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

[NavyLCDR]

On this reasoning, there should be a statute that gives cops automatic justification to search people's homes, because we all know it's illegal to possess heroin in one's home, and the cops would just be making sure our homes are "unloaded" of heroin.

No, actually, I think they would still have to prove that there was some action taken to search the home - some evidence that heroin was carried into the home. You know, like maybe somebody seen entering the home with a grocery sack. After, it is possible that grocery sack contained heroin, so the cops would have reason to search then, in California.

Like I said before, "One of these days The Peoples Republic of California will be forced to rejoin the Union." Until then the Constitution does not exist there.

Or maybe one of these days the PRK will be forced to slide into the ocean because of an earthquake... Then the value of my beach front Nevada property would skyrocket!

 

[hankdatank1362]

but in fact people tend to join the police force because they want the power to harass and intimidate "ordinary" people.

That is proably the most ridiculously asinine thing I've read this week. If you wish to interject your unsubstantiated, subversive beliefs into a conversation and pass them off as fact, then I suggest at least attempting to find some supporting research (from credible sources) to back up your claims.

I know that in the past 4 years I have been here, and the year or two before I joined when I was a mere lurker, THR has always had a strong anti-authoritarian streak, which I understand, as firearm enthusiasts are typically very independant and self-reliant.

Unfortunately, there is also a strong anti-law enforcement mentality on this board. When a LEO crosses the line, I am as much in favor of his/her punishment as I would be any other common criminal, perhaps even more so. But blanket generalizations like the one above, or

...police officers don't serve society, they serve the elite.

with no supportive evidence whatsoever, just mere personal prejudcial notions, only undermine the credibility of the person writing the statement.

If I were Jim Keenan, I would have attempted to correlate the overall nature of humans (not just LEOs) to abuse authority with widely-published reseach such as the Stanford Prision Experiment of 1971. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion and no one has any more merit than another... but I, for one, would like to see a bit more edjucated debate on the subject rather than closed-minded empty rhetoric.

And, for all those interested on a good read on modern Terry Stop guidelines and other forms of investigative detention, try http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0036.htm.

 

[Bear 45/70]

That is proably the most ridiculously asinine thing I've read this week. If you wish to interject your unsubstantiated, subversive beliefs into a conversation and pass them off as fact, then I suggest at least attempting to find some supporting research (from credible sources) to back up your claims.

I know that in the past 4 years I have been here, and the year or two before I joined when I was a mere lurker, THR has always had a strong anti-authoritarian streak, which I understand, as firearm enthusiasts are typically very independant and self-reliant.

Unfortunately, there is also a strong anti-law enforcement mentality on this board. When a LEO crosses the line, I am as much in favor of his/her punishment as I would be any other common criminal, perhaps even more so. But blanket generalizations like the one above, or
with no supportive evidence whatsoever, just mere personal prejudcial notions, only undermine the credibility of the person writing the statement.

If I were Jim Keenan, I would have attempted to correlate the overall nature of humans (not just LEOs) to abuse authority with widely-published reseach such as the Stanford Prision Experiment of 1971. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion and no one has any more merit than another... but I, for one, would like to see a bit more edjucated debate on the subject rather than closed-minded empty rhetoric.

And, for all those interested on a good read on modern Terry Stop guidelines and other forms of investigative detention, try http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0036.htm.

And the "Thin Blue Line" stands up on it hind legs and screams outrage. Of course they never turn on their own because there are no bad cops, we all know this to be true. Pure BS, if a cop actually turns a bad cop in it is big news, like Serpico was. But the truth is there are bad cops, but the rest of the cops just turn the other way, making themselves bad cops for not doig their duty. But most cops never admit the truth or actually keep their oaths.

 

[hankdatank1362]

I had typed out a long detailed response, but my browser crashed and I lost it, so I'll hit ya with the Cliff Notes version:

But the truth is there are bad cops,

Of course there are. There's also bad interior decorators. At least there's interview panels, screens, psych evals and polygraphs to try and "weed out" the bad ones... how many of those did you have to pass for your job?

but the rest of the cops just turn the other way

You'd be surprised to know just how many officers won't tolerate or condone anyone bringing dishonor to their department or profession.... but you'd have to open your mind and do a little research to figure that out. Shucks. :banghead:

making themselves bad cops for not doig their duty.

I agree wholeheartedly; any officer who condones, or at least, selecively ignores illegal or unethical behavior by any coworker, friend, etc. is a poor excuse for an officer indeed. However, once again, you'd be surprised just how rare such instances are.

But most cops never admit the truth or actually keep their oaths.

Brilliant. And this is supported by... exactly, what? Oh yeah, nothing. Way to bring down the signal/noise ratio on THR, and add absolutely nothing of merit or truth.

 

[Deanimator]

Of course there are. There's also bad interior decorators.

That's an utterly foolish analogy.

When an interior decorator can stop me in my car and hold me at gun point or kick in my front door, throw me to the floor and put a boot on the back of my neck with an M16 pointed at my head, then you'll have a point. Until then equating cops and interior decorators is errant nonsense.

Interior decorators have NO legal power. Cops have INCREDIBLE legal power and a great ability to misuse that power.

Tell me, was it interior decorators who faked up a search warrant and murdered Kathryn Johnston in her home?

Was it a ring of rogue interior decorators in Chicago who committed a string of home invasions, robberies, and kidnappings?

At least there's interview panels, screens, psych evals and polygraphs to try and "weed out" the bad ones... how many of those did you have to pass for your job?

How many of them did Jerry Finnegan and Bobby Cutts Jr. pass?

You'd be surprised to know just how many officers won't tolerate or condone anyone bringing dishonor to their department or profession.... but you'd have to open your mind and do a little research to figure that out.

Apparently there weren't any of those officers in the New Orleans PD when the murders took place on the Danziger bridge, OR they didn't think that murder and a coverup brought "dishonor" to their department or profession.

Sorry, that dog won't hunt. The SOS home invasion ring in Chicago, the Kathryn Johnston murder, and the Danziger bridge murders were all examples of NOBODY doing ANYTHING to deter, not just crimes by police but kidnapping and MURDER. Furthermore, each one of those examples demonstrates deep rooted coverups which in fact have not YET been completely unraveled YEARS later. I don't see cops not "tolerating" these things. I see them actively covering them up, with only OUTSIDE agencies doing ANYTHING to bring justice to the victims.

There isn't enough whitewash in the world to hide that truth.

 

[hankdatank1362]

That's an utterly foolish analogy.

No, it isn't. It serves to perfectly illustrate the simple fact that police officers are just like regular people in the sense that most are good and some are bad. Police officers have to abide by the law just like everyone else. In fact, at times, they are held to a higher standard than most ordinary civilians.

Yes, they do have "INCREDIBLE legal power," granted to them by the public, and therefore must be held accountable when they violate that public trust.

You then go on to name several high-profile instances of individuals egregiously violating that trust. The reason you know those names are because it was such a rarity for a LEO to commit those types of crimes that it shocked the conscience and therefore made for sentsational journalism. Your own arguement proves my point that only an infintesimally percent of police officers are law breakers.

From 2005-2006 there were 647 sworn police officers arrested for breaking the law (Stinson, Philip. "Rethinking the Definition of Police Crime: The Relationship of Sex, Drugs, Violence and/or Greed to Virtually all Police Crime" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIMINOLOGY, Atlanta Marriott Marquis, Atlanta, Georgia, Nov 13, 2007 <Not Available. 2010-03-12 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p199994_index.html)

According to the National Employment Matrix (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos160.htm)
In 2006, there were 683,396 police officers employed in the United States (not including an additional 120,000 full time federal law enforcement personnel). Allow me to do the math: That means LESS THAN 1/100TH OF A PERCENT (>.01) of all sworn police officers were arrested for breaking the law that year.

Say for every crime that was committed, there were 10 other officers that were aware of the crime and chose to ignore it. That bumps the number of unethical officers to LESS THAN 1/10TH OF A PERCENT. (>.1)

Granted, even one police officer committing a crime is unacceptable, but as long as police forces are staffed by human beings and not robots, perfection will always be unattainable (yet something to constantly strive for.) Overall, I think the numbers reflect very favorably on the men and women in blue in America.

However, please continue the cop bashing... don't let little things like facts and logic get in the way of your emotional, uneducated and inaccurate rants.

 

[hankdatank1362]

Correlate the above with the fact that in 2006 there were an estimated 4,832.5 arrests for ever 100,000 acording to the FBI UCR. This means that roughly 4.8% of the population was arrested. Now, obviously, that number is lower because it doesn't take into account the fact that in many instances it is possible that the same offender was arested multiple times for seperate violations. Still, overall, the fact remins that police officers as a whole don't break the law as much as some of you are inclined to believe.

You can't believe everything the media tells you. Challenge your preconceived notions, just like you would have the antis do when they see erronious and skewed reports involving firearms.

 

[Bear 45/70]

Correlate the above with the fact that in 2006 there were an estimated 4,832.5 arrests for ever 100,000 acording to the FBI UCR. This means that roughly 4.8% of the population was arrested. Now, obviously, that number is lower because it doesn't take into account the fact that in many instances it is possible that the same offender was arested multiple times for seperate violations. Still, overall, the fact remins that police officers as a whole don't break the law as much as some of you are inclined to believe.

You can't believe everything the media tells you. Challenge your preconceived notions, just like you would have the antis do when they see erronious and skewed reports involving firearms.

The cops don't usually get caught because the other cops don't want the bad publicity.

 

[hankdatank1362]

The cops don't usually get caught because the other cops don't want the bad publicity

I love how, when faced with empirically validated research, you manage tou pound out another worthless sentence onto your keyboard and attempt to pass it off as a fact.

Next time, at least preface your sentence with "It's possible..." . As in "It's possible that it's going to start raining chocolate milk tonight." Still highly improbable, but you get the idea.

 

[Bear 45/70]

I love how, when faced with empirically validated research, you manage tou pound out another worthless sentence onto your keyboard and attempt to pass it off as a fact.

Next time, at least preface your sentence with "It's possible..." . As in "It's possible that it's going to start raining chocolate milk tonight." Still highly improbable, but you get the idea.

Any half wit can twist the numbers to say whatever they want. All this Global Warm lies and crap data taught you nothing.

 

[Deanimator]

You then go on to name several high-profile instances of individuals egregiously violating that trust.

NO, I named several high-profile instances of CRIMINAL CONSPIRACIES operating WITHIN police departments FOR YEARS, without interference by other officers, in most cases thwarted ONLY by action from OUTSIDE of those agencies.

It is utterly ludicrous to think that a home invasion, robbery and kidnapping RING can operate INSIDE of a major police department without MAJOR collusion.

It sure looks as though other cops frequently DON'T do anything to stop these activities... unless they're looking at jail time themselves. In the case of SOS, NOBODY seems to have an innocent explanation of why a home invasion ring was allowed to operate INSIDE the police department, FOR YEARS. The BEST face that can be put on it is gross incompetence. More likely as has been noted by commentators, is collusion.

Every one of these examples and more point to a culture of silence within police departments where internal corruption and criminality are concerned. Those who DO talk are faced with the sort of "paint job" that Jerry Finnegan tried to arrange for some of his co-conspirators whom he feared would cooperate with the FBI.

If police won't disclose multiple murders by police until they're facing federal prison time, what LESSER offenses are allowed to go on with NO interference of ANY kind? And make NO mistake AT ALL, the Danziger bridge case was an organized coverup of MURDER by numerous LEOs at various levels.

This isn't "individuals". It's GROUPS acting as part of a CULTURE. All of the hand waving in the world won't change that. Innocent people like Kathryn Johnston are dying because of it.

 

[hankdatank1362]

Deanimator, I agree that these acts were committed by heinous individuals and that, in some depatrments, the blue wall of silence is surely still well and alive. However, your arguement by generalization merely proves that these are (and I hate to sound callous, because they are some real SOBs) isolated incidents.

And, as a whole, the justice system works to separate the wheat from the chaff. For example, in the Kathryn Johnston murder (and it WAS MURDER, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY ARGREE), the scum involved all got jail time. Not enough time, in my opinion, but hey, what criminal ever gets "enough" these days?

 

[Deanimator]

Deanimator, I agree that these acts were committed by heinous individuals and that, in some depatrments, the blue wall of silence is surely still well and alive. However, your arguement by generalization merely proves that these are (and I hate to sound callous, because they are some real SOBs) isolated incidents.

Given the pervasiveness of the coverups in these and other cases, how would you know?

Remember, we were told that the Danziger bridge murders were just a "hoax". NOW somebody has pleaded guilty to the coverup and implicated numerous others in the murders and subsequent coverup.

Sorry, I don't see the SLIGHTEST justification for optimism on this score. I think that SOS, the Johnston murder and the Danziger bridge murders are just the very tiniest tip of a VERY large iceberg.

 

[hankdatank1362]

Theoretically, you are correct. I suppose every department could be as bad as Rampart was and we just don't know about it... but I don't believe so, and I hope no one else is that foolish, either.

Either way, I think we've derailed this poor thread enough.

 

[GhostRider66]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did this just not make the guy unable to purchase a firearm?

Jury members deliberated just 45 minutes before acquitting San Francisco resident Wayne Lee Banks Jr., 26, of carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle. The misdemeanor charge carries up to a year in jail.

 

[Bear 45/70]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did this just not make the guy unable to purchase a firearm?

Acquitting means he was found innocent and his rights are unaffected by the cop's and prosecutor's illegal and amoral actions.

 

[Deanimator]

Still, overall, the fact remins that police officers as a whole don't break the law as much as some of you are inclined to believe.

How would you know?

I'm betting that those interior decorators find it a LOT harder to conceal evidence of THEIR criminal acts.

Again, we're not talking about individual cops committing crimes. We're talking about GROUPS of cops both committing serious crimes (including kidnapping and murder), AND engaging in elaborate and long term coverups.

I'll take documented facts (including plea agreements) over wishful thinking any day.

 

[NinjaFeint]

Theoretically, you are correct. I suppose every department could be as bad as Rampart was and we just don't know about it... but I don't believe so, and I hope no one else is that foolish, either.

Either way, I think we've derailed this poor thread enough.

Thats what certain people who post in these threads do. They take one thing and use it as a platform to talk about their beliefs

 

[hankdatank1362]

I'll take documented facts (including plea agreements) over wishful thinking any day.

Actually, it's obvious you won't, because I've given them to you over and over again. All that you have done is offered a handful of isolated instances as a rebuttal, and used them to base your entire arguement on, also known as a "Arguement by Generalization," a type of logical fallacy.

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. Some cops (or groups of cops) are bad? We established that already. We also established most are good, honest people. Is that what you're arguing; that all police are jack-booted thugs serving the interest of the elite and violating the rights of the general populace? Is that tinfoil hat a little too tight?

 

[Deanimator]

Actually, it's obvious you won't, because I've given them to you over and over again. All that you have done is offered a handful of isolated instances as a rebuttal, and used them to base your entire arguement on, also known as a "Arguement by Generalization," a type of logical fallacy.

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. Some cops (or groups of cops) are bad? We established that already. We also established most are good, honest people. Is that what you're arguing; that all police are jack-booted thugs serving the interest of the elite and violating the rights of the general populace? Is that tinfoil hat a little too tight?

Actually, you refuse to see a pattern which may show something which you don't want to see.

Documented fact trumps your rather sad attempts at reductio ad absurdam and ad hominem every time.

What I have said is not only true, it's INDISPUTABLY true.

Police have vast powers over other citizens.
Police have considerable opportunity to misuse that power.
Significant numbers of police in some jurisdictions have misused those powers, for personal gain, to promote personal agendas, and simply for amusement.
Police have a vastly greater ability to conceal crimes which they may commit than the public at large.

You state (without evidence) that "most are good, honest people". That might be, but you've done nothing to demonstrate that. I've shown that police have vast power to deceive the public regarding their activities, and in documented instances have, over considerable periods of time. That being the case, we don't REALLY know what the level of police criminality is because to the best of my knowledge, there's no organized, centralized effort to find out. On the contrary, we have those like you who don't WANT to KNOW. I certainly choose not to take your word for it that "most" of them are honest any more than I'd take the word of somebody who says that most of them aren't.

What's the threshold for "isolated incidents"? At what point are excuses no longer enough?

I'm dealing in facts and logic. You're dealing in wishful thinking, rhetorical tricks and personal insults.

 

[andrewstorm]

open carry illeagel

A good friend and former partner of my step dad on our local force,R O P D,argued that open carry was not allowed,in mich,and that it was brandishing,even though he had known about the attorney generals position,that a holsterd gun was not considerd brandishing,police are used to the former policies of the dept.when michigan mirrored ontario in its gun laws. police should be required continued education in current law,and the color of law statues.

 

[hankdatank1362]

"a significant number of officers in some departments"...

Less than one-onehundredth of a percent is significant? Really? Don't forget, that number is a documented fact, so I'm not stating anything "without evidence." Unlike some, who haven't cited a source supporting their biased opinions in this entire thread. And your theory that no one is attempting to ascertain just how much criminality there is in the LE field is untrue... Just google "police crime" (I'd do it for you but I'm on my BlackBerry)

I do agree with many of your points. Police do have incredible power, little oversight, and lots of opportunity to abuse that power. Some officers in some departments do(NOLA, Chicago, ATL, Rampart, etc.) .Its a fact, however, that the vaaaast majority do not.

 

[Gouranga]

My apologies to the OP...I do have a comment to make on your point.

Police have vast powers over other citizens.
Police have considerable opportunity to misuse that power.
Significant numbers of police in some jurisdictions have misused those powers, for personal gain, to promote personal agendas, and simply for amusement.
Police have a vastly greater ability to conceal crimes which they may commit than the public at large.

I think the point being made against you is your facts are not quantifiable. That some officers are bad is not disputed. What is disputed is your assertion that a "substantial number" are. You have no numbers to back it up. Just some well documented cases which are horrendous but not reflective of the huge population of officers in the US.

Consider this,
CCW have powers over citizens who choose not to carry.
CCW have a HUGE amount of opportunity to abuse it (could go on a shooting spree anytime)
There are documented cases of folks with CCW who have gone berserk. One in NC last week where the guy went road rage chasing a guy into a DMV office/POLICE STATION.

Does all this translate to a substantial number of CCW permit holders are bad people abusing their power that comes with carrying concealed weapons in public?

Police are people. To be fair, I grew up around plenty of them as I have 2 family members who were officers. One got into the job to "save the world", the other because it was good pay, and a great career opportunity. Both have stood in the line of fire to protect citizens. Some are good, some are bad, IN MY EXPERIENCE, most are good folks doing a tough job under heavy (an appropriate) scrutiny. Most of the guys are not out to get you. Their is too much paperwork involved in that.

To the original post, what is going in California lately? Has common sense completely left the state? These seem like simple cases where the legality is obvious (granted we are a little biased), yet they push and push to the detriment of their own careers. Makes no sense.

 

[Deanimator]

Its a fact, however, that the vaaaast majority do not.

... just not that you can prove... or disprove, based on your misleading attempt at diversion via an UNrelated statistic and vague allusions.

I talk specifics. You talk generalities, wishful thinking and personal insults.

I say we need to be concerned about the degree of police criminality and obfuscation of same, based on INDISPUTABLE facts, including their own admissions against penal interest.

You say we should just assume that the degree of police criminality is low based on... nothing.

Guess which one intelligent people find more persuasive.

 

[Deanimator]

What is disputed is your assertion that a "substantial number" are.

Reread what I wrote, then put back what you and the other guy omitted.