Quantcast

Calif. police claim a visible firearm is enough to detain a person for...

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by NavyLCDR, Mar 25, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hankdatank1362

    hankdatank1362 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,378
    Location:
    Myrtle Beach
    Actually you don't talk specifics. You give a handful of examples and claim it extrapolates across the board. (Ever taken upper-level research courses?) I give you substantiated and empirically validated numbers on arrests of police officers.... Which is not "UNrelated" as you claim. In fact, when discussing police criminality, its about as pertinent as you can get.


    Your continued attempts at arguing raw statistical data with fallacious generalities are like a little child with their hands over their ears yelling "nu unh" when someone told them the Ninja Turtles aren't real.
     
  2. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,465
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Actually, I give specifics which you ignore in favor of strawmen of your own creation. Combine that with your personal attacks, and it's pretty obvious where you're coming from.

    Strangely, you studiously ignore the fundamental (and clearly demonstrated) ease of obfuscating police criminality and it's unavoidable impact on "statistics".

    I know of another institution whose record of "investigating" itself is dubious at best, and whose conflict of interest in "investigating" itself is of a kind with the sort of "investigations" carried out by various police departments of "hoaxes" which later turned out to be real events.

    I suppose it depends upon what your REAL goal is, the truth or exoneration irrespective of the facts.

    But I'm sure it's much easier to hurl puerile insults than pursue sometimes unpleasant lines of inquiry.
     
  3. hankdatank1362

    hankdatank1362 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,378
    Location:
    Myrtle Beach
    I must have missed your "specifics"... And so did previous posters. Mind giving them again? Any while you're at it, maybe you can shed some light on what "interests" are conflicted by federal investigations and categorization of state and local police crimes.
     
  4. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,465
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    The Danziger bridge case was dismissed as a hoax by local police officials. The coverup which buttressed that "determination" went on for YEARS.

    The Kathryn Johnston murder was a culmination of YEARS of practices by officers in that agency. The ONLY reason their coverup failed was that an informant FLED their custody. If that informant had cooperated with the perpetrators, YOU would be proclaiming the innocence of the LEOs who murdered Kathryn Johnston and proclaiming HER guilt... based on the drugs which the murderers planted in her home.

    Had not the FBI intervened, you would be proclaiming the "nonexistence" of the home invasion and kidnapping ring INSIDE the Chicago PD, based on the curious inaction of IAD. You would be badmouthing the VICTIMS of the ring, which included, I believe, at least one firefighter and LEO.

    In EVERY one of these cases, and many more, ONLY outside intervention led to ANYTHING even remotely resembling justice.

    In your headlong rush to tell everyone how honest "most" cops are, you've done everything humanly possible to ignore the 800lb. gorilla in the room. These cases show a FUNDAMENTAL problem with coverups of police criminality and call into question the integrity of the ability of law enforcement agencies to police themselves. Nobody, including you, has been able to come up with a plausible explanation of how Chicago IAD can somehow either not KNOW about or do anything about a kidnapping ring INSIDE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. If they can't "detect" THAT, what's the quality of their other work? Of course what if they DID detect it (as I believe was the case) and did NOTHING?

    You assert that "most" police are honest. I don't assert that most aren't. I assert that the nature of these cases calls into fundamental question HOW you could know one way or the other.

    I'll just say that I recall the attacks by LEOs and their supporters on the character of Kathryn Johnston... until the truth of the murder and coverup came to light. I'm sure they'll get around to their public appologies SOME day...
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2010
  5. hankdatank1362

    hankdatank1362 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,378
    Location:
    Myrtle Beach
    Of course, those that break the law will always attempt to conceal that fact, out of the interest of self-preservation... criminals hiding behind a badge are no different. How do I explain Chicago, or Atlanta? I don't. They had to have someone on the inside protecting their interests. That, or their IA departments are horribly and almost criminally negligent in their duties.

    That is why we have those "outside" agencies... To help ensure that those entrusted with upholding the law aren't breaking it themselves. And, by the very fact that we know about the cases you mention... They appear to be doing their jobs. How many do we not know about? No one can say with any certainty.

    I believe that federal oversight is the lynchpin that keeps the number of LE conspiracies down to miniscule (yet still completely unacceptable) levels. The feds don't care if you have a gun and badge; they have them too... They're not impressed. And their badges say "US" in them... As in "sea to shining sea." Or, as I've heard them say before, "My circle is bigger."

    However, fundamentally, you are correct. We never will truly know just how many crooked cops there are, as we don't hear about them until its too late and they screwed up and got caught. However, to use that as an excuse to advance your own dislike of LEOs in general (not you personally, but others in this thread and elsewhere) is just as wrong as police treating everyone like criminals because that's who they encounter the most. "We don't know who can and can't be trusted, so assume the worst about everyone" is a terrible way to go through life, both as a cop and as a civilian. (Once again, that's not really meant towards you in particular.)
     
  6. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,465
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    And what does that mean? It means that a disturbing number of large cities' police departments are incapable of policing themselves in any effective way.

    I'm not talking about ONE cop doing something wrong. It's literally IMPOSSIBLE to stop that. As hard as I try, I can't really think of a way to blame the North Canton, Ohio PD for Officer Bobby Cutts, Jr. murdering his pregnant girlfriend and enlisting a friend and a relative to assist him in covering up the crime.

    No, what we're talking about is large GROUPS of police in certain departments (that we know of) engaged in well organized, pervasive and ongoing criminal conspiracies, COMPLETELY unhindered by their superiors, who may or may not be personally involved.

    These CONSPIRACIES have called the SYSTEM into question and its commitment and ability to protect the rights and lives of the citizenry.

    That's a tacit admission that we CAN'T trust police departments to police their own. The Johnston murder was solved PURELY by CHANCE. I don't know whether the breaking of the Danziger bridge case was as wildly capricious as that of the Johnston case.

    The truth is that many of us seem to be trusting to luck in regard to supervision of local police. Kathryn Johnston and the Danziger bridge victims are proof that that isn't good enough. I don't know what SYSTEMATIZED oversight the FBI exercises over rights violations by local police, but clearly it sometimes is lacking. The Chicago PD AND the FBI somehow managed to not notice systematic torture (REAL torture with beatings, electricutions, burnings and suffocations, not harsh questioning) of suspects for more than a decade... until the statute of limitations ran on all of the perpetrators.

    Probably what we need is a PURPOSELY ORGANIZED element within the FBI to handle these issues. I don't know if such exists, but if it is, it sure doesn't seem well supported.

    I was a LOT more concerned that I would have a negative encounter with the Chicago PD when I was there last week than I EVER was of being attacked by some alleged "Christian militia".
     
  7. hankdatank1362

    hankdatank1362 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,378
    Location:
    Myrtle Beach
    I'll go a step further and say I also fully support civilian oversight committees for certain functions... One of which being the investigation of criminal or ethical misconduct of police officers/ departments. Don't forget, I live in Horry County, one of the few counties in the US to have both a Sheriff's department and county police force... A split necessitated many decades ago due to the pervasive corruption within the Sheriff's dept. The result? County council suspending all funds for the sherrif's office except for what is required by state constitution (enough funds to guard the courts, staff the prisons, etc.). The rest is funneled to the County police dept., the actual law enforcement arm of Horry County.

    And yes... I'm a lot more scared of Chicago or NOLA police than I am of many other gangs or "extremeist" groups.
     
  8. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    12,465
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    They have that in Chicago... it's UTTERLY corrupt. But that's a situation of all pervasive corruption on ALL levels, involving ALL aspects of government at the city and county level. Much of the Chicago PD corruption arises DIRECTLY from the mayor's office and the cravenly corrupt city council. NOTHING is going to happen until Daley REALLY rubs Obama or a subsequent president the wrong way. Don't hold your breath.
     
  9. hankdatank1362

    hankdatank1362 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,378
    Location:
    Myrtle Beach
    Yeah, even as pro-LE as I am.... I've just about written Chicago off.
     
  10. Officers'Wife

    Officers'Wife Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    3,449
    Location:
    A long way from heaven and too close to Chicago
    Unfortunately that only works if the civilian review board is completely independent of the admin branch. Such boards are usually 'formed' by a city mayor and padded with ex-LEO's.
     
  11. hankdatank1362

    hankdatank1362 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,378
    Location:
    Myrtle Beach
    Huh. I've never ran into an ex-cop on a CRB (that I knew of.) Mostly just people the mayor owed a favor to.
     
  12. NG VI

    NG VI Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    Messages:
    4,884
    Location:
    Maine

    That isn't a good start.
     
  13. hankdatank1362

    hankdatank1362 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,378
    Location:
    Myrtle Beach
  14. ChaoSS

    ChaoSS Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,111
    This guy needs to file suit. I was arrested almost two years ago on a totally bogus charge, the DA wouldn't even file charges, and right now, as I'm trying to get a job, it's hindering me. This guy needs to be on record that he won a suit against the police.

    Sorry, but your lawyer friend is full of crap. What if you have a gun in your pants, raise your arms to grab something, exposing it, and then lower your arms, concealing the gun once again. The cop may not be able to see the concealed gun, but he knows damn well that it is still there.

    Guns can go in and out of concealment easily. If you see it one minute, and don't see it, then you've seen it, and then seen that it was concealed. Pretty obvious to the police and certainly not an easy case for a defense attorney to win.
    CA specifically states that a gun carried openly in a belt holster is not considered concealed. This is what made this guy's case so easy, even if the officer hadn't been able to see it, as long as he wasn't covering it with some clothing or a blanket or something, then it was legally unconcealed.
     
  15. ChaoSS

    ChaoSS Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,111
    BTW, as for the good cop, bad cop thing, I can't speak as to the motivations of most cops. I can say, however, that the constitution does not give the government the right to restrict gun ownership at all, even for convicted felons. So if a police officer ever has or ever would arrest a convicted felon for illegal possession of a firearm, or arrest someone for an illegal gun, like a SBS or machine gun, then that cop has no respect for the constitution and the RKBA, no matter if they are avid shooters themselves, supporters of the NRA, or regular posters on boards like this. Just saying that you support the RKBA does not mean that you really do.
     
  16. Guns and more

    Guns and more member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    1,929
    12 people with common sense in San Francisco?

    I'm shocked.

    Nancy Pelosi got elected, and some people have common sense..............I give up.
     
  17. andrewstorm

    andrewstorm member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    Messages:
    634
    Location:
    land of the free,because of the brave
    now u see it now u dont

    Can someone tell me where it says in the 2nd amendment,your arns cant be consealed?:cool:or is that some kind of infrindgement of our rights.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice