All cops aren't big mean ogres that eat your civil liberties!

Status
Not open for further replies.
We don't need to bash cops for enforcing dumb laws, we need to get rid of the somsabtches that write and vote in those same dumb laws.

It is not a wasted vote voting for the Odds-against / Outsider / Long Shot (Ron Paul), it shows more courage than to vote for a False Favorite (Hilary).
 
I appreciate the defense of some of our best men and women, however, I don't see many posts on THR claiming your antithesis, "Most cops are mean ugly ogres coming to eat your civil liberties". Many LEO's here too, and where I live I get along great with the deputies, my county seriff's dept top notch pros with humor and reflective of the communities they work in. My hats off to them.

When we complain it's more about the few bad apples or the slow march to militarization of police in urban areas and how they treat commoners.

st

also many good experiences with NC state troopers....only one bad...but I was young and, well, perhaps unwise :(
 
most police aren't bad people, however, the fact remains that "law and order" are exact opposites of freedom. We must choose a balance.

Yes, every time a cop pulls over a person, he could be walking into an ambush. Guess what, every time a person is charged with murder, and the jury fails to convict, we are probably letting a murder walk the streets.

However, we have decided we would rather risk murderers walking the street, and risk cops being shot in ambush, than to take away all guns from law abiding citizens, and lock potentially innocent people up just because 'they were acting suspiciously'


Think about it. Being a cop is a dangerous job, what things would make it safer? Oh, not needing to wait for warrants, not needing to knock before you burst into a home, not needing a reason to strip search anyone on the street, being able to shoot first and ask questions later, being able to beat confessions out of people.

Are we willing to give cops these freedoms to help make their jobs a bit dangerous?
 
you do know

That Ogre and Gore have the same letters?:neener:

I know, I know, my tin foil hat needs adjusting, but there is as much evidence that Al Gore is really Al Ogre as there is that Cheney is behind global warming...:evil:
 
integrity vs. livelyhood

Please ask your friend this serious question some time.
What will he do if ordered, during some massive civil disturbance, to confiscate firearms from those in his juridiction?

Just temporarily of course! They will be returned, since he will be working from a list that was to be kept confidential and not disseminated.

Also, please ask him if when he was sworn into office, if the oath requires him to support and uphold the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights?
I never have had this question confirmed by anyone who is in L.E., and wonder whether it has been carried over to the twenty first century.
 
Louisiana Carry, great piece!

Cops are not your friend, as inherently they believe themselves to be better than you and that they are the only ones who should be armed. The militarization of the police departments in this country is an alarming trend, and one which I think should be reversed. To believe that the cops are here to help you is just plain naive. Generally speaking the cop today was the bully in high school, who lives by intimidation and ridicule. These are not generally good quality people.

It's attitudes like this that make both the law abiding people and the LEOs life more difficult and dangerous. Instead of bashing the cops how about getting to know them by working with them, riding with them and seeing what they have to put up with. You'll probably see a jerk or two as a result and they might just look familiar!:fire:

Yes I am personally aquainted with and related to a cop, my son, and have done a little cop work myself! And am damn proud of both!:cuss:
 
During the years that I worked in a large emergency room back in California, I necessarily got to know a lot of cops. I can't remember ever meeting one whom I thought had a cranio-anal insertion problem. I got invited to some of their parties, and some of them dated the nurses I worked with. They seemed like pretty regular joes, but carrying a little more tension between the shoulder blades than the average office drone has to deal with. I regularly saw them use humor to defuse the tense, compassion to ease the grief and pain of survivors, and good common sense to help the lost figure out "the system." I have nothing but admiration for them.

That being said, it is absolutely true that they tended to have a predisposition to an "us versus them" mentality when dealing with the public, even though they kept it in check. I don't know if most of them would have held that same observation if confronted with it, but I could see it. In a way, I can't blame them. They, like a lot of ER personnel, often have to deal with the underbelly of society in a way that most civilians don't have to, and if you see enough of that stuff, it can tend to color your world view a bit.

[STORY]
Back in the early 1970s, my ex and I tried moving to New York City. Being young and naive, we moved to Manhattan. In short order, we were broke. I was looking for a job and we ran out of money before I found one. So, we had someone wire us some money from home, and when we went to the Western Union office to pick it up, they were closed - even though the sign said they were supposed to be open. I bummed a dime from a passerby and phoned Western Union... ...no luck. I got a sympathetic telephone operator, and she stayed with me on the line and we called all over the Western Union system and couldn't get anybody to help.... still no luck.

Finally, we went to the local precinct house and told the desk sergeant our plight. He brought us into another room, where he sat us down and made a phone call to the main Western Union office at Penn Station. He said, "this is sergeant so and so of the NYPD..." and went on to explain the situation. He told the person that they were to find that money chop chop and call him back in 5 minutes or there would be hell to pay. Sure as heck, a few minutes later, they call back. They've located the wired money order and we can come right down and get it.

In the meantime, the cops at the precinct had taken up a collection for us, which we didn't know about at first. Then, the sergeant gives us the money they collected, and gets one of the officers who is there to take us in a squad car down to the local subway station. At the ticket gate, he told the guy in the booth that we had been robbed, and to let us onto the platform. He shook our hands, wished us good luck, and left.

We took the train down to Penn Station and got our money order. That money order, plus the money the cops at the precinct house had collected for us, is what sustained my ex and me until, about a week later, I finally got a job.
[/STORY]

1. That desk sergeant did not HAVE to make that call for us. No laws had been broken.
2. The precinct officers did not HAVE to take up a collection for us. We were not their responsibility.
3. They did not HAVE to give us a ride to the subway station. We could have walked.
4. They did not HAVE to get us on a train for free. We could have used some of the collection money.

They did it because they were a bunch of nice guys who had mercy on a couple of stupid kids who should have known better. I have nothing but respect for LEOs.
 
I was once told by a Police Officer, "It's not our job to protect you. It is up to you, and the Supreme Court has ruled on that." Of course, that same PO was teaching my CWP class, and wanted honest, armed citizens.
 
Quote:
cassandrasdaddy wrote...
^ http://www.rmgo.org/alerts/2007-ccic.shtml
http://www.rmgo.org/alerts/2003-ccic.shtml

equals a no answer

For those that can't click and read links...


i struggled to read em what with moving my lips and all and still couldn't find the law against them doing it that jeff asked you to cite. maybe you could simplify it and at least link to the law in question as oppopsed to a couple of opinion pieces authored by your organization . it would certainly help me to see the error of my ways
 
QA for cops means oversight. Real civilian oversight, totally seperate and independent of any cop authority. If a bad cop is found discipline should be handed out by the oversight authority and not the cops. In any case where it is determined that a citizen's civil rights were violated the corrective action should be termination - no if's and or buts about it and in extreme cases criminal charges brought against the cop.

I am not so sure termination is the answer for "all" cases of rights being violated. In many cases the determination of when rights have been violated comes months or years later by the court system. Sometimes just educating an officer might be appropriate. Other times, the education might need to be accompanied by some kind of penalty.

I would be happy with truly independent and far more transparent and open investigation of alleged misconduct. Shine a little light on it.

The problem with the current system is that it is a system where the very people who may have committed an infraction do the investigation, it is mostly done in secret, and the results are generally kept secret (other then to say the officer was "justified" in whatever he did).
 
Hi George,

We don't need to bash cops for enforcing dumb laws, we need to get rid of the somsabtches that write and vote in those same dumb laws.

Without the KGB Stalin couldn't have overpopulated the Gulags. Without the Gestapo... without the Inquisitor...

And without the Sheriff, Robin Hood would have been a pretty boring story...

I was just following my duty and following orders pretty much bit the dust about 1945-1946.

Selena
 
gco?


?Quote:
cassandrasdaddy wrote...
^ http://www.rmgo.org/alerts/2007-ccic.shtml
http://www.rmgo.org/alerts/2003-ccic.shtml

equals a no answer

For those that can't click and read links...


i struggled to read em what with moving my lips and all and still couldn't find the law against them doing it that jeff asked you to cite. maybe you could simplify it and at least link to the law in question as oppopsed to a couple of opinion pieces authored by your organization . it would certainly help me to see the error of my ways


i did find this but it doesn't support your idea that there is a law against it rather the reverse
Now let us look at Senate Bill 63, the concealed carry bill that was passed over in favor of the previous bill. (21)

If SB63 was enacted into law it would establish requirements for obtaining a concealed weapons permit. The requirements are: you must be a Colorado resident; you must be at least twenty-one; you must not be prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a handgun. If you meet these three requirements the Sheriff must issue you a permit. (22)
It establishes no prohibitions upon concealed carry except as provided by state or federal law & prohibits city, county & quasi-governmental bodies from enacting laws, ordinances or regulations that prohibit carry by a permit holder. (23)
It establishes a background check be performed, but forbids the Sheriff from asking or retaining any information about an applicant’s weapons. (24) It stipulates that the background check shall consist of requesting the Colorado Bureau of Investigation conduct an NICS check (the same check required when one purchases a firearm through a Federally Licensed dealer) & a search of a state maintained criminal database. (25)
It establishes that the Sheriff may set a fee for the concealed carry permits but must not exceed $50, $6 of which will go to the state to offset the costs of the background check. 26 Renewals would be a maximum of $25. (27) Permits are valid for five years. (28)
It allows a Sheriff to keep records of permits that he issues, but prohibits sharing them for the purpose of creating or maintaining a statewide or regional database. (29)
 
Don't know if this is a true story but several years ago I heard a report that one of the Federal agencies went to the top brass of the California Highway Patrol and asked for them to go round up some guns they felt had been stolen, or something along those lines, but they offered no evidence to support the request. The response from the CHP brass was basically, "Go to H#$%, if you want to violate the Constitution do it yourselves".

As I said I don't know if this is true and don't remember where I heard it but I have a feeling it was told to me by an LEO who was a local police chief and who probably taught me more about shooting a handgun than any one else I've known.

As for LEOs not being pro 2A, the best gun shops I've done business with for being pro 2A and teaching people proper gun handling have been run by LEOs. The shop/range I do most of my business with now, is run by owned by an LEO, is in IL and runs monthly classes for those wanting to get UT, FL or MO CCW permits, even when IL recognizes no CCWs and issues none to anyone.
 
stubbicat

Cops are not your friend, as inherently they believe themselves to be better than you and that they are the only ones who should be armed. The militarization of the police departments in this country is an alarming trend, and one which I think should be reversed. To believe that the cops are here to help you is just plain naive. Generally speaking the cop today was the bully in high school, who lives by intimidation and ridicule. These are not generally good quality people. This is not to say that they are ALL bad people, but their job is not to guarantee your rights, their job is to root out crime and capture criminals. The reasons most of them get into this line of work is because they get the same emotional gratification they got when they were bullying you in high school or elsewhere. If they suspect that you are a criminal, they will do whatever they deem necessary to "get you."

I'll be blunt, you should just stick a cork in it and keep quiet.

Generally speaking the cop today was the bully in high school, who lives by intimidation and ridicule. These are not generally good quality people.

Way to take the high road.
 
"Now let us look at Senate Bill 63, the concealed carry bill that was passed over in favor of the previous bill. (21)"

maybe i'm confused but didn't sb63 fail? and didn't jeff ask if there was a law against providing cwp names to the database? and didn't you then show ther 2 links in an apparent effort to show that it was illegal? if so your links failed unless i missed something.
 
Generally speaking the cop today was the bully in high school, who lives by intimidation and ridicule. These are not generally good quality people.

Way to take the high road.

I have met those cops, but very few, most of them do not fit that profile, most of my experiences with police have been professional, very professional. However, that said, some of Portlands' finest are rather gruff for lack of a high road term and fit the negative profile. Unfortunately, those are the types that cross the line and get the media spotlight. The media spotlight does not fall on the good cop, there's no sensationalization opportunity in that.
 
Generally speaking the cop today was the bully in high school, who lives by intimidation and ridicule. These are not generally good quality people

I must add to this...
My brother in law fits that catagory, almost. He was bullied in school, and wanted to get even with everyone else throughout life.
He went to school and got a degree in Criminal justice. He interviewed with at least 8 PD's that were desperate for officers. he got offers from none. They knew up front he was going to be trouble and avoided him.
He did get a job as a mall ninja for a well known dept. store. Got fired when he chased a shoplifter out to the parking lot and bodyslammed him across the hood of the perps car. Good stuff for Reno 911, but not real life. Currently, he is unemployeed.
 
My opinion of city cops in North Texas (everywhere from Dallas to Podunk) isn’t very high. Most tend to be horse’s butts.

Yet the nicest guys you’re going to meet are Sheriff’s Deputies and Highway Patrolmen. Beyond courteous and professional the vast majority are downright friendly if given the opportunity.

Why these groups tend to be diametric opposites I do not understand.
 
Yet the nicest guys you’re going to meet are Sheriff’s Deputies and Highway Patrolmen. Beyond courteous and professional the vast majority are downright friendly if given the opportunity.

From what I have heard, the local sheriff's department is far less painful to deal with then any of city police departments around here. From my little contact with any of them, I am inclined to agree.

May have something to do with the sheriff's department has no quotas AFAIK, while all the city agencies do.
 
apparently a guy (here in norway) was arrested and thrown in a cell (for night or sumthin) and fined the equivalent of 904 USD for scratching his crotch in public (and smiling at a police officer while doing it.)

sorry to ninja the thread...
 
Don't know if this is a true story but several years ago I heard a report that one of the Federal agencies went to the top brass of the California Highway Patrol and asked for them to go round up some guns they felt had been stolen, or something along those lines, but they offered no evidence to support the request.
I suspect they may have felt the feds wanted them to do their dirty work for them, and decided not to participate. CA state police agencies have shown absolutely no disinclination to attack gun ownership in CA.
 
I was just following my duty and following orders pretty much bit the dust about 1945-1946.
One might think so, but you have to remember that was a special case where the winner of the war made up special rules that only applied to the losers.

I don't recall any US or state court has ever stated those rules apply to US LE agencies. And in fact, they have often ruled that "acting in good faith" is adequate. Generally, having your boss tell you to do it, or allowing you to do it, seems to be adequate for the "good faith" part.
 
Quote: "the fact remains that "law and order" are exact opposites of freedom. We must choose a balance."

Actually, that is not true. Most people assume that until they think about it more. Natural law, which is what this country was founded on (think the Declaration of Independence, which references "the law of nature and of nature's God") serves solely to promote liberty.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the law," because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. – Thomas Jefferson

If you are referring to Malum Prohibitum laws (laws which make actions criminal only because someone decided they were bad, and not because they are inherently unjust or immoral), then, yes, they are the enemy of freedom. However, those are not just laws- those are the effects of tyranny. Law will always exist, and should, and we should not confuse righteous law, which prohibits us from aggressing on our neighbor, with tyrannical laws which serve special interests. One is good for freedom- the other is bad.

I just think we should remember to differentiate between the two.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top