Alienating Cops

[dave_pro2a]

Quote ilbob: "The RTKBA has nothing to do with cops. It is a mistake to try and make them the front line in defending it. They are not the defenders of any of our rights. It is not anywhere in their job description."

What about that pesky solemn oath to "Honor and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America."

I guess if you don't care about the things you swear you're going to do, then yes police don't have anything to do with the 2A.

 

[Old Dog]

Ah, Tecumseh, again we see some drastic leaps in logic with your statements:

I have been saying that for years. And I keep getting crap for it. Either everyone is created equal or some animals are more equal than other animals. I am sorry but cops should not enjoy priveledges.

I have heard many LEOs say it is a right. Well it is not a right until everyone can exercise it.

So lets work hard in getting LEOs subjected to the same gun laws as all of us. This way the rank and file will come out and speak for us. However though we have to find a way to prevent them from just selectively enforcing the law. Perhaps they should be forced to lock their firearms up at work? All of them. And make it a condition of their employment that they not carry?

First off, it's doubtful most cops view the duty of having to go about armed while at work (and for many while off-duty as well), along with having access to certain types of firearms that may be restricted to non-LE personnel, as a privilege. For most cops, firearms are simply a tool of the trade and are widely regarded as such. Second, for many police personnel, firearms are necessary tools for the performance of their daily duties. Police do things ordinary citizens normally do not have to, go places ordinary citizens may choose to avoid, and deal with people that ordinary citizens do not typically encounter or may be able to easily avoid. Yes, firearms are a right of every citizen, however, it's a stretch to believe that every citizen needs to have his/her firearms with him/her at all times, though it certainly would be prudent, reasonable and should be permissable.

So please give an example of where a LEO has stated that it's a right of LE personnel (presumbably to carry or own weapons prohibited to private citizens) ... you don't elaborate -- was it on this forum? Or a public statement by a LEO? Do you have a name? Exact quote? Exactly how many LEOs can you document for us having made this type of statement?

Pray tell, what possible good would come from enforcing the same exact firearms restrictions on all law enforcement personnel as private citizens must be subject to? Particularly in view of the fact that criminals do not feel compelled to be bound by any firearms restrictions ... How would this end up resulting in MORE freedom, more firearms rights for private citizens? Please sketch out your seemingly faulty premise.

 

[jeff-10]

Most of the animosity towards cops is based on idiots doing something stupid and the cop having to deal with him on the goverments behalf. Some people cannot bear to be told what to do under any circumstances and when they get caught speeding and a cop busts them they view all police officers as bad. Almost all interaction with cops is not fun and can be intimidating as cops don't interact with people doing what there supposed to. And no I am not a cop. I am just someone who understands what keeps society moving a long in a somewhat orderly fashion.

 

[zxcvbob]

Pray tell, what possible good would come from enforcing the same exact firearms restrictions on all law enforcement personnel as private citizens must be subject to? Particularly in view of the fact that criminals do not feel compelled to be bound by any firearms restrictions ... How would this end up resulting in MORE freedom, more firearms rights for private citizens? Please sketch out your seemingly faulty premise.

You're looking at it backwards (intentionally, perhaps?) Saying that peace officers should be subject to the same restrictions on firearms as ordinary folks means that if a restriction would be unreasonable to apply to cops, it is unreasonable applied to the rest of us.

 

[Chevy-SS]

Just remember: "No cops = know anarchy"

We absolutely need Cops. However, Cops are human beings, subject to the same faults and foibles that we all have. Cops need to police themselves, as well as the general public. Once they start effectively policing their own actions, then they'll get the true respect they deserve.

-

 

[andy28277]

For me it's simple. I don't trust the GOVERNMENT. In my own state and on a national level unconsitutional laws are passed all the time. Members of Congress certainly appear to be arrested at a rate higher than that of average Americans. Bush has lied about more things than I can count.

Since I don't trust the government, I have a distrust of government agents - IRS, police, judges, zoning board, you name - I don't trust them.

This distrust has come from my own personal experience in dealing with non-criminal issues. No doubt there are many honest government officials, but I have run across too many dishonest ones (and I'm talking on a personal basis) to have any trust or faith in any govenrment agent - police included.

 

[M_Olson]

Just remember: "No cops = know anarchy"

i think that might be a bit of an overstatement.

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

In the United States, the first organized police service was established in Boston in 1838, New York in 1844, and Philadelphia in 1854. However, in the Founding Era, and even well into the 20th century in some parts of the country, law enforcement was done by private citizens acting as militia.

i think an organized police force is a good thing, but to claim that we would be living in anarchy without it is a bit of an exageration. now if you were to say that there would be major problems if the police force up and disappeared tomorrow, id agree.

as many have said, there are good cops and there are bad cops. i think that most of them are good. i have no evidence, but i think there also may be a slightly disproportionate amount of the authoritarian type who are drawn to the job. overall, i have a general mistrust for "cops". whereas "cops" is more equal to the administration/bureaucracy/politicians in charge and making the rules than the actual guys "working the beat" or w/e theyre calling it now.

 

[Morgan]

Techumsa sez:

"So lets work hard in getting LEOs subjected to the same gun laws as all of us. This way the rank and file will come out and speak for us. However though we have to find a way to prevent them from just selectively enforcing the law. Perhaps they should be forced to lock their firearms up at work? All of them. And make it a condition of their employment that they not carry?"

Yeah that's a great way to get cops on our side - take an aggressive, confrontational stance and advocate rules that will piss them off, but NEVER be passed.

What people don't realize is that cops, especially big city cops, are used to being persecuted for any conservative beliefs - by the media, most of the populace they deal with, and, often, the brass.

You want to help? Get to know a few cops - if they're tools (plenty of them out there), get to know a few more. It may take a while - cops aren't exactly the trusting type, for good reason. Let them know what you think, how you feel, and that they're not alone in their belief that sometimes, the system sucks. HUMANIZE them, and maybe they'll humanize you.

Also, in personal contact, a little respect goes a long way.

 

[another okie]

M Olson - While agencies labeled "police" may be fairly recent, there are sheriff's departments in this country that predate the United States, and the courts have had marshals to enforce their rulings as long as there have been courts.

As far as the general point of the thread:

I understand that many police feel underpaid and unappreciated. They often deal with lying scum most of the day, and over time many of them become cynical and suspicious. On the other hand, people on this board routinely attack both lawyers and teachers in the most vicious way possible. I am both a lawyer and a teacher, and I don't go around whining about the abuse. The guy at the return desk at the video store probably gets more abuse than the average police officer.

It's also true that every citizen has a duty to refuse to follow directions if they are illegal or unconstitutional. I have done so despite direct orders from superiors by simply saying,
"Put it in writing." You'd be amazed how often bosses will back down when told that. As a teacher I have been ordered several times to do things that violated state or federal law, and always refused. A judge with the power to imprison me once ordered me to do something that violated the law. I refused and demanded a court reporter, and he backed down. He also never ruled in my favor again on anything, but that was an acceptable price to pay for me. So I think cops who say "I can't go against the boss" need to toughen up a little and understand their duties in a republic.

And this is not just good morals - a public offical who violates someone's consitutional rights can be sued directly and personally for large amounts of money.

 

[ilcylic]

It's not bad cops I'm worried about, ultimately, any more than I'm particularly worried about being struck by lightning.

It's the good cops I'm concerned about. The ones that only confiscate illegal guns, and arrest the people who have them. Unless Heller goes really well, I wouldn't put it past the Feds to simply ban everything. Then they're all "illegal", and the good cops won't have any problems with their conscience as they "simply enforce the law".

 

[ilbob]

Quote ilbob: "The RTKBA has nothing to do with cops. It is a mistake to try and make them the front line in defending it. They are not the defenders of any of our rights. It is not anywhere in their job description."

What about that pesky solemn oath to "Honor and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America."

I guess if you don't care about the things you swear you're going to do, then yes police don't have anything to do with the 2A.

What would you consider acceptable? A signed statement from all cops that they will never enforce any law remotely having to do with guns?

Cops are paid to enforce the law. Its nowhere in their job description to defend any of your rights.

Their oath to uphold the constitution is pretty meaningless in respect of upholding any individual rights at all. Its a general commitment to support the constitution, not to give it any deep thought and try and make an individual determination of what laws are really constitutional or not. Once you become an employee of a LE agency, you have bought into the idea that you don't get to pick and choose what laws to enforce, or how they get enforced.

For the most part, cops don't really care about the other nine amendments either. They have agreed to defer to other entities just what they all mean.

 

[bensdad]

The original poster wrote, primarily, about feeling alienated by RKBA circles. Much discourse followed about various issues (good cops, bad cops, supportive cops, elitist cops, yada, yada, yada). Some discussion even touched upon whether people trust cops (I don't).

RKBA folks shouldn't get in bed with law enforcement. You guys are union. Unions are in bed with the Democrats. Democrats want our guns. I recall some threads on this board and others, that covered the subject. Most LE, at the organizational level, is anti.

You feel alienated? There's a form I can fill out (I'm a teacher) that gets back the portion of my union dues that goes toward political financing. Can cops do that? If you can, do you? What candidates does your union endorse?

 

[Reyn]

It's mans sinful nature. If every Government employee was replaced with someone new we would still be in the same situation in no time. Doesnt mean we shouldnt strive to do better but perfect it will never be.

 

[Reyn]

You guys are union. Unions are in bed with the Democrats. Democrats want our guns. I recall some threads on this board and others, that covered the subject. Most LE, at the organizational level, is anti.

Maybe up North but not as much in the South. I dont know of one dept that is supported by a union in my state.

 

[ilbob]

However, the difference in consequences between an SS Mann refusing to fill a synagog with Jews and set it on fire, and a California Highway Patrolman refusing to confiscate the legally owned firearm of an elderly woman in Louisiana are significant.

Of course research has indicated that those Germans who DID refuse to murder Jews rarely if ever faced capital punishment or long prison sentences.

Most people don't realize there were a lot of individual Germans who did refuse to participate in these kinds of activities. They rarely if ever actively opposed them though.

I am not all that surprised we have made it to comparing police action to Nazis though. Godwin's Law and all.


The Germans (even the real serious Nazis) recognized that some people were just unable to deal with the kind of carnage they were inflicting (on Jews and others) and would normally just transfer them to other duties if they could not handle it. As much as anything, probably a matter of expediency. They also went to some lengths to make it easier for those who did not want to know what what was going on to not know.

 

[Clipper]

You guys are union. Unions are in bed with the Democrats.

I beg your mother grabbin' pardon! I was employed by General Motors for 30 years, and was a member of the UAW that whole time. I was also diametrically opposed to the union's political leanings, and have been a Republican longer than I was in the union. Shoot, 70% of UAW rank & file vote Republican, and my CCW class was provided and paid for by my local.

We had to specifically authorize the union to take any political funds from our pay. I myself never did...

 

[Sharps-shooter]

I think part of the problem is that they wear the same type of outfits. If I happen to be walking down the street on the day of a bank robbery, and I'm a big guy in a grey hooded sweatshirt and black pants, and so is the robber, I'm going to get some hassle no matter what I did or didn't do. So we see cops dressed just like the people who we hear about doing bad things, and they've got this instant suspicion hanging over them. Even if we don't see them, there's this whole matter of association that can be hard to look past.

When I was a kid, I trusted police. I grew up in a small town where I knew the sherrif and the chief of police, and they knew me by name as well, even as a child. They were just people. Even in college I donated money to the FOP and all that.

But then I had a few pretty horrifying experiences with police. Most of these were in other countries, but the worst of them was not. For a long time, it was hard for me to see past the uniform and just see a cop as a person. But now I don't think of cops as much different from other people, except for their jobs.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

To me the above individuals and those officers who support, condone, or make excuses for them certainly fit the bill for JBTs. Now I am open to any other terminology that would both be acceptable to the LE community and yet still show the derision and contempt that these particular Scumbags who just happen to be officers so deserve. So please do share.

I'll go beyond that: Any law enforcement officer who would seek or serve a no knock warrant for anything other than a murder suspect is IMHO a jack booted thug. The entire premise of search WARRANTS is that a judge signs a piece of paper setting forth the identification of the premises for which permission to search has been granted, and also stating what the search is allowed to look for. If the warrant is served at my house, I am supposed to have a right to read it before I step back and allow the officers to enter. How many no knocks have been "served" at incorrect addresses, or at the correct address except that the subject of the search hasn't lived at that address for more than six months?

Mistakes such as that (which are usually the result of sloppy police work) could be avoided if the warrant is served in a civilized manner, by knocking on the door when the occupants can be expected to be awake, serving the warrant properly, and then allowing the occupant to explain that "No, this is 43 Grant Street, not 43 Grand Avenue." But the JBTs don't want to do it the civilized way -- it's much more fun to smash in doors at 3:00 a.m. and terrorize people who are asleep in their beds.

 

[XavierBreath]

Changes in THR structure to facilitate those goals:

Legal forum is now for legal issues only. When giving advice, please endeavor to provide links or references to original documents, laws and other relevant resources. Please keep the topics related to guns and RKBA.

I'm saddened. In the correct arena, among reasonable, considerate and intelligent people, this discussion is sorely needed.

This is the Legal forum. It is for Legal issues. It is not intended for philisophical debate without the citation of sources. It is not intended to be a platform for name calling, unsubstantiated arguments, unfounded accusations, character assasinations of entire groups of people, or comparisons to Nazi SS troops, peasants, tax collectors, meter maids, Nuremberg trails, or German wire haired ponters.

Among the self absorbed tripe in this thread there are good thoughts, needed thoughts. They are sadly obscured by frustration, anger and emotional arguments. If you are serious about effecting change, do not accept the status quo. Do something about it. Take action. I urge you to. Both sides. By working towards the common goal we all desire, the two sides so suspicious of each other can again see themselves as one against the real enemy, criminals.

As for this thread, it's closed. This is the Legal Forum. The Legal Forum is now for legal issues only. When giving advice, please endeavor to provide links or references to original documents, laws and other relevant resources. Please keep the topics related to guns and RKBA.

Special care must be taken to ensure that we appear as reasonable and peaceable to the world as possible. Antis are sure to pluck even a rare example of uncivil, bigoted or Rambo conduct out of context and use against us. With that in mind, make sure that remedy of shooting anyone is only considered if all other legal options are exhausted. No more "feed the hogs!" or "from my cold dead hands!" If we ever come to that, the last thing you want is a discussion of tactics in an open forum, where the likely opposition can read and which they can use to justify bigger budgets and heavier armor.

Conduct becoming ladies and gentlemen is expected, without religious, national or other prejudices. That means no slurs on Californians, French, Muslims, cops, women or anyone else. If a particular group of people does something you dislike, let their actions speak for themselves. When debating, please avoid the typical logical fallacies common to debates at lesser forums. Remember that we should be more interested in a Socratic discourse, a search for the truth and a plan of action more than on winning the debates.

Hey........Haven't I read that before? I hope you have too.