Liberty.45ACP
Member
Absolutely not. I believe additionally they should be restricted to the same weapons that the other civilians are allowed to carry in their jurisdiction. Same weapons and same restrictions or lack of restrictions.
Should LEOs have more "rights" than non-LEOs?
- Thread starter Autolycus
- Start date
- Status
Autolycus
Member
Rattlesnake: It is not always a possibility to move. So when hopefully America moves in the direction Britain did and disarms its police for awhile (that would be a great move) we would not have to worry because it does not affect us. I mean just because some people are affected and not me is grounds for not helping them out.
I mean if it doesnt affect me why bother?
I mean if it doesnt affect me why bother?
SJDigriz
Member
No.
Praetorian guard is not needed in this country. Didn't work out to well last time...........
Praetorian guard is not needed in this country. Didn't work out to well last time...........
Rattlesnake
Member
Yeah we have "privileges". One's that we worked years to get. Only you don't have the patience to do the same. Yeah we have a great amount of authority, but we also have a great amount of responsibility, which you more than likely don't want to carry.
NO.
Between those that live in that state and those that enforce the laws of that state.
And of course including myself by default correct???
You can work within the rules or you can blatantly work outside of them. You want to carry in New York, DC, LA, Chicago, etc.; either work to fix the system, play within the boundaries, or play outside the rules and risk getting your pee pee slapped, hard.
either work to fix the system, play within the boundaries, or play outside the rules and risk getting your pee pee slapped, hard.
Which means they may (probably) end up flipping burgers and asking "would you like fries with your order".
Yeah the same could be said of the Holocaust too. You think Daly gives one crap about what one 21 year old in New Mexico says? I write to my senator and representative. My mom is not an LEO. My sister is not an LEO. My brothers are not LEO. My little sister is supposed to be going to college in NC this summer. I don't agree wiht their state law. I'd rather her stay here in NM where she has more freedom/better second amendment rights. I would rather have her money go to a state that has more overall freedom than most east/west coast states.
TimboKhan
Member
LEO's already have the ability to restrain me and take me away if I break a law, and I have no particular problem with that. Past that ability, I do not in any way feel that LEO's should have more rights than the average joe. There are several reasons for this, chief of which is the fact that in this country we are equal under the law. I fully understand that equality is a term that can be loosely applied based on race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, religion, the type of shoes you wear or the type of car you drive. Still, we are all entitled to be held up and judged to the same standard under the law. Granting additional rights means that we are NOT held up to the same standard. It creates a class division, and frankly gives unnecessary power to a group that doesn't need it. I do happen to think that cops should be given freer reign to make their own decisions, and I don't think I would be particularly sad if there were laws in place to limit the amount of BS a cop recieves from a public that does not understand or care to understand what it's like to make tough decisions under pressure. More liberal powers in making enforcement decisions and a certain amount of protection under the law do not mean additional rights, however.
thexrayboy
Member
Orwell answered this question best in that statement from Animal Farm. LEO (pigs) wish to be "more equal".
Autolycus
Member
Rattlesnake: So the priveledges you "worked" so hard for did not get any help or bolstering from a group like the NRA or other civilian groups. So there were no promises of support to help our cause? Why when we have a national reciprocity bill is their no support from any significant number of LE groups?
Why can't I join the association you mention?
True about the laws of the state.
We are working for that. We got what you wanted and now were asking to get what we want only to find the LEO community silent on the issue. Another way of looking at this is that we want equality and were asking for it by having our congress repeal LEOSA. Wouldnt that fix our problem?
We are working within the system as I said before. Its just that the LE community is not helping us yet they ask for our support. Maybe we could
work together for once?
I think burgers is to good for them. They are criminal scum just like the people they put away and they should be with the scum.
Why can't I join the association you mention?
True about the laws of the state.
We are working for that. We got what you wanted and now were asking to get what we want only to find the LEO community silent on the issue. Another way of looking at this is that we want equality and were asking for it by having our congress repeal LEOSA. Wouldnt that fix our problem?
We are working within the system as I said before. Its just that the LE community is not helping us yet they ask for our support. Maybe we could
work together for once?
I think burgers is to good for them. They are criminal scum just like the people they put away and they should be with the scum.
TimboKhan
Member
sorry for the second post, guys...
Sorry for the second post, but I wanted to comment on this statement:
[QUOTELEOs are a credible and respected part of society][/QUOTE]
I will argue that. While I happen to have respect for most officers, I do not think that most policemen and women are respected members of society anymore. I think that public opinion is firmly planted in the other direction. Look, I don't want to write a whole thesis here, but how many good cops have you heard about lately? How many bad cops? My hunch is that you can remember at least three newstories about bad cops and except for 911, very few about the good. It doesn't matter that there are more good cops than bad cops. All the public hears about is the bad. Blame it on whatever you want, but thats the way it is. Even on a personal level, all it takes is one dick with a power trip to cast aspersions on an otherwise fine department. If you meet friendly cop A, and then happen to meet A-Hole cop B, who are you more likely to mention to your friends? Ethically, we would all probably like to say A, but realistically, it is gonna be B. Back when I used to be a salesman, they used to tell us that a person would tell one other person about a good experience, but ten other people about a bad one. There is no reason that this doesn't go for cops, too...
Also:
It's not my business, but my guess is that it is the New Mexico Police association (or whatever it happens to be called), which means that A: You have to live in New Mexico and B: You have to be a cop. I very seriously doubt that he is saying you can't join just because he doesn't like you.
Well, thats a poor comparison. It could also be said of the Holocaust that thats what can happen when the police are given too much power. Additionally, your comparing the murder of 6 million people to CCW reciprocity. Poor comparison.
Sorry for the second post, but I wanted to comment on this statement:
[QUOTELEOs are a credible and respected part of society][/QUOTE]
I will argue that. While I happen to have respect for most officers, I do not think that most policemen and women are respected members of society anymore. I think that public opinion is firmly planted in the other direction. Look, I don't want to write a whole thesis here, but how many good cops have you heard about lately? How many bad cops? My hunch is that you can remember at least three newstories about bad cops and except for 911, very few about the good. It doesn't matter that there are more good cops than bad cops. All the public hears about is the bad. Blame it on whatever you want, but thats the way it is. Even on a personal level, all it takes is one dick with a power trip to cast aspersions on an otherwise fine department. If you meet friendly cop A, and then happen to meet A-Hole cop B, who are you more likely to mention to your friends? Ethically, we would all probably like to say A, but realistically, it is gonna be B. Back when I used to be a salesman, they used to tell us that a person would tell one other person about a good experience, but ten other people about a bad one. There is no reason that this doesn't go for cops, too...
Also:
It's not my business, but my guess is that it is the New Mexico Police association (or whatever it happens to be called), which means that A: You have to live in New Mexico and B: You have to be a cop. I very seriously doubt that he is saying you can't join just because he doesn't like you.
Well, thats a poor comparison. It could also be said of the Holocaust that thats what can happen when the police are given too much power. Additionally, your comparing the murder of 6 million people to CCW reciprocity. Poor comparison.
plexreticle
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,240
People actually replied "Yes", lol
Nitrogen
Member
No. Law Enforcement, even on duty, should be subject to the same gun laws as the populace. If it's good enough for "us", it's good enough for "them"
gc70
Member
LEOs asked for public support for LEOSA rather than waiting to be covered by national reciprocity. Maybe the public should have advised LEOs to have patience rather than accepting a promise of future LEO support.
That could be a paraphrase from any number of dictators throughout history.
gc70
Member
While I understand the rationale, it saddens me deeply.
Autolycus
Member
Should we start a thread about disarming police? I mean TimboKhan did bring up some good points about police becoming a more disliked sect of society. And the recent ATL murder of an old woman and the Chicago PD beating suspects along with the sketchy history of NYPD officers. Perhaps its best if we disarm them? Of course we could allow SWAT teams to be armed and have them as emergency response. And when an armed person is needed the officer in need could call/radio for the armed response team. Of course they would not be allowed to take their guns home with them.
In Chicago and IL as well as many other states we are forced to wait for the police. Its perfectly reasonable that an officer should wait for an armed person.
In Chicago and IL as well as many other states we are forced to wait for the police. Its perfectly reasonable that an officer should wait for an armed person.
gc70
Member
Tecumseh, you can already experience that environment in the U.K. and it is not what we want in America.
Rattlesnake
Member
cool,
Actually membership is limited to department personnel only. State Police Association
I agree with you. It will be a hell of a fight to get national reciprocity. I'll do what I can, letters to my congressmen, association etc, etc. To use an analogy from a joke, this spitting in boots and urinating in cokes isn't going to get us anywhere.
they were. I don't know about why police associations have yet to endorse National reciprocity.
there was an initiation type thing. Skulldugery type stuff.
Actually membership is limited to department personnel only. State Police AssociationI can't speak about the interaction between the LEO in your area, versus here.
I agree with you. It will be a hell of a fight to get national reciprocity. I'll do what I can, letters to my congressmen, association etc, etc. To use an analogy from a joke, this spitting in boots and urinating in cokes isn't going to get us anywhere.
nyresq
Member
you also have hours of tape of all your other neighbors rolling through the stop sign right?
"Us vs. them" mentality works from both sides... things like this nonsense just add to it from the civilian side.
And you'll probably wonder why you get a ticket next time you get stopped and tell the cop "you guys do it all the time, why can't I?".
Hypnogator
Member
Yes, insofar as active and retired LEOs should be allowed to carry concealed weapons anywhere. We make enemies in the line of duty, while protecting the public. We should be allowed to protect ourselves and our families from those enemies, period.
I also favor allowing everyone except for convicted violent felons, those under indictment for violent felonies, and those adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, to have the same privileges.
I also favor allowing everyone except for convicted violent felons, those under indictment for violent felonies, and those adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, to have the same privileges.
Autolycus
Member
I agree Hypnogator completely with the idea that we should be equal. But since we are not I ask why police and LE needs the ability to protect themselves from those criminals while I do not? I understand part of the job is going to be dealing with criminals who will make you their enemy. However their are other careers besides law enforcement.
And what about in states like mine where LEOs are allowed to carry while citizens are not? Should they get to carry because of the danger to their lives while citizens are not able to? Sometimes citizens make enemies to in their jobs like judges, prosecutors, lawyers, and just being a good witness.
What about domestic violence victims? Or people with restraining orders? Witnesses to crimes?
And what about in states like mine where LEOs are allowed to carry while citizens are not? Should they get to carry because of the danger to their lives while citizens are not able to? Sometimes citizens make enemies to in their jobs like judges, prosecutors, lawyers, and just being a good witness.
What about domestic violence victims? Or people with restraining orders? Witnesses to crimes?
Monkeyleg
Member.
Remind me never to post in a thread about LEO's again.
Elza
Member
I got snagged for jury duty. I didn’t get picked for the jury due to my views on guns as it was a gun case. Funny that the ADA didn’t want me on the jury. Since I was already being paid for the day and had never witnessed a trial I decided to stay and watch.
Basically the cop said that the defendant was illegally carrying a gun. Said gun was introduced into evidence. The defendant pleaded ‘not guilty’. He effectively stated that A) that isn’t my gun and B) I wasn’t carrying it. This is all that the defendant has to say. Now I have no reason to believe/disbelieve either one. I don’t know them from Adam. I know that ONE of them is lying. It could be the defendant trying to cover up his action. Perhaps the defendant’s dog was peeing on the cop’s lawn has the cop was angry. (Anyone, LEO or not, that attempts to tell me that a cop has NEVER committed perjury and sent up an innocent party is going to give me a huge laugh.) Therefore it amounts to the word of a citizen against the word of a cop. The sheeple convicted the defendant and he was promptly sent to jail.
The ADA was curious as to why I was watching the proceedings and spoke to me after the jury went out. He then asked me if I thought that he had made his case. I told him no. In order to convict the defendant I would have to say that the cop’s word was better than that of the defendant’s. This would, in effect, be saying that the cop’s word was better than mine and my word is just as good as anyone else’s including a cop. The ADA looked like he had been slapped! He could not conceive of anyone failing to take the word of a cop.
That little episode taught me a lot about the “elite” status of those engaged in law enforcement. We, the sheeple, shall ALWAYS take the word of authority over that of the average citizen. Not bloody likely!
BTW, no they should not have any special privileges regarding the law.
Since I was already being paid for the day and had never witnessed a trial I decided to stay and watch. Basically the cop said that the defendant was illegally carrying a gun. Said gun was introduced into evidence. The defendant pleaded ‘not guilty’. He effectively stated that A) that isn’t my gun and B) I wasn’t carrying it. This is all that the defendant has to say. Now I have no reason to believe/disbelieve either one. I don’t know them from Adam. I know that ONE of them is lying. It could be the defendant trying to cover up his action. Perhaps the defendant’s dog was peeing on the cop’s lawn has the cop was angry. (Anyone, LEO or not, that attempts to tell me that a cop has NEVER committed perjury and sent up an innocent party is going to give me a huge laugh.) Therefore it amounts to the word of a citizen against the word of a cop. The sheeple convicted the defendant and he was promptly sent to jail.
The ADA was curious as to why I was watching the proceedings and spoke to me after the jury went out. He then asked me if I thought that he had made his case. I told him no. In order to convict the defendant I would have to say that the cop’s word was better than that of the defendant’s. This would, in effect, be saying that the cop’s word was better than mine and my word is just as good as anyone else’s including a cop. The ADA looked like he had been slapped! He could not conceive of anyone failing to take the word of a cop.
That little episode taught me a lot about the “elite” status of those engaged in law enforcement. We, the sheeple, shall ALWAYS take the word of authority over that of the average citizen. Not bloody likely!
BTW, no they should not have any special privileges regarding the law.
thexrayboy
Member
This could be amusing....if the consequences of this bias weren't so devastating to the innocent citizens who run afoul of the legal system. We will never know for sure how many people are languishing in prison unjustly due to the incompetence, arrogance and dishonesty of the police and the legal system. The Justice Project is showing us everyday that the numbers are not inconsequential.
Autolycus
Member
lot of flawed logic going on here.
not to pick on anyone, but here's two quotes that i feel sum it up that were on the first page when i glanced back:
in terms of AWB/auto ban, yeah, it's stupid and does nothing. so i'm leaving that issue out of this.
however, no matter how much of a better shot you are or how much better your conditioning is than this department or that department, police have gone through background checks and training. CCW permits, training requirements, etc. merely ask that we're held to a comparable standard. so long as "the man" demands that a standard be enforced - regardless of our opinion of that standard - i think allowing LEO "substitution" by experience and implied compliance with the standard is no great injustice.
granted, this flies in the face of my usual take that all gun laws are ineffectual. which i still believe. but with society and laws structured as they are today, i don't really see a disconnect where law enforcement status is basically seen as a pass to the hoops we need to jump through, because it would be redundant and inefficient to have them reproduce training and paperwork for the sake of carrying off-duty.
i made that more confusing and theoretical than it needed to be, but i'm just saying that sometimes our principles risk floating us into la-la land. there's what should be, and then there's reality, and this is one of those (perhaps unfortunate) situations where you have to view things in the confines of reality and the legal and societal backdrop, regardless of your opinion of that backdrop.
not to pick on anyone, but here's two quotes that i feel sum it up that were on the first page when i glanced back:
no, they shouldn't, but should non-doctors be practicing medicine?
indeed we should, but a deputy is one of the dreaded "other" statuses. and should everyone be deputized, or only people who can shoot? is it all or nothing, or would we need a rudimentary knowledge of the law, procedures and tactics?
in terms of AWB/auto ban, yeah, it's stupid and does nothing. so i'm leaving that issue out of this.
however, no matter how much of a better shot you are or how much better your conditioning is than this department or that department, police have gone through background checks and training. CCW permits, training requirements, etc. merely ask that we're held to a comparable standard. so long as "the man" demands that a standard be enforced - regardless of our opinion of that standard - i think allowing LEO "substitution" by experience and implied compliance with the standard is no great injustice.
granted, this flies in the face of my usual take that all gun laws are ineffectual. which i still believe. but with society and laws structured as they are today, i don't really see a disconnect where law enforcement status is basically seen as a pass to the hoops we need to jump through, because it would be redundant and inefficient to have them reproduce training and paperwork for the sake of carrying off-duty.
i made that more confusing and theoretical than it needed to be, but i'm just saying that sometimes our principles risk floating us into la-la land. there's what should be, and then there's reality, and this is one of those (perhaps unfortunate) situations where you have to view things in the confines of reality and the legal and societal backdrop, regardless of your opinion of that backdrop.
Elza
Member
Not to mention the ones that have been released from death row of late. DNA is hard to refute.
Between the “gospel word” of LE and people’s unshakable belief in eye witness “evidence” (God deliver me!) I really shudder to think of getting involved in any type of legal proceedings.
- Status
