hours.

TAB
August 28, 2008, 03:25 PM
I doubt it. Maybe about 30% would. The other 70% would require the proper Court Authorized paperwork before following an arbitrary (and illegal) order. I tried this in a scenario based training exercise with recruits and was pleasantly surprised with the result.


Recent history has disproved that.

Phil DeGraves
August 28, 2008, 03:33 PM
Recent history has disproved that.

No it hasn't. It just shows that 30% are willing. The other 70% wouldn't so those did. I'm assuming you are talking about Katrina.

There may be geographical considerations. Maybe in NY, NJ, Chi, Boston, etc. you might get a higher % of cops willing to be good Nazis, but as a general rule, taking all of the police in the country, I doubt you'd have a % greater than 30.

TAB
August 28, 2008, 03:39 PM
and you have these numbers how?

jakemccoy
August 28, 2008, 03:39 PM
Define "pro-gun" and "anti-gun" so that the thread can at least resemble something meaningful.

geekWithA.45
August 28, 2008, 03:41 PM
I'm not surprised to find rank & file police to be supportive of an armed citizenry. A number of surveys over the decades have been pretty consistent on that matter.

The police chiefs, who are politically motivated and beholden appointees, are another matter entirely.

Phil DeGraves
August 28, 2008, 03:43 PM
Would the police would engage in unlawful activity if told to do so by a superior. I think the majority would refuse.

As far as a definition, do the majority of police believe that the law abiding citizenry should have the right to be armed, that would mean "pro-gun." Anything else would be "anti."

TAB
August 28, 2008, 03:51 PM
I think your giving them too much credit. Most people can't aford to lose thier job/ pension. When your give a choice of, do this or your fired, and your retirement goes away. Most people will do what they are told.

Werewolf
August 28, 2008, 04:03 PM
Nice site; I'll be visiting it again.

That said: Hoppy is right. Pro-gun or not they'd still confiscate all of your arms if ordered.
...Is something I firmly believe also. I wondered what LEO's take on that is so I did a search of the police link site. Tried every combination of key words involving firearms and confiscation I could think of. Lots of topics popped but none asked the question of LEOs "Would you take them if ordered?"

There's one particular forum dedicated to non-Leo's asking LEO's questions. They're very specific that no non-Leo can answer. I searched that one in particular over and above a general site search and nothing there either.

I did find one topic about enforcing laws LEO's didn't like. The consensus was overwhelming. LEO's on PoliceLink enforce laws even if they don't believe in them. Many mentioned they'd hate to be DC LEO's right now but that they'd still follow the mayors orders. I found this strange in light of the overwhelmingly pro-gun, anti-gun control attitude expressed in the thread linked to by the OP.

The lack of a thread addressing the issue of confiscation combined with the thread regarding enforcing laws leos don't believe in is pretty disturbing and - assuming the police link leos are representative of the law enforcement community as a whole highly indicative that your run of the mill beat cop would in fact obey orders if told to start confiscating our weapons.

TeamPrecisionIT
August 28, 2008, 04:07 PM
Im in favor of massive gun control! Every citizen who chooses to be armed and receives a state sponsored firearms training course that shows the proper attributes of gun control ;) Or better yet, keep the government out of it, they seem to ruin everything they touch.

Damian

koginam
August 28, 2008, 04:08 PM
One of the reasons LEO's become more anti-gun as they gain rank is because they become more political as they gain rank and as we know many politicians are anti-gun.

Many cops have mainly other cops as friends and they get the us against them mentality, (the same thing happens with other professions and in the military) the problem is the them is us, and the vast majority of us are not bad people but we are treated as bad. I feel some of the cops were arrogant and if they fear citizens legally caring CCW they need to find another profession.

The comments of some of the officers in the officer.com thread was very irritating, They don't see any reason to be upset because a legally carried weapon was taken away for only a few minutes and then given back, In my state their is no law that says I have to surrender my gun if I have a CCW, and after looking at some others I could find none that said you had to either, the Second amendment was even called outdated because we aren't fighting indians now. This is one of the reasons their is so much ditrust of the police which is to bad because their are many good cops out their.

Deanimator
August 28, 2008, 04:13 PM
I like the quote in you sig line Deanimator.
Few things set hardcore anti-gunners off as effectively too! :D

akodo
August 28, 2008, 04:19 PM
DC300a writes
Sounds to me that thread is more about whether someone should be disarmed during a traffic stop or not. Not whether or not the officer's are pro-2ndAmendment.

Actually, that is EXACTLY what it is about.

Taking away a person's right, just for a short time, is still taking away that person's right. To do so you damned well better have a good reason.

Let me clarify. If what the driver did was so bad you are going to cuff him and throw him on the roof, then gun or no gun, go ahead.

However, what part of a gun being present changes that equation? If the LEGALLY OWNED AND CARRIED gun causes the police to go from standard "insurance and DL please" to "HAND OVER YOUR PERSONAL PROPERTY NOW!" then he is indeed showing his anti 2nd amendment bias.

Same way a cop who treats a black man differerent, or a cop who treats a person different because he saw a bumpersticker denoting the person a as a pagan.

If what you are doing, have, or who you are is legal, the the cop should not react to it.

akodo
August 28, 2008, 04:22 PM
I can almost assume you with 98.667% certainty that if you are unarmed during the 15 minutes of said traffic stop; you will not be robbed, carjacked, raped, acosted, or otherwise offended by persons who may pass your way... so, maybe you will not have the need of said firearm until you are on your merry way.

I must note the many cases of civil rights activists being pulled over for no cause in the deep south in the 50's and 60's and ending up riddled with bullet holes at the bottom of the swamp thanks to the dedication of the local law enforcement agency.

See, that's the truth about freedom and rights, you don't get to take them away even temporarily, even if it is a 98.667% situation.

let me ask you this. Why do you pull over speeders? Because they could get in an accident and kill someone? I'd bet 99.999% of the people on the road right now speeding will get to their destination without a traffic accident. So why do you still pull over and ticket people for it? Because it is against the law. Is a cop within his rights to pull someone over for doing 60 in a 55, even though it is speeding "just a little bit" yes.

Guess what else is against the law, infiringing the 2nd amendment, even a little bit.

shadowalker
August 28, 2008, 04:59 PM
Law enforcement policies on firearms will mirror the community's, if the community is accepting of firearm ownership so will the police. For example Alaska, Montana, Idaho vs California, New York, DC. The reason being the police chief reports to the mayor, an elected official, the sheriff is a directly elected official, they aren't going to do something to cause them to not get re-elected.

Our local law enforcement is very pro armed citizen, the sheriff's office runs a free CCW class and the deputies beg the attendees to get their CWL and to carry.

Something to keep in mind is that as a person goes up the rank their liberty to reveal personal opinions decreases and oversight by lawyers increase, burdens of leadership.

They may personally be pro gun but be pressured to take a middle of the road stance.

I don't take the obligatory "don't fight armed robbers" or "violence isn't the solution" statements to be anti gun, just regurgitated official policies.

gunseller2
August 28, 2008, 05:02 PM
Twenty-two years as an LEO, Life NRA Member, work for a firearms retailer...what do you think?

bharen
August 28, 2008, 05:50 PM
Law enforcement personnel are a slice of their community and their views reflect their prejudices, upbringing and political orientation.

My (very) small sampling of Atlanta city police officers tells me that many are anti-gun and there seems to be a clear race and gender bias - more black officers are anti-gun than white officers and almost every female officer (black, white and latino) I've spoken with was anti-gun. Their views clearly reflects the leadership of the City of Atlanta and it's politically appointed police chief.

Move just 20 miles south to one of the surrounding counties, where most of the deputies grew up in a rural setting, and you'll find the attitudes much different. Far more of them (I'd say a clear majority) are pro-gun, as is their leadership.

jakemccoy
August 28, 2008, 06:06 PM
Yes, the majority of LEO's are anti-gun.

Most think that they should be the only ones with guns.

However, I have to admit that in play land on the Internet, it's fun to imagine a world where most LEO's are pro-gun.

Deus Machina
August 28, 2008, 07:00 PM
In my experience, it really depends on the area.

In northern Illinois and downtown Tampa and Miami, the rank-and-file patrol officers think they should be the only people with guns because most of the people they meet with them is being arrested.

Outside of the cities, every officer I've met loves CHL holders because they're generally a higher quality of citizens--and easier to track if they turn out otherwise.

In both cases, the paper pushers that never leave the station are generally anti (see the first example) and the higher-ups are generally Pro2A--as it applies to them and the bigwigs they're mooching up to.

Loomis
August 28, 2008, 07:19 PM
jakemccoy :

I think you are mistaken. Maybe in a large city like chicago or new york, city cops tend to be anti gun. But state troopers, and sherrifs are generally pro gun. Most small town cops are pro gun.

I've heard alot of cops complain about cheap guns though. They aren't so much against the concept of private owned guns...they just don't like to see so many $50 junkers floating around the gettos.

ArfinGreebly
August 28, 2008, 07:26 PM
. . . in Texas, er, Idaho . . .

We have reg'lar ol' citizens who invite ossifers to go shootin' out past the lake.

The ossifers don't get no credit for the exercise, but all the ones I've shot with have been pretty good on the paper.

Then there's the state trooper who moonlights as a lawn maintenance guy, and who does our yard prep for winter and spring, I keep inviting him but he's always busy -- he trains other troopers in tactical shooting out at their range.

Did you know that up here in Texas, er, Idaho, a guy can walk in to the sheriff's office with a DD214 and walk out with a CCW?

And I think I've figured out what the difference is between TX and ID is. Up here, if you're in a gun shoppe and there happens to be an LEO present, he'll help you pick out a holster suitable for open carry. Well, that, and the sand is harder to find, 'cuz the trees keep gettin' in the way.

:D

Tyris
August 28, 2008, 07:54 PM
I've heard alot of cops complain about cheap guns though. They aren't so much against the concept of private owned guns...they just don't like to see so many $50 junkers floating around the gettos.

Heh.

Translation: Cops dont like poor blacks to own guns.

-T

Low-Sci
August 28, 2008, 08:03 PM
While I may be coming down on the wrong side of this for this particular forum, I have to admit that I'm much more sympathetic to the police than the CCW holder when it comes to a temporary disarmament during a traffic stop.

The particular cops in question in that second forum thread that was posted might have been pretty asinine about it, but I do agree that they have a legitimate (if remote) safety concern.

Naturally, during any traffic stop, you don't do anything that you're not legally required to do, and you treat the officer with respect. But if it's the officer's legal right to disarm you temporarily while he prosecutes the stop, then whatever your feelings about how 2A applies to that, it's nothing but unfortunate.

If it's about respect, I can understand that too. If you've been nothing but polite and legal, it might suck to have your weapon taken from you as the respect you're showing clearly isn't reciprocated. But if that temporary confiscation is legal, just like asking you to turn off your car is legal, then it will probably take a side seat to the officer's safety.

I guess my overall point about it is that the temporary confiscation battle is one we're not likely to win, and it's a pretty low-yield venture anyway. Fight that one if you like, but you probably have more important uses of your time.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
August 28, 2008, 08:06 PM
No, it's just the Chief's Associations and FOP heads that are rabidly anti-freedom. They don't represent their constituents properly.

dalepres
August 28, 2008, 08:39 PM
or the head LEO is anti-enough that they must all act anti to keep him happy

LEOs are sheeple, too... er... I mean are people, too. When their leaders are anti-gun, many of them will actually believe that they, themselves, are anti-gun.

While I may be coming down on the wrong side of this for this particular forum, I have to admit that I'm much more sympathetic to the police than the CCW holder when it comes to a temporary disarmament during a traffic stop.

So the perfect societal disarmament/confiscation tool is the traffic stop. All they have to do is not give the guns back afterwards.

bwavec
August 28, 2008, 09:03 PM
Far too many LEOs I have dealt with seem to feel that having a firearm is their exclusive right.

"I am the only one special enough to handle this Glock40......"

Old Dog
August 29, 2008, 01:51 AM
Same old thread, only the title changes.

209
August 29, 2008, 03:02 AM
:uhoh:

:confused:

:what:

:rolleyes:

:scrutiny:

Responses to five of the posts.

:banghead:

That one there is a response to any post where someone wrote that yes indeedy, without a doubt, the majority of LEOs are anti-gun. [paraphase of course]. I have never seen any stats that would even allow someone to make that claim. Of course, the post was missing the "IMO" part which would have put it in better perpective.

sacp81170a
August 29, 2008, 05:30 AM
Same old thread, only the title changes.

Yep.

Ragnar Danneskjold
August 29, 2008, 05:59 AM
Law enforcement policies on firearms will mirror the community's, if the community is accepting of firearm ownership so will the police.

Precisely. Those decrying disarming by police or police following orders to confiscate, let me ask you this: do you want the norm to be police making laws and choosing which laws on their own to enforce? Do you really want to make arbitrarily choosing to disregard law or orders the standard for police? I think not. The actions and behaviors of your police are reflective of the populous. If police are disarming people because they were ordered, the question isn't why aren't they ignoring the orders. It's why did you allow your politicians to give those orders in the first place.

YOU are a voter. YOU decide who makes the laws. YOU can take part in your community. YOU can help shape police behavior and law. The police are the ones following the rulebook, however it's written, good or bad(and trust me, you don't want them doing anything but following the rulebook). YOU are the one who helps shape what's in that rulebook. If the police are doing something wrong, it's because YOU as a citizen and voter have failed at doing your duty and taking part in how your community and laws are shaped.


The idea of police just making up law, or picking and choosing which laws to enforce or ignore on the roadside without oversight is far more terrifying than police following misguided orders. At least with the bad orders, the problem can be solved at the source: get rid of the one giving the bad orders. Expect police to arbitrarily and randomly implement law that may or may not really be law, and it's a crap shoot with no single solution in sight.

wideym
August 29, 2008, 06:29 AM
I've met many police officers over the years who were strongly pro RKBA off duty. On duty however was a different story, with most citing "officer safety" as a reason to confiscate a civilians gun.

jorb
August 29, 2008, 09:40 AM
I followed the link and joined the site. I do not believe "gun control" works. No need to go into all the reasons as most of you already know them. I do believe that if a Dem gets elected we are in trouble Big Brother wise. I really hope I am wrong. Trust in God and your real friends and hang together. I mean support each other.

Werewolf
August 29, 2008, 05:19 PM
It's why did you allow your politicians to give those orders in the first place.

YOU are a voter. YOU decide who makes the laws. YOU can take part in your community.Ahh the wonders of Democracy AND the tyranny of the majority . NEWS FLASH! The number of people in this country who are gun owners makes up a minority voting block in most places.

So yeah - let's put it up to a vote. Oh wait we have put it up to a vote and elected politicians that want to take our guns away. And if the pundits are right that number is going to grow even larger in the upcoming election. The way things are going the likelihood of confiscation within the next 20 or so years isn't all that remote.

BUT IT'LL BE OK TO DISARM GUN OWNERS BECAUSE THE MAJORITY THINK ITS OK AND VOTED IN POLITICIANS WHO'D MAKE IT HAPPEN. IT WON'T BE RIGHT, OR JUST, OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS BUT IT'LL BE OK BECAUSE AFTER ALL THE MAJORITY SAID SO.

Yeah - that works!

Ragnar Danneskjold
August 29, 2008, 05:26 PM
Werewolf, America is not a democracy. It's a constitutional republic. Yes there's a difference.

Tommygunn
August 29, 2008, 05:46 PM
The comments of some of the officers in the officer.com thread was very irritating, They don't see any reason to be upset because a legally carried weapon was taken away for only a few minutes and then given back, In my state their is no law that says I have to surrender my gun if I have a CCW, and after looking at some others I could find none that said you had to either, the Second amendment was even called outdated because we aren't fighting indians now. This is one of the reasons their is so much ditrust of the police which is to bad because their are many good cops out their.

:scrutiny:
Saturday I was driving back from a gunshow and drove by a roadblock where all drivers were being checked for proof of insurance. I told the officer I had a revolver in the comaprtment where I keep the insurance document. He took possession of the gun for about thirty seconds while I took the insurance ticket out and showed it to him, then he put the gun back after I'd returned the paperwork and let me go, saying he appreciated being told about the gun. He was OK with me having the gun; I was OK with him holding it for the little time involved.
Police have no way to know who you are, and sometimes wind up stopping people who are sociopaths and wind up in dire straits or atleast surviving a nearly fatal encounter. IMHO, paying it straightforward with a LEO is simply common courtesy.
Adrenaline rush works fine in football.
NOT with guns!;)

SomeDude
August 29, 2008, 05:53 PM
Half of my life I lived in rural towns in Iowa and Kansas where the local law enforcement were people who grew up there and therefore still had the same friends and same hobbies as before.
When I moved to a large metro area I viewed the cops more as "hired guns". A majority of them don't live in the same city, let alone same county that they serve.
I've also noticed that the younger generation of cops has become strikingly more militant. All and I do mean all of the officers here under the age of 35 have flat-tops and wraparound shades and quite frankly, they're *******s. To them everyone is a suspect. The older guys generally are more respectful. I guess the training has changed.

Low-Sci
August 29, 2008, 06:36 PM
So the perfect societal disarmament/confiscation tool is the traffic stop. All they have to do is not give the guns back afterwards.

I knew someone was going to say it.

It's not a good societal disarmament tool, it's a genuinely bad one. They have to wait for legislation that requires you to inform, then they have to wait for you to make a mistake so they can pull you over, then they have to wait for legislation that makes permanent confiscation of private property legal in the case of a traffic stop.

And then they have to wait for every rights advocacy group in the US to look the other way when it happens.

They'll be waiting for a damn while, I assure you. I'm not blaming you for being on your guard about firearms confiscation, but they'll have to do a little better than traffic stops to disarm society.

Werewolf
August 29, 2008, 06:58 PM
Werewolf, America is not a democracy. It's a constitutional republic. Yes there's a difference.
No FREAKIN' KIDDING! What's your point. Did you read my post at all? Did you read what I responded to regarding VOTING. The voting process is democratic. The type of our government is a Republic. The guy I responded to was talking voting. I was talking voting. Democratic process - get it?

And whether you or anyone else likes it or not be it a constitutional republic or a pure democracy the tyranny of the majority is a major problem that has yet to be successfully solved by nations with governments that rely on citizens voting to choose leaders and law makers.

Thus the guy who inanely thinks that we can solve all our problems by voting when we as gun owners are a minority is barking up the wrong tree.

tpaw
August 29, 2008, 07:01 PM
Could also be because as they climb the ladder, their jobs are less protected by contract and more subject to the whims of politicians...


Very good point! Here in the NYPD you take a civil service test for promotions up to and including captain. You are prompted by test score. Beyond that there are no exams, it's all political partonage, not what you know, but who you know. If you don't lock step with the mayors office (Mayor Bloomberg), an anti-gun advocate, your career is over. You will never be promoted beyond captain. Trust me, I know, X-NYPD.

bohicaconcepts
August 29, 2008, 07:34 PM
I am a non-sworn campus security officer but I work for a medium sized private univesity campus Police department in NC. We have 50+ employees including both sworn and non sworn officers. Within our ranks we have a couple of officers who plan on voting for Obama. And several who wish Hillary was running. We also have a few who hate McCain and believe he is another Bush. Sworn officers in our agency cannot carry a firearm off duty unless they have a concealed weapons permit or unless they are retired (under HR218) from another agency. I am one of only two (2) officers in the whole department who have a Concealed Handgun Permit. Most of the sworn officers I have spoken to in the past 3 years don't support assault weapons for civilians. "People just don't need those things." Some of the officers are real hunters but they don't like high capacity weapons.

Kino74
August 29, 2008, 07:47 PM
Like anybody else with opinions, what are we considering pro-gun and anti-gun? The reason I ask is I know quite a few LEOs, all of whom are supportive of hunting and HANDGUNS for self defense; however, outside of that, not so much support ranging mostly from indifference to hostility.

I tend to find that people including LEOs only want to support the weapons THEY LIKE OR USE and if your guns are not in that category, forget about it.

VegasOPM
August 29, 2008, 08:01 PM
Soem LEOs that I have met are pro- some anti. It really doesn't matter. The key is to play by the rules of the State/ County/ City in which you find yourself. When that doesn't work, find yourself a very pro-gun attorney (preferably one who used to be a judge:evil:). I got the name of a pro-gun, pro-rights criminal attorney and spent $175 for an hour of his time and decided to part with $500 for a retainer- just in case. I am a law abiding citizen that could stand up to any level of scrutiny- but I don't want to be a pawn in someone else's game.

The LEOs have to play by the rules. Sometimes it just takes a gentle reminder of what the rules really are.

TRGRHPY
August 29, 2008, 08:43 PM
First of all let me say that I understand both points of view regarding the original topic of handing over your firearm during a traffic stop. However, the theory that a civilian with a CCW that gets pulled over is somehow going to all of a sudden become a danger to the officer is intellectually dishonest. CCW holders are obviously more responsible than other people. They have a clean criminal history (which shouldn't be very difficult, but some people have a difficult time not getting arrested), took a safety course, passed a background check. So why should it be assumed that if they were to be pulled over for a traffic stop, that they are going to go apesh** and start shooting at an officer? Remember, this is a law abidig citizen (the traffic violation being an exception..haha) who carries a concealed firearm for self defense, not to carry it so that they can shoot the first cop that pulls them over. If a CCW holder is that untrustworthy, then why are the CCW holders not shooting at other people for all kinds of other things? I mean hell, why not shoot the waitress who gave you bad service? I'm sure that can irritate a CCW holder just as much as getting pulled over, right? If a cop is pulling over a person who has a permit, what is the danger? What is the scenario they are afraid of? I can completely understand that traffic stops can be a little nerve racking at times, but some common sense should be issued with the badge. If a permit holder takes the time to inform an officer that they have a firearm, the person should not be treated as a threat. If they wanted to shoot the officer, I'm pretty sure that they are not going to let the officer know that they have the firearm and a permit, and then shoot him. That officer is in no more danger from a person with a permit than if that same person were to sit next to the officer at a Denny's while he is at lunch.

Don't get me wrong. I fully respect and admire Law enforcement. It is a thankless job that is grossly underpaid (along with other civil service jobs). Their families are under stress and sometimes they don't get to spend as much time together as most civilians. Their actions are always under a microscope and are second-guessed by people who know nothing of what it is to be in their shoes. But their job is to envorce the laws and serve the public. Not, harrass, humiliate and flex their musclepower against civilians...and that seems to be happening more and more. Someone earlier stated that it seems that the newer generation of officers seem to be the ones who are guilty of these types of actions. It was mentioned in a speech at the DNC last night(?) when it was stated that there should be better pay for officers and teachers so that they can attract better and more qualified people to be officers and teachers.

Now the attitude of several of the cops on that other website was BS. I think that officers are developing more and more of an adversarial attitude towards the public. The one stated something to that fact that "if you do what I say, there won't be a problem"...*** kind of attitude is that? Talk about the wrong type of attitude to have while dealing with the public.

dalepres
August 29, 2008, 09:46 PM
On duty however was a different story, with most citing "officer safety" as a reason to confiscate a civilians gun.

What about "citizen safety" as a reason to hold on to your gun. I'd love to see stats on how many CCWs have been involved in violent crimes versus how many LEOs. I searched and couldn't find any stats but my bet is that the LEO rate of crime is higher than the CCW.

Deanimator
August 30, 2008, 08:14 AM
The LEOs have to play by the rules. Sometimes it just takes a gentle reminder of what the rules really are.
And when we won't tolerate anything else, we get EXCELLENT police forces. When we don't, we get Chicago and New Orleans. I know which I prefer...

jlangton
August 30, 2008, 09:45 AM
Totally Irrelevant. If you disarm for the sake of disarming, you've already offended me and you're wrong. If I'm not a criminal (nor a threat), then give me my cite (if deserved) and have a good day. Otherwise, hands off.
I agree totally.
JL

contenderman
August 30, 2008, 10:04 AM
Pro? Anti? Neutral? It's a mix and it always will be. However the policies and attitudes of the department administration will most likely influence and reflect the attitudes of the street officers.

Stops are another matter. You can be following all traffic laws and have no obvious mechanical problems w/ your vehicle and still be stopped. Why? Well a couple reasons are, your vehicle closely matches a BOLO, or you may resemble someone in a BOLO.

If your stopped, the road side is not the forum for debating the right or wrong of the stop. If you choose to do so then things will more than likely escalate with results not to your liking. Stay calm, as needed, ask relevant questions, and if the officer is showing attitude, stay calm. Matching attitude with attitude will not resolve the matter.

Training dictates that the officer make any approach with the thought of possible confrontation in mind. If that training is followed the officer has a much higher probability of collecting retirement.

If you are legally armed, you have a responsibility to advise the officer accordingly and to follow their instructions. Most carry laws address this aspect. If the officer asks for your weapon(s), comply. If the officer indicates that the weapon(s) are being confiscated, move to settle the matter at the station not on the street.

Pocket knives, etc.? Anything that would reasonably make a potential weapon is of concern to an officer. Again, training dictates that in the appropriate situation an officer ask if the person being questioned/detained has any weapons on their person. You are obligated to answer that question and as circumstances require, to surrender the item(s) in question. As with the firearm(s) if confiscation becomes an issue, don't try and settle it on the road side.

Many years ago I lost a very good friend, a state trooper, making a traffic stop on a person (the son of family friends) that was well known to him. The boy shot and killed him, purportedly because he was panicked about the trooper finding a small amount of MJ that he had in the car.

I suspect that many current and former LEOs can provide similar stories.

Lastly will an officer go against orders ... no one can say for certain, but LE is similar to the military and the UCMJ "lawful order" compliance stipulations. Just following orders is not a viable defense for unlawful acts in either world.

thumbody
August 30, 2008, 10:17 AM
If you are legally armed, you have a responsibility to advise the officer accordingly and to follow their instructions.

Only if required by state law. Some require it others don't

Intune
August 30, 2008, 11:19 AM
It can be very dangerous out there at times and we all just want to go home to our families and loved ones. Is that two different groups? ;)

It started as a routine stop but then as I’m getting out of my car the subject exits from his and despite my use of command voice and clear gestures for him to return to his vehicle he keeps coming. This guy is yelling at the top of his lungs and his face is all purple and I’m thinking this is going to be one serious problem and I’m on the side of the road in the middle of nowhere. That’s when I notice the gun… :eek:

I want to call for back-up but this dude is pissed and closing the distance fast. He has what looks like a Glock on his right hip and I can see a couple of magazine pouches on the other side. His face is all contorted in anger and spit is flying out of his mouth he is screaming so hard and loud. I try backing up to put some distance between us but he keeps coming despite my orders to get down on the ground. He reaches for me and I realize it’s go time… :cool:

I’m a pretty big guy at 6’3” & 240 and this guy probably comes up to my chin but he’s wiry and extremely angry. His first punch caught me square on the nose. All my years in the military, working out and force training are coming into play as I grab his left wrist and spin him around, slamming him with a satisfying crunch against the car. I should have gone for his gun hand… A rookie mistake after all my years on the street. As soon as I see the gun in his hand I perform a leg sweep and slam him to the ground using my superior weight to keep him pinned and begin slamming his hand against the pavement. Hard. Telling him to drop the gun isn’t working real well and slamming the road is just messing up a good gun (a Glock? Please.) So I resort to a disarming technique that I learned years ago and begin rolling the firearm out towards his thumb. Hey, if it snaps, too bad chump. Bingo! I toss the gun, grab the cuffs & get them on nice and snug. Now this guy is telling me how much trouble I’m in and how many laws I’ve broken and how I’m just making it worse on myself, blah, blah, blah. :barf:

I start searching this guy and find a blade in his pocket, a .38 in an ankle holster, pepper spray and an asp. In addition to all this he’s wearing a vest! Holy cow, I gotta check his car! Right there in plain view is a shotgun so I pop the trunk, lookie here. An AR-15 and level III vest. Is this guy starting a war or what? :what:

Well, I knew the wife was probably getting worried and I no longer had a gun in my face so I pulled out my phone, patted the policeman on his head and walked back to my car. I wonder if all his coworkers still rag him about being found cuffed on the side of the road? :evil:

It can be very dangerous out there at times and we all just want to go home to our families and loved ones. :D


The above DID NOT occur. It is a parable/allegory.

Kentucky-roughrider
August 30, 2008, 12:01 PM
Most LEO I' ve meet are pro gun. The last time I was pulled over while armed, it was in OC and I had got my CCW yet. I deputy made a comment on my grips. I almost told him they sell them everyday.
Another LEO told me that I need to get one, before this happen.
In the next county the local sheriff, when not busy, is usually sitting in a local gun store. He even advessed me as to what kind of hoslter to buy for my 1911.

Intune,
I hope you were joking, or that you never met that LEO again. He may want a little payback.

Robby
August 30, 2008, 12:05 PM
Gee, I needed that last one this morning!! Nicely done! Sorry to slow, 2nd one above

dalepres
August 30, 2008, 12:06 PM
Well, I knew the wife was probably getting worried and I no longer had a gun in my face so I pulled out my phone, patted the policeman on his head and walked back to my car. I wonder if all his coworkers still rag him about being found cuffed on the side of the road?

Clearly LEOs should be disarmed during routine traffic stops. :) In fact, this guy assaulted a cop and should have been fired from his LEO job and charged with a felony and lost his right to carry or own a gun just like any other traffic offender who assaults the cop who pulled them over. But you're right; he probably got a ribbing from his fellow officers and paid a traffic fine.

Kentucky-roughrider
August 30, 2008, 12:14 PM
Intune,
Sorry, I thought you were the one being pulled over, not the other way around.

Deanimator
August 30, 2008, 12:33 PM
Well, I knew the wife was probably getting worried and I no longer had a gun in my face so I pulled out my phone, patted the policeman on his head and walked back to my car. I wonder if all his coworkers still rag him about being found cuffed on the side of the road?
Assuming that everything was as you described it, that pyscho should have been terminated INSTANTLY. If not, he and everybody in his chain of command should have been terminated. He's clearly just a homicide (or two) and a $20,000,000 judgement waiting to happen.

I don't know how prevalent such behavior by cops against other cops is, but I suspect it's moreso than people might imagine.

The Chicago PD cop who beat up the 50 year old woman and 63 year old man in a Niles bar in a drunken stupor recently has a LOOOOONG history of violent behavior, including against other cops. The previous Superintendent actually tried to fire him (a truly ASTONISHING attempt at normal supervision for HIM), but was, I believe, overruled by the Police Board.

I don't know for sure, but I imagine that if a Rocky River, Ohio cop tried assault with a deadly weapon against another cop, no matter where, even if he wasn't prosecuted, his career path would pretty much end with asking to inspect receipts at Walmart.

And now that I think about it, one of the guys they nailed on an episode of "To Catch a Predator" was a serving cop. His SUV was PACKED with firearms and ammunition, including some sort of M4. I'm actually surprised that he didn't try to resist the officers who arrested him, since his law enforcement career (and life in general) were pretty much over for him. Apparently in some smaller departments, "screening" pertains only to the back door of the station...

dalepres
August 30, 2008, 12:57 PM
Assuming that everything was as you described it, that pyscho should have been terminated INSTANTLY.

+1. And possibly terminated in ways you perhaps didn't mean. The guy drew a weapon in anger on a cop doing his lawful and moral duty. The guy was lucky that InTune didn't shoot him or break his neck.

Deanimator
August 30, 2008, 01:37 PM
The guy was lucky that InTune didn't shoot him or break his neck.
+10,000 In a lot of jurisdictions, he'd have been deader than Dennis Kucinich's last braincell, and deservedly so. That's non-adaptive behavior, regardless of whether you're a cop or a citizen. InTune didn't say that I recall, but that level of stupidity is usually only achieved through the use of drugs or alcohol.

RockyMtnTactical
August 30, 2008, 01:43 PM
I don't believe they are.

I deal with LE officers and our troops every day and they are pretty much all pro-gun. Plus, the ones I am related to and have as friends feel the same.

Any logical LE officer knows that a law abiding citizen with a weapon is a friend.

It's mostly high ranking metropolitan LE people who are puppets of liberal anti gun politicians who feel that way.

Intune
August 30, 2008, 01:47 PM
Guys, I was being sarcastic, joking, making up a parable/allegory to show that I'm armed, you're armed. I'm tough, you're tough. You can call for back-up, I can, er, um, I can watch you call for back-up! ;) I'm having a good day, you're having a good day. I'm getting a ticket, you're giving me one. No prob. I earned it. But don't disarm me unless you get a hinky/bad feeling about me. It's disrespectful and demeaning and you know it.

I'm the guy that will turn my car around to assist an officer on the side of the road wrestling around with some idiot. I'm the guy that saw the Sumner County Sheriff car next to the field with the drivers door open and a pair of legs extending out and went over to make sure everything was O.K. Only to find a thankful deputy checking a bad fuse. More honest citizens with guns means you might have the back-up you desperately need before you even have the chance to call for it.

Now, I realize that you don't know me as a good guy or a bad guy when you turn the lights on but I would hope that after a few years on the force and the fact that I either proffered my CCW card or produced it upon request would play into the whole disarming ritual.

Sorry for the derail. My friends that are TBI or deputies welcome CCW's. Their superiors are politicos and don't. :barf:

AntiqueCollector
August 30, 2008, 01:59 PM
My observations are that the more urban an area the higher the percentage of police against private ownership and carrying of firearms. Case in point: I have never had a problem open carrying in most of VT, most of which is a fairly rural state. I have had a couple run ins (pretty negative experiences) in one of the more urban areas (Rutland City) and from my experience there could see the police in that city are by and large anti-gun. I have heard of similar problems from others in Burlington, Bennington and Brattleboro. My stance is, I'm suspicious of any and all cops until I know for certain they're not bad. The us versus them attitude I see becoming more and more common in police can go both ways as far as I'm concerned.

Intune
August 30, 2008, 02:14 PM
Sorry, I thought you were the one being pulled over, not the other way around.K-r, you had it right. :evil: And I was indeed joking.

After reading so many of Deanimator's posts I'm scared to death of LEO's. :rolleyes: He's not making this stuff up either. I never know if it's a good cop or a bad one approaching me so I disarm all of them until the stop is concluded. It's all about citizen safety. ;) :rolleyes:

conw
August 30, 2008, 02:19 PM
The higher ups seem to be less pro-gun. I don't particularly know why.

The Peter Principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

Intune
August 30, 2008, 05:57 PM
What about "citizen safety" as a reason to hold on to your gun. I'd love to see stats on how many CCWs have been involved in violent crimes versus how many LEOs. I searched and couldn't find any stats but my bet is that the LEO rate of crime is higher than the CCW.Man, would that not be a :what: statistic? I think you may be right but I have no idea where to find such stats. "Officer, I want you to slowly unbuckle your gunbelt and hand it over SLOWLY. Dalepres found some stats that show I am at far greater risk of serious injury by you rather than vice versa so I'm just gonna hold onto this puppy during our encounter to ensure citizen safety is maintained. I trust you don't have a problem with that, right? I can almost assure you with 98.667% certainty that if you are unarmed during the 15 minutes of this traffic stop; you will not be robbed, carjacked, raped, accosted, or otherwise offended by persons who may pass your way... so, maybe you will not have the need of said firearm until you are on your merry way. Do you have any other weapons that I need to be aware of? You're not transporting any bazookas, nukes or rocket launchers are you? Ha, ha, I didn't think so, so you don't mind if I have a quick look in the patrol car. Do you? "

jakemccoy
August 30, 2008, 06:02 PM
........................

dalepres
August 30, 2008, 07:05 PM
After reading so many of Deanimator's posts I'm scared to death of LEO's. He's not making this stuff up either. I never know if it's a good cop or a bad one approaching me so I disarm all of them until the stop is concluded. It's all about citizen safety.

"Officer, I want you to slowly unbuckle your gunbelt and hand it over SLOWLY. Dalepres found some stats that show I am at far greater risk of serious injury by you rather than vice versa so I'm just gonna hold onto this puppy during our encounter to ensure citizen safety is maintained. I trust you don't have a problem with that, right?

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/05/cop_arrested_in_theft_battery.html

EDIT: I forgot to include a quote from the article:

Cop arrested in theft, battery previously suspended for abandoning post
by Brendan McCarthy, The Times-Picayune
Friday May 16, 2008, 8:28 PM

A New Orleans police officer charged this week with theft and aggravated battery previously served a lengthy suspension for abandoning his post in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.


Officer Rydell Diggs, 31, left his position as a 3rd District officer without authorization days after the 2005 hurricane and did not return to the job until 12 days later, according to civil service records. He was suspended 85 workdays for neglect of duty, and later reinstated to the force.

Diggs is at the center of controversy this week after his arrest Thursday morning on charges of aggravated battery, theft and malfeasance in office.

He allegedly beat a motorist with a baton and stole more than $300 from the man's wallet, according to police. Diggs also is charged with aggravated battery, accused of using pepper spray on a woman, court records show. The incident took place after a traffic stop on Aug. 7, 2007, at Monroe and Hickory streets in the West Carrollton area, police said. Diggs was a patrolman assigned to the 2nd District, which covers a wide swath of Uptown.

Deanimator
August 30, 2008, 07:15 PM
After reading so many of Deanimator's posts I'm scared to death of LEO's. He's not making this stuff up either.
SOME of this stuff, CLIVE BARKER couldn't make up! :D

Watch, some day I'll post a link to a story in the Tribune about a 7' Chicago cop with nails sticking out of his head getting a thirty day suspension for skinning somebody alive!:evil:

http://www.testriffic.com/resultfiles/12026Pinhead.jpg

Ragnar Danneskjold
August 30, 2008, 07:16 PM
Man, would that not be a statistic? I think you may be right but I have no idea where to find such stats. "Officer, I want you to slowly unbuckle your gunbelt and hand it over SLOWLY. Dalepres found some stats that show I am at far greater risk of serious injury by you rather than vice versa so I'm just gonna hold onto this puppy during our encounter to ensure citizen safety is maintained. I trust you don't have a problem with that, right? I can almost assure you with 98.667% certainty that if you are unarmed during the 15 minutes of this traffic stop; you will not be robbed, carjacked, raped, accosted, or otherwise offended by persons who may pass your way... so, maybe you will not have the need of said firearm until you are on your merry way. Do you have any other weapons that I need to be aware of? You're not transporting any bazookas, nukes or rocket launchers are you? Ha, ha, I didn't think so, so you don't mind if I have a quick look in the patrol car. Do you? "
__________________


Cute. While you're at it, go ahead a skip calling 911 if your house or car ever gets broken into. And if you come home from work, and your front door is bashed open, just go clear the house yourself. You've got statistically better accuracy and training anyways.

Deanimator
August 30, 2008, 07:25 PM
Cute. While you're at it, go ahead a skip calling 911 if your house or car ever gets broken into. And if you come home from work, and your front door is bashed open, just go clear the house yourself. You've got statistically better accuracy and training anyways.
If I lived in Chicago, that's EXACTLY what I'd do. Who knows, before last year, maybe it was Jerry Finnegan and SOS who broke in in the first place. Why call them BACK to the scene?

Calling the Chicago PD because you're a victim of crime is like calling Michael Bolton because you're a victim of lame music.

dalepres
August 30, 2008, 07:42 PM
Cute. While you're at it, go ahead a skip calling 911 if your house or car ever gets broken into. And if you come home from work, and your front door is bashed open, just go clear the house yourself. You've got statistically better accuracy and training anyways.

Why would you skip calling 911 after the crime? Now we're talking about the police doing what is their job.

Calling the Chicago PD because you're a victim of crime is like calling Michael Bolton because you're a victim of lame music.

That analysis only holds true if the Chicago PD had been the perpetrators of the crime... Because Michael Bolton is lame music.

Deanimator
August 30, 2008, 07:49 PM
That analysis only holds true if the Chicago PD had been the perpetrators of the crime... Because Michael Bolton is lame music.
Google "Jerome Finnegan" and "SOS" and you'll see what I was talking about.

dalepres
August 30, 2008, 08:28 PM
So we agree on Michael Bolton then. :)

Deanimator
August 30, 2008, 09:01 PM
So we agree on Michael Bolton then.
It wouldn't have made sense otherwise!

Ragnar Danneskjold
August 30, 2008, 09:53 PM
Why would you skip calling 911 after the crime? Now we're talking about the police doing what is their job.

We've always been talking about things that are their job.

Intune
August 30, 2008, 10:48 PM
Cute. Thanks, must be the new haircut. I need to let you know up front that I’ve been happily married for 18+ years.
While you're at it, go ahead a skip calling 911 if your house or car ever gets broken into. And if you come home from work, and your front door is bashed open, just go clear the house yourself. You've got statistically better accuracy and training anyways.Wow, does seething come to mind? :eek:

See, the whole wry humor and dichotomy aspect gets dashed on the rocks when folks don’t follow the thread from the beginning and retain some of the premise. Please refer to post #10. Here, I'll help you. I don’t want to cause any more undue stress…
Post 10-
Sounds to me that thread is more about whether someone should be disarmed during a traffic stop or not. Not whether or not the officer's are pro-2ndAmendment.

However, I will note that the loudest officer's in that thread were from Detroit and Washington, DC. Two cities who are known to be antigun.

As for being disarmed during a traffic stop. First don't speed, run stop lights, or break sound ordinances and you will not get stopped. Second, if you are stopped... I can almost assume you with 98.667% certainty that if you are unarmed during the 15 minutes of said traffic stop; you will not be robbed, carjacked, raped, acosted, or otherwise offended by persons who may pass your way... so, maybe you will not have the need of said firearm until you are on your merry way.

Now I appear even cuter, eh? I don't know how that whole shoe on the other foot thing sits with ya. Somehow I doubt it. :p:rolleyes:

deputydon
August 30, 2008, 10:51 PM
No, I don''t

Intune
August 30, 2008, 11:28 PM
Deanimator, Watch, some day I'll post a link to a story in the Tribune about a 7' Chicago cop with nails sticking out of his head getting a thirty day suspension for skinning somebody alive!CHICAGO TRIBUNE

Cook County- 8.30.08
For Immediate Release Contact: Office of News Affairs
CHICAGO – Superintendent of Police, Jody “JP” Weiss announced today that in the interest of public safety the 30 day suspension of officer Ivan Tocuturcockov was reduced to the 5 days served and the massive officer is back patrolling and making our fair city that much safer whilst putting the underworld on notice. Officer Tocuturcockov stated, “I was just flaying around for a bit & then it got serious. I like to get an edge on the competition and cut right to the chase. These nail implants allow me to zero in on the dishonest civilians even before they commit a crime. I did the community a favor.”

Ragnar Danneskjold
August 31, 2008, 12:47 AM
I have been following the thread from the beginning. Thanks for making assumptions though.


My point stands: Don't like cops and think they are power hungry thugs? Then don't use them. It's the height of hypocrisy to scoff and police doing and wanting things that will make their job safer, while simultaneously demanding that they put themselves in situations you can't or won't do yourself.


Since we're so fond of citing stories around here, anyone want to go search for one where a legal CCW holder held off a corrupt police officer who was trying to kill him ,during a traffic stop with his concealed weapon?

Deanimator
August 31, 2008, 08:14 AM
My point stands: Don't like cops and think they are power hungry thugs? Then don't use them.
As I said, if I still lived in Chicago, I WOULDN'T. Why bother? They don't care. Everybody KNOWS they don't care. They SAY they don't care.

The last time I recall my family calling the Chicago PD was when I was in highschool and heard glass breaking late one night. My bedroom faced an alley, on the other side of which was the back door of a dry cleaners. I could very clearly see a group of White teenagers who broke one or more windows in the back of the cleaners. They were standing under a light.

I woke my parents who called the Chicago Police Department. When they arrived, we went downstairs in front of our apartment. My father told them what I'd seen. When they learned that the suspects were White, they halted the investigation, got back in their car and immediately left, heading in the OPPOSITE direction from the one which the suspects took. THAT is what the "help" of the Chicago Police Department is worth.

Now tell me again, what purpose calling them served. Tell me what "help" we could have expected had they been breaking down OUR door. And we were lucky. Those Chicago cops didn't actually commit a CRIME, against US, a claim that the victims of the SOS unit's home invasions, robberies and kidnappings can't make.

Expecting the Chicago Police Department to "help" you is like expecting Rosie O'Donnell to "help" you with dieting and structural failure analysis.

Intune
August 31, 2008, 10:15 AM
My point stands: Don't like cops and think they are power hungry thugs? Then don't use them.
Cute. While you're at it, go ahead a skip calling 911 if your house or car ever gets broken into. And if you come home from work, and your front door is bashed open, just go clear the house yourself. You've got statistically better accuracy and training anyways.

Your point stands right up there with the neighborhood kid who, when told he can’t play QB, takes his ball and goes home.

I like cops and don’t think they are power hungry thugs. Can I use them? Please? Please sire. For ye be the fairest of Nottingham, Sheriff de Grey and I but a mere serf from Loxley. I beseech thee to don the mantle of protection and allow us to cower under...


It's the height of hypocrisy to scoff and police doing and wanting things that will make their job safer, while simultaneously demanding that they put themselves in situations you can't or won't do yourself.

Naw, that would be a bit of hypocrisy. The height of hypocrisy would be if I was in a position of power and abused that power against the very persons I was sworn to protect & serve.

It would be hypocritical to scoff at citizens doing and wanting things that will make their lives safer, while simultaneously demanding that they put themselves in situations you can't or won't do yourself… Such as carrying a firearm or being forced to relinquish that firearm even temporarily.

Since we're so fond of citing stories around here, anyone want to go search for one where a legal CCW holder held off a corrupt police officer who was trying to kill him ,during a traffic stop with his concealed weapon?

Post # 64. Or did you mean a news story?

That will probably never happen because a CCW holder would obey the lawful order of the LEO, be disarmed and would then just turn up as a mound in the desert. Is that somehow, a better result?

Taurusowner, what is your position on the 2nd regarding citizens, cars & carry? Do you approve of my shotty in the front seat, my EBR in the trunk and my pistol on the hip? What is your policy for encounters with citizens with CCW’s? Do you disarm them?

dalepres
August 31, 2008, 10:08 PM
My point stands: Don't like cops and think they are power hungry thugs? Then don't use them.

This is part of the reason people distrust law enforcement. If we try to limit them, question them, set limits for them, then we get responses like this.

Last time I checked, law enforcement worked for the people, paid by the people. If I pay for a service, either from a private company or from my government, I absolutely will use that service. And if I don't like the service, I will absolutely voice my dissatisfaction. In the case of any government function, I reserve the right to protest my dissatisfaction even more vociferously. Should the laws ever change so that I can truly "not use them" that would be fine but currently, I cannot not pay my taxes; I cannot not "use" them if I am pulled over for a traffic violation. I cannot not "use" them if I am involved in a traffic accident. I cannot not "use" them if they knock on my door to ask to see my Glock .40 for ballistics tests. I cannot not "use" them if they get an address wrong and bust my door in at 3:00 AM when they were really targeting some kid on the next block. So not using the police is not an option.

conw
September 1, 2008, 03:31 AM
+1 dale.

For some reason I kind of read the last few sentences with a Boomhauer (sp? king of the hill) sort of voice in my head... :) Well said though.

stevelyn
September 1, 2008, 05:14 AM
I agree Zundfolge. The higher ups seem to be less pro-gun. I don't particularly know why.

The higher in rank you go, the more of a politician you become until you reach the point where one can't be told apart from another.

Chiefs are generally appointed to their positions and in most case have to parrot what their benefactors tell them to.

Sheriffs OTOH, are answerable to the people and tend to reflect the sensibilities of the electorate.

Tyris
September 1, 2008, 06:28 AM
Cute. While you're at it, go ahead a skip calling 911 if your house or car ever gets broken into. And if you come home from work, and your front door is bashed open, just go clear the house yourself. You've got statistically better accuracy and training anyways.

What good will they do once your house is burglarized? Give you a paperwork number so you can call insurance? other than that, nothing.

If you're being robbed, you've clearly got more important things to do with your time than calling dial-a-prayer.

Lose the ill-begoten police-are-god complex. They are not there to protect you. Their purpose is revenue collection for local government and maintaining the status quo.

-T

Deanimator
September 1, 2008, 08:31 AM
They are not there to protect you.
Police have:

1. No duty to protect individuals.
2. No liability if they don't.
3. No ability for the most part.

3 is the rule for even the best department. 911 is a communications system of variable effectiveness, not a matter transporter.

Protect yourself or just don't get protected, PERIOD.

dalepres
September 1, 2008, 08:12 PM
They are not there to protect you. Their purpose is revenue collection for local government and maintaining the status quo.

It used to be that LEOs took police reports and investigated crimes. When they didn't have anything else to do, they wrote tickets and collected revenue. Now things have gotten turned aroun and collecting revenue is a primary objective while, in Tulsa Oklahoma, police response to a burglary call can take 4 and a half hours. That's while the city recently announced they are hiring 6 additional traffic officers with an expected increase in revenue of one million dollars as a result. Yes, the officially announced purpose for hiring the officers is not public safety but is revenue.

If you enjoyed reading about "So you think the majority of LEO's are anti-gun?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!