Alienating Cops

[Art Eatman]

Based solely on some numbers out of southern California about the population and the number of police, I've made the great leap to the conclusion that nationwide we have approximately a million non-federal cops. IMO, that's "close enough for government work".

Just how many bad events per year do we read about? Fifty, maybe? One a week, in other words? Maybe even two, on a nationwide basis?

How many departments have accusations made against them on the scale of Chicago? And, of Chicago cops, how many are actually Bad News?

We don't live in a perfect world. Never have. Never will. All we can do is work to make it better--while knowing the best we'll get is partial success.

Me, I've drunk coffee with a lot more cops than I've gotten traffic tickets from--which is a pretty good trick in itself, actually.

Anyhow, I don't get excited over Political Cops' yap-yap against guns; I just write a gripe-letter to the mayor and suggest that support of idiots affects my campaign contributions. And I'll continue to assume that a cop is a Good Guy, since that's far more likely than the alternative.

Art

 

[dave_pro2a]

If you want to understand why the average citizen feels alienation (or anomosity, or at least is skeptical) toward the police, just read some of the accounts of police/'civilian' interaction at www.opencarry.org

There you will often see examples of 'rank and file' officers being totally anti-2A. Of lying to civilans about gun laws. Of lying to superiors about events, just to get civilians into trouble. They often even Admit that they don't actually know the laws (gun laws), but that it doesn't matter they will still make your life hell. "Lock'em up and let the lawyers get rich -- as a punitive action, to discurage the caryying of firearms. And they typically act in an openly atagonistic manner toward anyone who excersices their RKBA in a visable manner, etc.

Reading the 'incident reports' on www.opencarry.org really opened my eyes.

Cause and affect. It is NOT just the FOP who are anti-gun. Beat cops everywhere target pro-gun citizens, chastise them and try to bully them.

Of course there are exceptions to the rule.

 

[DontBurnMyFlag]

I'll add more to this in a few, but right now Im pressed for time.

One of the major variables that adds to cops being anti-gun is the state they live in. Allow me to explain.

First off, most cops I know, are conservative in their beliefs. No hillary votes around here. But the towns and cities we reside in are different. (For example, Boston, NYC) and I myself in NJ.

We have a liberal Democrat as a Governor. This liberal system has been ruling over NJ for decades. The mayor and council of cities and towns are heavily influenced as well. The anti-gun agenda in NJ is foaming at the mouth constantly and it affects every aspect of life. These laws affect the mayor, the mayor affects the Chief of Police and then so on. Poop rolls down hill haha.

That is just one of the variables though. There are many more of course.

 

[dave_pro2a]

Quote DontBurnMyFlag: "Does anyone else feel like cops are being alienated from the RKBA cause?"

We gave them nation wide concealed carry, and what did we get in return?

We get police chiefs and beat cops working in collusion with Brady Bunch gun grabbers at press confrences and in political meetings -- all working to deny citizens their Inalienable RKBA.

Thank you, but 1 knife in the back is enough.

We need more folks like Ronnie Barrett making a stand against the police who actively seek to eliminate private ownership of firearms. Will that make the police feel alienated? God I hope so.

 

[mljdeckard]

My experience is that the older cops get, the better they understand. I trust older cops more than rookies.

I had a conversation with a younger cop (He's about 24,) and I told him I think everyone should keep a rifle in their vehicle, if it's feasible. He asked me why anyone needs to own an SKS or AR-15, and I asked him why he has one in his prowler. He said it was to respond to an escalated violent situation.

I pointed out to him that he just told me, his job is to REACT to a violent event, not prevent it. I asked him if there was a situation so bad that I would need to use a rifle, was it more likely that it would all be over before he could show up with his rifle to help me. I then asked hip to ask his leadership if he, as a police officer, had any legal responsibility to protect me as an individual, or his jurisdiction as a whole. He asked me what difference it made. I told him, THAT'S why I arm myself.

 

[Clipper]

Just how many bad events per year do we read about? Fifty, maybe? One a week, in other words? Maybe even two, on a nationwide basis?

Do you want to be that one example this week, Art? Using your logic, we shouldn't bother carrying anyway, because we're 99.44% unlikely to need a gun to defend our lives anyway. So excuse me if I don't trust cops any more than I'd trust any other stranger, and less so if they're given the choice between my rights and being on their watch commander's S*** list.

 

[El Tejon]

Asserting your rights should not alienate a police officer as he is sworn to defend the Constitution. We do not possess and carry guns to shoot holes in paper. We have guns to fight our government and defend ourselves.

To acknowledge this reality does not mean we want to hurt anyone. We are merely standing up for our rights. This does not mean we are rude, angry or bitter. We can smile and joke we we point out reality.

If asserting my right to arms alienates a police officer, then that individual should not be a police officer and should be disarmed and sent to parking meter patrol at once.

 

[Ed Ames]

There's a problem with the "50 per year" reasoning. Two, actually.

The simplest problem is one of reporting. The people who are primarily responsible for finding and reporting crime are... police officers. It goes beyond speculation to say that most police officers will not report their own criminal activity. In fact they under-report the criminal activity of their peers. This is known and measured. From "Professional Courtesy" to "Brotherhood" there are many ways that police officers justify ignoring criminality on the part of fellow officers. Fortunately efforts are being made to make this more difficult. That doesn't stop police officers from regularly being caught lying on official reports because they didn't realize there was someone with a video camera recording the actual events.

The second is more philosophical. Police officers claim to be professionals. Being a professional means more than just being paid to do something. You pay tradesmen and unskilled laborers but they aren't professionals. Being a professional means having a duty to perform to higher standards. It means you have ethical obligations to the people you serve. Doctors, lawyers, engineers -- real professionals in the legal and conventional sense -- are held to higher standards when they practice their professions than someone not claiming to be a professional would be. A mistake in dealing with a first aid situation that would be legally inconsequential if made by me could be grounds for legal action if made by a medical professional. A mistake in wording a contract that would just be unfortunate if made by a non-lawyer can be actionable if made by someone claiming to be a legal professional. If police officers describe themselves as professionals (and they do), that means they accept a set of obligations including an obligation to perform to, and be held accountable to, higher standards. Performance standards (ability to perform the office they claim to accepted normal standards) and ethical standards (ability to hold to an ethically justifiable code of conduct and accept responsibility for their actions even when nobody is looking).

Since Art mentions Los Angeles... this thread reminds me of a conversation I had with a coworker during the last LA riots. We were about 25 miles from the heart of the rioting and for some reason it was a major subject of conversation. In talking about the beating that lead up to the riots one coworker, who not so incidentally was raised in "Persia" (as he called it), said, "The cops were excited, blood was pumping, they must release the excitement somehow and so they beat up the guy. What else should they do? Why is everyone complaining?" It was interesting to try to explain that police officers can't be allowed to do whatever they want... that they have a responsibility to hold themselves to a higher standard. It was an alien concept to him.

It shouldn't be an alien concept to us.

 

[dave_pro2a]

Quote Art Eatman: "Just how many bad events per year do we read about? Fifty, maybe? One a week, in other words? Maybe even two, on a nationwide basis?"

For every cockroach you see crawling on the floor, there are hundreds hidden in the wall.

For every speeder a cop writes a ticket for, there are thousands that fly by over the limit.

For every 'big' headline grabbing drug bust at the border, there are countless shippments making it through just fine.

So I don't rest easy knowing that I only read about X% of cops being corrupt or violating the law.

I rest uneasy knowing that countless more are getting away with it: and that the system actively works to protect them *most often, in most situations.

And I think Clipper makes excellent points, awesome analogy to the 'need' to carry concealed.

 

[Art Eatman]

Clipper, my apologies for not spelling out my views in tiny detail: The issue is distrust of cops as a general belief pattern. The alienation spoken of in the opening post.

If corruption is widespread, alienation is rational. My point is that corruption is in no way widespread--that's my belief, anyway--and so I don't feel alienated. I don't think others should, either.

If you'd bothered to do more than grab at one line in my post, you'd possibly have given consideration to a point implied in my comment about a mayor: The only solution is political, and must affect the electees in local government. Those are the ones who hire police chiefs, and chiefs establish the behavior pattern of a department.

You cannot have corrupt cops beyond normal human-nature percentages which apply to all people of any occupation, without the active or tacit cooperation of the elected officials in charge of appointees.

 

[jakeswensonmt]

As I was told by a San Diego police detective, the responsibilities of the police do not include protecting citizens. Which makes the whole "to protect and serve" motto a bit of a lie.

Police show up after citizens are killed and document the carnage, maybe catch the evildoers, maybe not. Unarmed citizens go to their graves either way. Anti-gun-rights police don't have a problem with this, as it doesn't make their job any harder, and maybe easier.

If a citizen expects to be protected, it's up to him to have the means to do so.

Any police officer at any level who says that citizens should not be allowed to have guns for personal defense is saying that the lives of those citizens are unimportant and disposable.

It may be easier and simpler for the police to have an unarmed populace, but to force it to be that way is evil, immoral, and heartless. Criminals will never follow gun laws, or make their guns available for confiscation, and they're already armed.

 

[nelson133]

I understand perfectly well that the criminal cops are a small minority of the total. What bothers me is how often the "bad apples" get special consideration because they are cops. I am very worried about the increasing militarization of the police forces around the country.

 

[JohnBT]

"Do you realize how scarry the New Orleans thing was to your average civilian?"

I'd say more like angry. I know it didn't scare me or anybody I know.

JBT...named after my daddy

 

[Clipper]

The only solution is political, and must affect the electees in local government. Those are the ones who hire police chiefs, and chiefs establish the behavior pattern of a department

.


Bunk...The officers in NO could have simply refused to carry out their orders to disarm the citizens. What would the chief do? Fire 'em? If he did, they wouldn't have any worries about retirement, I don't think. They'd own NO, not work for it. But apparently nobody on that whole force had the balls to stand up for the citizens they were supposedly sworn to serve. The OP asked about 2A supporters alienating cops...So lets see some local police unions taking a stated position in support of the citizens right to self-defense. Won't happen if everyone's afraid to rock the boat. Rank and file police should be at the forefront of citizens 2A activism, but it's easier to follow orders, isn't it?

 

[Lucky]

jakeswensonmt good thread, I remember that one. I did the math and 1/3 police worked out to about 32 full-strength front-line infantry divisions, fully armed, better information on their targets than any case in history, state-of-the-art C&C, and acquiring more military hardware every day (ARs, SMGs, LMGs, GLs, APCs, reconnaissance helos, drones etc etc) - and openly declaring that they would, without hesitation, attack millions of specific citizens based on political beliefs and affiliation, once the order was given. Other agencies ceteris paribus.

Of course IIRC 64 divisions equivalent are unaccounted for. To be fair it would likely be regional, maybe blue states more than half would enforce the order and the remainder would have to keep their feelings to themselves, and in red states there would be enough internal opposition to delay implementing it. But then again it's hard to find a recent example of bad orders not being enforced.

To put it in perspective, that's a larger military force than France or Germany can muster. Compare here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces . Figure 1/200 times the population, and then round down by 25% just to be sure you absolutely don't over-estimate. Then divide by 3 and that's how many would flaunt the law and do you harm. If ordered. If ordered. It's not hating, it's realism, there's no moral or value judgment attached, this is just statistics and raw information. This isn't hating or bashing, it's just numbers.

Will that order ever be given, on a national or state-wide scale? Who knows. Probably it's going to happen in some predictable states in the next 8 years. But it's a bad proposition, all around. Armed men declaring they plan to do others harm based on political beliefs, on such a large scale, seems surreal.

In Venezuela or some other pot-boiling-over country it's fathomable, you see the numbers and read the words, 2+2 makes 4 and logic prevails. This is what they say, this is what they have, this is what will probably happen. But in my neighbour's house, it's surreal.

It was surreal, until Katrina, then it became all too real. Sort of like early 20th century, the participation in Spain just gave foreign armies a taste of how to refine their forces and techniques, which where then employed later in stunning fashion.

 

[AF_INT1N0]

What did it for me.

1. NRA's Support of FOP for the LEO protection act, then FOP's failure to support reciprocity. The whole "we got ours go piss up a tree, attitude."

2. NOLA

3. I'm currently Stationed in the Bay Area.
3.a. California Drop testing "Cali Safe gun Law"
3.b. Roberti Roos
3.c. Sherriff Lee Baca
3.d. San Fransisco
3.e CHP- As seen on TV tackling an old woman for a .32 H&R


That being said I still try to give individual LEO's the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I was a gunnie/gun nut/whatever before I was a cop, and will continue to be a gunnie long after I retire. I know cops get a bad rap, and the laws on the books do not make it any easier. But I feel alienated and cast away from a community that needs as many allies as it can get.

...

The overwhelming majority of cops I met or worked with support RKBA and a civilans right to defend themselves. I take the time to teach newbies the ropes about guns, spread the word of CCW reform and 2A rights, and do my best to be a gun owning American.

Perhaps it has to do with what part of the country you live in, but around here the overwjelming majority of police officers do not approve of "civilians" being allowed to carry guns.

You are correct that the gun rights community needs as many allies as possible. But your fellow officers, as a group, haven't gotten the memo. It was about two years ago that the Federal law allowing for LEOs to carry concealed nationally was up for consideration. At that time there were numerous LEOs posting here, promising that getting national CCW for LEOs was only a first step, and that if we would support them (the LEOs) in getting the law passed, they would work with us to extend it to "civilian" national CCW. The law passed.

Where are all those LEOs who were going to work for extending that to include non-LEOs?

As a group, LEOs have a credibility problem with regard to the RKBA. It was California LEOs, not the Army or the National Guard, who wrestled that 90-year old woman to the floor in New Orleans and stole her house pistol. It is LEOs who respond to "man with a gun" calls and harrass the gun owner for lawfully carrying a gun, rather than telling the person who called "It's legal - deal with it." It is LEOs who promised us their support and then disappeared once they got what THEY wanted.

If LEOs feel alienated from the gun owning and RKBA community, it is only because you (as a group) have alienated yourselves, by your words, by your actions, and by your hypocrisy.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

It seems that the lot of you have been brainwashed by too much NYPD blue, seeing backroom tortures and planted weapons behind every arrest. The "thing blue line" you so fervently claim is mostly a product of TV cops shows. And the apparent widespread police misconduct and corruption is only apparently because of media spotlighting on only the negative.

For a group(RKBA) who whines so much about the media and hollywood's portrayal of guns and gun owners and how they highlight and sensationalize only negative things about gun owners, you lot are sure eager to buy into the exact same garbage about police.

 

[revjen45]

"JBT's in New Orleans:
Geheimstaatspolizei SS"
Actually, the Gestapo and the SS were 2 separate organizations. NOPD's actions in Katrina were more analogous to those of the Einsatzgruppen.

What really got me was that the cops who went from all over the country to abuse people and steal what little valuable property they had left thought that the peons they were ripping off owed them a debt of gratitude. It is this arrogant elitist attitude that causes the alienation. If you have plenary powers and answer to no one, why do you care if the people you're dumping on trust you or not? I think that most cops are decent people doing a difficult job, but Katrina showed me what I can expect if I'm ever unfortunate enough to be involved in a disaster.

 

[Zundfolge]

There are two reasons many of us don't trust cops to support our RKBA.

1) there's a LOT of anti-gun cops and cops with elitist attitudes about gun ownership (the kind of cops that refer to non-police as "civilians" and automatically assume that they are better trained and more responsible than said "civilians"...the kind of cops that act all snotty when they find one of us proles packing a gun legally and act like us "civilians" have no reason for carrying).

2) it doesn't matter how pro RKBA a cop is, when anti gun politicians get their way its the cops that have to enforce anti gun laws (and most cops will, regardless of whether they agree with the law).


I agree that we in the RKBA movement need to embrace those fellow pro gun folk that happen to wear a badge, but a run in with one anti gun cop and you find that you don't want to risk it.


One thing that would help is if pro RKBA cops reached out to their fellow officers (which I suspect does happen, but maybe not enough).

 

[sacp81170a]

Reading the posts on this thread, there seems to be two camps. One admits that some percentage of LEO's have the wrong idea about our RKBA and that the ones who do support it are valuable allies. The other camp staunchly asserts that all cops are JBT's if they don't refuse to enforce a law that they see as unconstitutional. This would result in the loss of the officer's career and livelihood, but that doesn't matter.

Which one is more firmly grounded in reality?

The fallacy of bifurcation reigns supreme in this thread.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

"Perhaps it has to do with what part of the country you live in, but around here the overwjelming majority of police officers do not approve of "civilians" being allowed to carry guns"


what part of the country is that? and how did you determine what the majority's view was?

 

[Checkman]

And the wheels on the bus go round and round.


THUMP, THUMP, Thump, thump. (Beating that dead horse)

 

[Gunnerpalace]

DontBurnMyFlag, thank you for your service, if people have a problem with LEO's maybe they should look to their politicians who are making the laws and do some work to get them out of office and pro-2a people in.

 

[Deanimator]

I judge based on facts.

One of the major functions of the "elite" Chicago PD unit recently disbanded for home invasions, burglaries and kidnappings was confiscating unregistered (which you CAN'T register) handguns. The Chicago PD draws no distinction between a 65 year old woman who knows that the police can't protect her as an individual and a member of the Vice Lords. If they have a handgun (which CAN'T be registered) they're treated IDENTICALLY.

It doesn't matter what the individual cop thinks about the law. If he enforces it, then he's responsible for what he does. Unlike places like Egypt, we don't draft cops. If you're a cop, it's strictly because you WANT to be. Whatever you do on the job, legal or illegal, right or wrong is VOLUNTARY.

I've known cops who were pro-gun and anti-gun, and some who claimed to be pro-gun, but were really anti-gun, like the cop who worked at a now closed gunstore in Milan, OH. I overheard him state that ALL private sales should be BANNED and that ALL sales should have to be from or through a gunstore.

Your feelings don't matter.

Your words and deeds do.