Military Police?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If they didn't do anything wrong, then I have no reason to stop them and would not interact with them.

OK then explain what a dui checkpoint for one is?

Or the time I left a Margharita Maggies after dinner(about 8:00pm) and was stopped because I had "crossed the white line while merging", given a breathalyzer then left go?

Or how about the 92 year old lady shot like a dog in her home because she had the audacity to protect herself from murdering government lackeys?

All isolated incidents I'm sure

Oh, and by the way--don't call for help either, when you hear the bump in the night

What makes you think I would or have?

Trust me, I can take care of myself. As well as any police officer can, I just don't have the government and it's unlimited legal funds at my disposal.
 
oooh oooh, ad hominim!

I am not the one that stated unless you have walked a mile in my shoes yada yada.
I am only trying to show you the fallacy of that thinking. If that were the case then noone could sit on juries and all of the legistators might as well leave. Furthermore, I don't have to be a cop to know that it is unprofessional to use your authority agaisnt someone because you don't like thier attitude. I stand on what I have said, If you are so concerned for "THE LAW" then attitudes have no place in it. Now, where did I put those pesky dryer sheets.
 
To the LEO's on this thread:

I sense a bit of frustration in some of the posts on this thread. I can understand how you'd feel that way. People want to be appreciated for the job that they do. I am sure you do as well. You may even feel that you are having to bear the brunt of criticism from some of your less-than-professional coworkers. Fair enough. Its a shame that you feel that you must bear the burden. Its also a shame that you have to deal with a lot of crap in your job.

But here is where I am going to get blunt.

First, whether you agree with it or not, Law Enforcement Agencies and personnel ARE NOT above the scrutiny of the citizens who pay taxes for the services you provide.

Next, your job function does not supercede the rights of citizens. If you cannot do your job while preserving rights, then its time to re-evaluate the way things are done. It is NOT time to re-evaluate our rights.

Next, before a blanket defense is given for LEOs and calls for people to walk in their shoes is issued, two things must be considered: 1.) YOU chose to walk in those shoes, and no one is holding a gun to your head to continue doing so. 2.) As you have your experiences, others DO have experiences that they draw from as well. If you wish others to respect your experiences, you may wish to pay a little respect to theirs as well.

As I've said on another thread on THR, I know several great LEO's. I also know several VERY bad ones. I don't judge all LEOs based on the poor examples I know. I also do not automatically assume a LEO I meet is one of the "good guys" either. I see LEO's continually come here and say that we must remember that they are just people, too. Fine. But you can't have it both ways. You cannot expect to automatically be assumed to be infallable and also assert that you are just another ordinary guy. Ordinary guys can come in many flavors-- some of them bad.

Believe me... you do NOT want to be associated with some of the poorer examples of LEOs I have witnessed in my life.


Please consider that those poor examples of LEOs are all part of the opinion that people may hold and are valid concerns. If it were me, I would not choose to defend them. I'd do all I could to insure I and those I may be able to influence rise above those persons.


-- John
 
Last edited:
Well, I can see that it's boiled down to a case of "I'm right and you're wrong, blah blah blah"

OK then explain what a dui checkpoint for one is?

I say again; see implied consent. READ it, comprehend it and then quit crying. Driving is a privalege, not a right.

Or the time I left a Margharita Maggies after dinner(about 8:00pm) and was stopped because I had "crossed the white line while merging", given a breathalyzer then left go?

Or how about the 92 year old lady shot like a dog in her home because she had the audacity to protect herself from murdering government lackeys?

What in god's name are you even talking about? I wasn't there for the first, and have no clue as to what you are talking about as to the second.

Furthermore, I don't have to be a cop to know that it is unprofessional to use your authority agaisnt someone because you don't like thier attitude. I stand on what I have said, If you are so concerned for "THE LAW" then attitudes have no place in it.

You still don't get it do you. It's not a matter of using my authority against someone. It's controlling the interaction during the stop/confrontation/call. Street/Road work is NOT corrections. Your assumtions are incorrect. Alot of times you tell a person "If you keep this up I'm gonna have to stick it to you," it saves a use of force. Sometimes, makingthat arrest for petty a BS charge is the best thing to do.

If you treat everyone in the public the way you treat inmates you will be out on your ear in no time In corrections you treat everyone the same. That is so you do not get turned out and blackmailed etc. In Enforcement you have to gauge you actions off the subjects. Goes riht back in with levels of force. Corrections is generally about warehousing pieces of human waste. By the time someone reaches prision they have already had a lengthy criminal career. Enforcement is a whole differant animal. In corrections you generally know who you are dealing with. You have acess to records and even get to know the wretches over time ifyou work the same assignment. You build a rapport with them. In Enforcemet you don't get that. You meet complete strangers, stop them from doing what ever illegal it is that they are doing and have to run under the assumption that they will try to kill you.

But hey what do I know. . . I'm wrong and you're right, you just told me so.

I'm through with this thread. Goodnight.
 
two most common causes of cop hating in my experience. one is someone who just can't put the trauma of the cops taking that bag of weed and talking mean to em. and the saddest is someone who tried to be a cop and couldn't some of those end up as mall ninjas meter maids or in some other related field some of these psuedo cops are the funniest haters. got some here. back in 1980 i saw the sweetest punch ever delivered by a fairfax cop to a sheriffs deputy in the jail. cop brought a kid in big kid but polite not giving anyone any trouble. just a high level traffic charge. one of the deputys was an ass big guy who liked to rumble. he grabbed the kid and slammed him into the wall to show em who's boss. hard. the fairfax cop decked him. in my not so limited experience the bad behaviors was worse in corrections.the exception would be the retired miltary guys working second careers. they were usually great. the others were usually a lil bitter about having to settle for less than the job they aspired to.
 
Your analysis is probably correct Cassandrasdaddy.

However, I can say that my "sense" of caution comes from very different reasons. Again, I recognize that the "bad" are a VERY small percentage -- and the rest do not deserve what the bad gives them.

Knowing that does not keep me from always being on guard.

Growing up, our Sheriff was on the payroll of the largest drug-dealer in the area. After several failed attempts by the feds to bust the dealer, they were finally successful-- but only by completely keeping the sheriff out of the loop. They came to his house in the middle of the night to get him. They would not even allow him to go in the back to get on some clothes for fear that he'd call the dealer. He went in his PJ's with a coat on.

Having a Sherrif like that makes one VERY wary of saying anything about things going on. You don't know if the sheriff himself is in on it-- and you wind up dead.



Also, in HS, I had a heavy foot-- like most kids around here. I was pulled over for 68 in a 55. As I rolled down the window and offered the Highway Patrol my license, he literally pulled me out of the window and body-tossed me into the highway. Fortunately, a car wasn't coming. Even more fortunate, he did this across from a store where several witnesses were present-- otherwise, I don't know if a teenage kid would have been believed. I can't say I did anything like smarting off to him-- I really didn't have time to say a single word before I was in the highway.


Skip ahead to just two years ago. My wife told me that she was continually getting pulled over by one particular Highway Patrolman on her commute to finish her Master's degree. Every time he did, he just talked to her, but never even suggested she did anything illegal. The last time he pulled her over before she told me this, he asked her out. He wasn't concerned at all when she told him that she was married. The next time he pulled her over, she was coached by me to get his badge number, name, and record the exact time and date. His Lt. dealt with it after I explained that if this repeated he would also be named in the sexual harrassment lawsuit for failure to supervise.


I could name others. However, I feel that I have illustrated why I am wary. I never wanted to be a LEO. I wanted to be a Doctor until I realized I have no bedside manner. I never did drugs either.


But that's just me.


-- John
 
sorry

i didn't think of you when i was talking about the haters. one can be suspicious and cynical even without hating. someone mentioned the respect thing earlier. i've interacted in a professional way with cops more times than most folks have gone to the dentist and i've gotten away with a lot. even whe they had me dead to rights i found that not trying to peddle a really bad lie was good policy. when i hada clam up i did and i had very few bad encounters. had more trouble with bar bouncers than cops. or pscho chefs for another.for about 2 decades i used to brag that i broke at least 2 comandments and commited a felony a day. it was my profession. theres was to catch me. i never took it personal and with one or 2 exceptions neither did they.
 
Cassandrasdaddy,

I hear ya... I am not a "hater." I just keep myself on "aware" around some, and listen to my instincts-- really the same as I do with a lot of folks.

And I do agree with you. There are a LOT of good cops. And there are a lot of honest and decent ones. Those that I highlighted were only examples of rare, fluke occurances that have contributed to my desire to monitor myself.

Frankly, I've had more trouble with ex-girlfriends and ex-wives than I've ever had with cops.

-- John
 
I find it interesting that when I posed my question, it was assumed that I would refuse the field sobriety tests in a rude or obnoxious or combative manner.

A follow up question then would be, if I refused the FST's by saying, "Sir, I refuse to do the field sobriety tests" and get arrested for impeding an investigation, what's the difference between that and me saying, "Sir, I refuse to allow my car or my person to be searched"?
 
what's the difference between that and me saying, "Sir, I refuse to allow my car or my person to be searched"?

I don't actually think you can per se "refuse" to allow your car searched. You can, however, inform them that you are not consenting to the search. Then its up to the lawyers to decide what is or isn't admissable.

I, franky, will never consent to a vehicle search. I have nothing to hide, but I do value my property. Understand that the parameters of a search are not defined. A search may be looking in your trunk or backseat-- or it COULD be taking out a knife and cutting your seats open, prying off your panels, etc.

I KNOW that I have grounds to request repair cost if I do not consent and it is shown that the search was not reasonable. If I understand correctly, giving consent actaully consents to a destructive search if the LEO chooses to. I'd rather not take that risk.


As for refusing sobriety tests, I still haven't figured out the reasoning and law behind it. If I am requested to give one, I just do it. Of course, that's easy now that I no longer drink.


-- John
 
As for refusing sobriety tests, I still haven't figured out the reasoning and law behind it. If I am requested to give one, I just do it. Of course, that's easy now that I no longer drink.

What I'm been trying to get at, is that the FST's are purely you giving potential evidence to be used against you. Just as if a police officer says, "you don't mind if I just take a look in your car," right? According to the one story posted earlier in this thread, many people fail the FST's and not necessarily because they're impaired, but due to physical conditions.

Also, a person can be charged with DUI from even the effects of insulin or other medications; I'm not saying that's a good thing or bad, but that it happens.

As I've said before, the breathalyzer is mandatory -- a cop says you blow, then you blow.

Sorry to be OT in this thread.
 
A follow up question then would be, if I refused the FST's by saying, "Sir, I refuse to do the field sobriety tests" and get arrested for impeding an investigation, what's the difference between that and me saying, "Sir, I refuse to allow my car or my person to be searched"?

OK, I said I wasn't going to post on this thread again but one last time I'm gonna sxplain this.

When you operate a vehicle on a highway in any state in the US, you give implied consent that you will submit to chemical testing. By signing your drivers licence at DMV and operating that car you "signed" you consent to submit to chemical testing. If you refuse this chemical testing, you can be punished by civil licence revocation etc.
Here's how it works.

You are drunk and driving.

I pull you over.

You refuse my tests and I have PC to believe you have an intoxicating substance in your blood. (odor of alcohol etc)

I take you to the intoxylizer anyway.

You refuse that test, you licence gets revoked 30 days minimum (herein NC) don't quote me on other states

K, now I'm done
 
Originally posted by Surat:
Seriously Cosmo, unless you really know this guy's criminal history, past interactions with the officers, circumstances surrounding the arrest, wouldn't qoute an article like this as example.. . the paper is FREE. Very likely this is a fresh out of college journalist trying to make a name to get a better job I use newspaper like this to line the bottom of the cat box in case the cats clawthrough the plastic liner . . .

I found it funny that you critisize him for not having all the information in the situation and then you go on to state that you dont have all the information about the newspaper's author yet you pass judgement on the author anyway.
 
Cdaddy, don't assume anything about me.
I spent 8 years in the army and 1 month as a police dispatcher. Then I moved on to corrections.

As a dispatcher and as a CO, I had lot's of dealings in a professional manner with police. The outright disdain they hold mere civilians in, is evident.

I have never wanted to nor applied for the job as a cop.

Even as a CO, it was never more than a job to me, it was not who I was, it was what I did. I guess that's why I could handle the attitudes FAIRLY FIRMLY and IMPARTIALLY because when an inmate was ****ty towards me I could disassociate myself from the uniform and the person.

Plenty of cops think that the uniform makes them something special.


Surat, the common factor between DUI checkpoints, Margarita Maggies and A dead 92 year old woman in Atlanta is police fishing expiditions.

When I say YOU, sometimes it is meant as all or some or most cops, not you as an individual.

Though when you talk about driving as a priviledge, I can see where you fall in the scheme of things.
I think you you mistook my statement about leaving MM with my statement about DUI checkpoint's.

While the cop did articulate a reason for pulling me over, I know I did not cross the line, he had just seen me leave the restaraunt and pulled me and my pregnant wife over because he thought I had been drinking. I got no ticket, warning or anything else. If I had crossed the line, I should have gotten a ticket. NO gray areas pal, be consistent. If I did something wrong, then give me a ticket for what I did, don't pull me for a bull**** reason then start fishing.

If, as you claim that I have no right to drive.(yea I know, and the supreme court upheld slavery too, what are you gonna do if they criminalize gun ownership), Do I also forfeit my fourth ammendment rights to search and seizure as in a DUI checkpoint where everyone is pulled over and asked PAPIERE BITTERN?

Never been arrested, or pulled over for more than minor trafic violations(the same ones that I see cops doing all the time).

Just suffice it to say that in the Army the saying went it take 12 atta boys to make up for one oh sh*t.

I am sure that there are plenty of good cops out there, it's just that the egomaniacal, power hungry ones far outshadow the rest and willingness to protect that thin blue line from scrutiny does not help the good ones cause.
 
Surat said:
When you operate a vehicle on a highway in any state in the US, you give implied consent that you will submit to chemical testing. By signing your drivers licence at DMV and operating that car you "signed" you consent to submit to chemical testing. If you refuse this chemical testing, you can be punished by civil licence revocation etc.

We agree on this. I, however, made (what I thought) was a clear distinction between field sobriety tests (touch your nose, walk the line, etc.) and chemical testing (a breathalyzer -- either the field version or the in-station one).

My question was, is there a statute that compels one to perform the FST's? The response was, no, but if you're obnoxious, I'll arrest you for obstruction.

My entire point is that if a police officer says, "can I search your car?" you say no.

If a police officer says, "can you perform these FST's?" you say no.

If a police officer says, "take this breathalyzer or your license is automatically yanked for a year (or whatever)," you say, gimme the breathalyzer.
 
D*&m it. I swore I was done with this, I must be masochistic.

I found it funny that you critisize him for not having all the information in the situation and then you go on to state that you dont have all the information about the newspaper's author yet you pass judgement on the author anyway.

Sarcasm and Irony are hard to translate into text sometimes.

[My question was, is there a statute that compels one to perform the FST's?

Some states do, most don't. Bear in mind. . . if I have you stopped and out of the car and are asking you to perform a SFST, I probibly have enough PC to arrest you anyways for for DWI. . yes I am trying to build my case and you (in most states) don't have to do the FST. .

Perhaps I was not clear enough in what I was saying or wrote poorly. If someone is a sufficient prick I will give them charges to match the level of prickishness. Refusal to take a FST is not in an of itself obnoxious behavior. Being an ass about it is. Pehaps personal exerience is coloring my view or story telling because drunks are so often obnoxius pricks when they know they are about to go to jail.

http://www.break.com/index/taserguncop.html
Warning: rated R for language and violence

If, as you claim that I have no right to drive.(yea I know, and the supreme court upheld slavery too, what are you gonna do if they criminalize gun ownership), Do I also forfeit my fourth ammendment rights to search and seizure as in a DUI checkpoint where everyone is pulled over and asked PAPIERE BITTERN?

You do not have a right to operate a motor vehicle. That's why they are called driving privilages. If they criminalize gun ownershp I'll likely change countries as America will be dead. DWI check point legality has been upheld time and time again.

Although there has been much debate over whether such roadblocks constitute illegal search and seizure, in 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if sobriety checkpoints comply with federal requirements, they do not violate any constitutional amendments and are considered legal. In fact, many states have established their own guidelines to comply with federal rules including providing public notice on the location of checkpoints with reasons why particular locations are selected. Also, the Supreme Court found that the need to reduce alcohol-related accidents more than justified the minimal intrusion accompanying checkpoint procedures, thus allowing sobriety roadblocks to remain in effect.


Also, licence checkpoints are what we usually run. . . and you do have to posess and produce when asked. . . as it is the privilage of driving.
 
Last edited:
Even as a CO, it was never more than a job to me, it was not who I was, it was what I did. I guess that's why I could handle the attitudes FAIRLY FIRMLY and IMPARTIALLY because when an inmate was ****ty towards me I could disassociate myself from the uniform and the person.

I don't know that I can explain it well enough. I don't know that I can explain why there is a us vs them additude and a love/hate relationship with the public. All I can say is that while corrections is one of the most miserable, thankless, and difficult jobs this side of hell. . it is not llike the enforcement side. I can say that because I have done both. worked the street, worked in a jail. It is completely 100% opposite. You'd have to do the job to understand the job. It's not a matter of "walk a mile in my shoes", it's a matter of "I can't explain it in words". . .but let me try.


We had a woman get arrested for acessory to child abuse. She originally came to the ER with her two year old daughter. Her daughter was unconcious and pretty much circleing the drain. "Mom" tried to tell the doctors and investigating officers that the girl had fallen down the stairs two days ago. Examination showed that the girl had been beaten with a blunt object repeatedly over a length of time (healing bruises). She had bleeding into the brain and further more showed evidence of rape or penetration. The "mother" had been living with a man for two months, the perpetrator, and didn't even know his last name. When a search warrant was executed, a roll of magazines that had been taped with electric tape into a baton, was found on the night table of the bedroom that "mom" shared with the perp. The impressons matched the bruses on t\he little girl's body. The little girl lived and was taken by DSS but will have signficant brain injury for the rest of her life.

What about the rapist we got that carved his initials into his victims breasts and then deficated on her.

. . .the assaults on elderly parents by children. . the animal cruelty cases. . . the parents that pimp their children for another hit of dope. . . the alcohol involved wrecks that the drunk walks away from and kills the victim or victims. . . blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah.

Add in the possibiliy of almost any encounter going south badly and your having to resort to deadly force. . . and trying your damndest not to hurt or kill someone, even if they are trying to hurt you. . . .long hours, rotating shifts, missed holidays, missed family time. . .add in the constant low level character assasination by the very public you are oath-sworn before your God to protect. . .It's no wonder most cops get burnt out after about 4 to 6 years. . . and no wonder why you get an us versus them additude.

It's not a job, it's a vocation. . . you got to have a calling to keep doing this. . .

I don't tell anyone what I do for a living when I am off. . . I have zero "cop crap" in my house other then uniforms and duty gear. . no mugs, posters, t-shirts etc. At the end of the day I can and do separate myself from the uniform.. . . but there is a reason all my friends are cops . . because the only people who can understand are the ones who have also seen the elephant. . .

Yea there are people in the buisness who have no buisness in it. So are in it for all the wrong reason Most of us don't like them either. Many times we like them less then you do.
 
It's not a matter of "walk a mile in my shoes", it's a matter of "I can't explain it in words". . .but let me try.

For whatever an internet stranger's opinion counts, I appreciate your efforts to explain to those of us who have never experienced policework firsthand.
 
Anyone who can read the BS the cops on that forum write and isn't wary of the police is living in a world with pink skies and blue bunnies. Everytime I go to a cop forum and read what real LEO's have to say I get more and more discouraged about the future of the USA. Their attitudes convince me my grandkids will be living in a Police State and fighting in the 2nd American Revolution.

Then I come here and regain hope.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle I suppose.
 
Wel, if you read all the posts, you see that the one guy "TrooperXXXX" is the card carrying member of the I love Sara Brady Cub and was pretty much shouted down by the other posters of the forum. "Me Again" wrote some epassioned and well written bits about 2A.

Of course you can find anti gun cops. Especially up north and in inner city areas. Had a sergant who thought there should be more gun control. Of course he owned a pair of pararie dogs as pets (vermin and fun to shoot!), wore "Earth Shoes", and was originally from the west coast. He's since left Law Enforcement.
 
My take on that was about 3 or 4 of the posters were real cops the rest were not. At least two positively id'd as cops are all for registration, think that anyone who isn't is a criminal in waiting and don't have a freaking clue what the 2nd is all about.

The only forum with a dedicated cop section I've ever been on where the cops are mostly pro-gun is glock talk but I've not been there for at least a year - maybe things have changed there too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top