Police shoot off-duty NYPD officer holding gun
- Thread starter rick_reno
- Start date
- Status
Graystar
Member
I do understand human nature, That’s not the problem. The problem is that in the eyes of Toro, a bad guy suddenly becomes a good guy just because he’s a cop. It doesn’t matter to this cop if his fellow cop was right or wrong. All he cares about was that he was a cop.Glenn Bartley said:
Do you think he will feel the same way if an investigation showed he had gunned down a respected law abiding citizen that had actually subdued a criminal with his licensed handgun?
Like the anti-gun people like to say...”if it saves just one life then it’s worth it.”Glenn Bartley said:
If the cops had followed procedure, which was to take cover before approaching suspects assumed to be armed and dangerous, instead of standing out in the open like a bunch of cowboys in a western, then maybe they would have taken the time to be sure of the what was going on instead of gunning Diallo down on the possibility that he might have a gun.English John said:
The real tragedy was that those cops didn’t go to jail for murder.
Vex
Member
IMHO, the "monday morning quarter backing" in this thread is disgusting.
These situations are never cut-and-dry. To sit here and blame one or the other for the incident is amateurish. None of us were there, and we really have no right to form an opinion based off a single liberal-based news article.
Take, for example, the incident involving an off-duty police officer in raleigh, NC in August. Plenty of people were easily able to say "bad shoot" and "this cop is in deep water," but the fact is that it was obviously a good shoot, the cop was NOT indicted by a grand jury.
I guess this just hit a soft spot on me.
These situations are never cut-and-dry. To sit here and blame one or the other for the incident is amateurish. None of us were there, and we really have no right to form an opinion based off a single liberal-based news article.
Take, for example, the incident involving an off-duty police officer in raleigh, NC in August. Plenty of people were easily able to say "bad shoot" and "this cop is in deep water," but the fact is that it was obviously a good shoot, the cop was NOT indicted by a grand jury.
I guess this just hit a soft spot on me.
I think most people are just throwing out their opinion based on what they read (assuming the read the entire article). 
I don't mind honest discussion, but leave you ego and personal feelings at the door.
What really gets annoying is when posters take comments personally and start arguing incessantly for 3 pages of a thread. I usually ignore try to ignore those posters.
I don't mind honest discussion, but leave you ego and personal feelings at the door.What really gets annoying is when posters take comments personally and start arguing incessantly for 3 pages of a thread. I usually ignore try to ignore those posters.
Lucky said:
Like not identify himself or not put the gun down. Without more info, I'd side on the arriving officer's side. You see a person w/ a gun you imediately orde the gun down. proberly hernandz didn't comply and/or identify himself.
Glenn, (in particular)
It sounds as if you already know what I just found out. There is a real ugly anti-police bias on this forum. People who have never worn a badge know it all and we're all buffoons. They have the unusual insight to gleen from news accounts (from a press they wouldn't trust for anything else) that the shooting of the day was only a symptom of a larger problem, those incompetent thugs in uniform. They think the world is so cut and dry, good and bad, and you see it in the posts here. Every situation has a right and a wrong, and if only we shared the amazing gift some of these guys apparently have, why it would always work out.
What they fail to understand is the lose-lose situation. This is one of the first lessons to come with experience. Sometimes, being who we are we are called to deal with things when all else has failed, and failed repeatedly. This lose-lose situation doesn't exist on the web forums. There's always a solution here. Here there are a finite number of circumstances that exist under which a shooting can take place. They've discussed them and they've got the answers for each as it comes. Lose-lose exists in the real world. The world where decisions must be made in a split second. The world where sometimes there are no good outcomes, only varying degrees of bad.
There's an old saying that talks about walking a mile in another man's shoes. Try it. Go out and do a ride along. I think you'll find that these people in uniform aren't the villains you've made them out to be. Nor are they incompetent. And they're not super hero's either. We are ordinary people, occasionally confronted with extraordinary circumstances. Those in our ranks make mistakes, sometimes egregious ones. I'm not here to offer excuses for that. Occasionally people die as a result. Just as dead as when an irresponsible gun owner makes a mistake. I'm sure many of you detest it as much as I do when people paint all gun owners with the same stroke.
I don't expect any of you who've never been there to understand this. You can't. There's a very distinct feeling you get when rushing to a call and realizing that this one could be the one. When you get to the point of breaking leather there's either a million things going through your mind, or you get tunnel vision. Neither is particularly good but they're part of the human psyche. You can't train it away. And things happen fast. Then it's over. Some kid whose parents just put them through Princeton puts the facts down on paper best they can get them from the brass and the witnesses. Then the trial begins. Not in court, not yet. This "story" is exhibit "a". And they'll try to hang you with it.
It sounds as if you already know what I just found out. There is a real ugly anti-police bias on this forum. People who have never worn a badge know it all and we're all buffoons. They have the unusual insight to gleen from news accounts (from a press they wouldn't trust for anything else) that the shooting of the day was only a symptom of a larger problem, those incompetent thugs in uniform. They think the world is so cut and dry, good and bad, and you see it in the posts here. Every situation has a right and a wrong, and if only we shared the amazing gift some of these guys apparently have, why it would always work out.
What they fail to understand is the lose-lose situation. This is one of the first lessons to come with experience. Sometimes, being who we are we are called to deal with things when all else has failed, and failed repeatedly. This lose-lose situation doesn't exist on the web forums. There's always a solution here. Here there are a finite number of circumstances that exist under which a shooting can take place. They've discussed them and they've got the answers for each as it comes. Lose-lose exists in the real world. The world where decisions must be made in a split second. The world where sometimes there are no good outcomes, only varying degrees of bad.
There's an old saying that talks about walking a mile in another man's shoes. Try it. Go out and do a ride along. I think you'll find that these people in uniform aren't the villains you've made them out to be. Nor are they incompetent. And they're not super hero's either. We are ordinary people, occasionally confronted with extraordinary circumstances. Those in our ranks make mistakes, sometimes egregious ones. I'm not here to offer excuses for that. Occasionally people die as a result. Just as dead as when an irresponsible gun owner makes a mistake. I'm sure many of you detest it as much as I do when people paint all gun owners with the same stroke.
I don't expect any of you who've never been there to understand this. You can't. There's a very distinct feeling you get when rushing to a call and realizing that this one could be the one. When you get to the point of breaking leather there's either a million things going through your mind, or you get tunnel vision. Neither is particularly good but they're part of the human psyche. You can't train it away. And things happen fast. Then it's over. Some kid whose parents just put them through Princeton puts the facts down on paper best they can get them from the brass and the witnesses. Then the trial begins. Not in court, not yet. This "story" is exhibit "a". And they'll try to hang you with it.
Vex
Member
Very powerful words, Amen.
NineseveN
member
My oh my, the bias from both angles is pretty amazing.
1. Drunk with a gun. Bad.
2. Get into a fight, while drunk with a gun. Double Bad.
3. Chasing the folks you got into a fight with, while drunk, waving your gun around. Triple bad.
4. Allegedly ignore verbal commands from arriving uniformed officers while holding agun, while drunk. Quadruple bad.
5. Allegedly point your gun towards a uniformed officer or make a furtive movment while you have another man on the ground that were just pointing your gun at. Quintuple bad.
I don't see any other way to call it based on the information we can get from this thread. Herandez seems to have screwed, sometimes stupid hurts permanently.
1. Drunk with a gun. Bad.
2. Get into a fight, while drunk with a gun. Double Bad.
3. Chasing the folks you got into a fight with, while drunk, waving your gun around. Triple bad.
4. Allegedly ignore verbal commands from arriving uniformed officers while holding agun, while drunk. Quadruple bad.
5. Allegedly point your gun towards a uniformed officer or make a furtive movment while you have another man on the ground that were just pointing your gun at. Quintuple bad.
I don't see any other way to call it based on the information we can get from this thread. Herandez seems to have screwed, sometimes stupid hurts permanently.
Last edited:
I'd have to agree somewhat.
Rules of shooting or expecting to get shot should apply reguardless of your job or rank. Im not pro or anti leo, its just an unfortunate fact that cops and soldiers commit crimes too.
It disturbs me to think that if this drunk guy was in his uniform, and doing the exact same things they supposedly shot him for, his attacker would have been seen as in the wrong.
The responding officers should feel no remorse for doing the right thing, assuming they actually did the right thing.
Lennyjoe
Member
Don't be so sure about that. Plenty of Active/retired LEO's here.
There seems to be a small amount of bias against the law but not enough to say "real ugly"
Cosmoline
Member
gmarshall139 said:
So police are a breed apart from "civilians" and we who have not worn a badge cannot sit in judgment upon them?
Everything I know about the NYPD and the laws they enforce tells me they are the enemy. I won't set foot anywhere near that place. It's a veritable police state. I'm no more inclined to give those people the benefit of the doubt than I would give the LAPD or the Chinese Military the benefit of the doubt. They don't deserve it.
Carl N. Brown
Member
There is the problem that a person in flight-or-fight or just enraged
may sometimes be temporarily deaf and operating with tunnelvision.
That is supposed to be an effect of adrenalin.
Unfortunately, the responding cops could yell "POLICE! DROP YOUR
WEAPON!" and a person in fear of their life, or outraged, simply would
not hear them.
News stories must grab the reader in the first paragraph. Then they add
some details, to some arbitrary limit, say 300 words. Then they go into
more or less detailed account, then a summary. This lets the paper
receiving the feed to cut it off when the space between the car tire
ad and the underwear ad is filled up. All the news that grabs then fits.
I still do not have a handle on the full context of this event.
We had a guest editorial in our local Tennessee paper in 1999 by a New
York magazine editor (who lived in Connecticut) who remarked that New
York City Police are among the most trigger-happy in the nation. So
"THR" armchair experts are not the only ones guilty of prejudice
against cops. We got here as many people who automatically defend
police as we have people who are automatically cynical. When the
two factions clash, then it gets ugly, but sometimes we get a
few good points made from calmer heads on both sides.
We should not jump to conclusions about this shooting til we get full
facts, and then look at it from the perspective of how we could avoid
any mistakes made.
This event also makes a good argument against a CCW holder trying
to hold a suspect at gunpoint, but that (armed citizen arrest) is a whole
'nother thread.
may sometimes be temporarily deaf and operating with tunnelvision.
That is supposed to be an effect of adrenalin.
Unfortunately, the responding cops could yell "POLICE! DROP YOUR
WEAPON!" and a person in fear of their life, or outraged, simply would
not hear them.
News stories must grab the reader in the first paragraph. Then they add
some details, to some arbitrary limit, say 300 words. Then they go into
more or less detailed account, then a summary. This lets the paper
receiving the feed to cut it off when the space between the car tire
ad and the underwear ad is filled up. All the news that grabs then fits.
I still do not have a handle on the full context of this event.
We had a guest editorial in our local Tennessee paper in 1999 by a New
York magazine editor (who lived in Connecticut) who remarked that New
York City Police are among the most trigger-happy in the nation. So
"THR" armchair experts are not the only ones guilty of prejudice
against cops. We got here as many people who automatically defend
police as we have people who are automatically cynical. When the
two factions clash, then it gets ugly, but sometimes we get a
few good points made from calmer heads on both sides.
We should not jump to conclusions about this shooting til we get full
facts, and then look at it from the perspective of how we could avoid
any mistakes made.
This event also makes a good argument against a CCW holder trying
to hold a suspect at gunpoint, but that (armed citizen arrest) is a whole
'nother thread.
jerkface11
Member
Let's pretend the guy who got shot was a CCW holder. He would have been brought up on charges for carrying a firearm into a bar. Probably more for fighting and brandishing a weapon.
Now let's pretend the shooter was a CCW holder. He'd be in jail for shooting an off duty cop. But since both were cops NO ONE will be charged.
Much like THIS case http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=178717 in St. louis where a cop's gun went off in a restraunt she fled the scene and threw the gun away. No charges. I guess a badge means it's always a good shoot.
Now let's pretend the shooter was a CCW holder. He'd be in jail for shooting an off duty cop. But since both were cops NO ONE will be charged.
Much like THIS case http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=178717 in St. louis where a cop's gun went off in a restraunt she fled the scene and threw the gun away. No charges. I guess a badge means it's always a good shoot.
English John
Member
Read gmarshall139's post. READ IT AGAIN.
That was the best advice in 3 pages. If your local department allows it, do a ride-along. You might get to see how quickly life-or-death decisions must be made. Cop-on-cop shootings get a lot of press (remember the subway shooting?), but when the cop handled it right, and the person (or OD cop) did what he was told, it works out OK but you don't read about it in the press. When you challenge someone at gun-point (whether on the street or in your house) you may use all of the available time to consider that he may be deaf, drunk, suffering from auditory exclusion, a foreigner from another culture who doesn't understand us in the USA, or just plain stupid. When all of the available time is gone (and that may have been a fraction of a second) and now he is pointing what you sincerely believe is a weapon at you, what would YOU do? I hope you were right, because now we have months and months to review your split-second decision, and the public will use their emotions, not fact, to come up with a judgement. And yes, it is better to cover someone from behind something that is bullet proof if it is close and available, but what if you are in a parking lot or on the street and the situation just blows up in your face? I don't believe that all 13,000 NYC LEOs are saints, and if you have truly been abused by any of them you can see a civialian review board or start a lawsuit with the FBI because your civil rights were violated. We had a similar discussion last summer when some of you believed that if you were arrested and confessed and the judge asked you if Miranda had been read to you, then the cops MUST have beaten a confession out of you everytime without exception. If you truly believe this, and that every LEO on your local police force is a trigger happy buffoon with an inflated ego who is out to get you personally, then I would strongly suggest you move to Mayberry.
That was the best advice in 3 pages. If your local department allows it, do a ride-along. You might get to see how quickly life-or-death decisions must be made. Cop-on-cop shootings get a lot of press (remember the subway shooting?), but when the cop handled it right, and the person (or OD cop) did what he was told, it works out OK but you don't read about it in the press. When you challenge someone at gun-point (whether on the street or in your house) you may use all of the available time to consider that he may be deaf, drunk, suffering from auditory exclusion, a foreigner from another culture who doesn't understand us in the USA, or just plain stupid. When all of the available time is gone (and that may have been a fraction of a second) and now he is pointing what you sincerely believe is a weapon at you, what would YOU do? I hope you were right, because now we have months and months to review your split-second decision, and the public will use their emotions, not fact, to come up with a judgement. And yes, it is better to cover someone from behind something that is bullet proof if it is close and available, but what if you are in a parking lot or on the street and the situation just blows up in your face? I don't believe that all 13,000 NYC LEOs are saints, and if you have truly been abused by any of them you can see a civialian review board or start a lawsuit with the FBI because your civil rights were violated. We had a similar discussion last summer when some of you believed that if you were arrested and confessed and the judge asked you if Miranda had been read to you, then the cops MUST have beaten a confession out of you everytime without exception. If you truly believe this, and that every LEO on your local police force is a trigger happy buffoon with an inflated ego who is out to get you personally, then I would strongly suggest you move to Mayberry.
Zen21Tao
Member
Glenn Bartley said:
Using the relatively few accidential and/or reckless uses of a firearm that kill innocent people compared to those times a firearm is used to save innocent lives is the same type argument gun grabbers use to justify taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. I have no doubt that daily life in a city with such strict anti-gun laws as NY would lead a NY police officer (even if only uncounsciously) to see any armed person as a criminal rather than a possible good guy. Thank Liberalism for creating the very incidents they use to justify their arguments.
So no matter how you explain it, Im just to common a man to understand, is that it?
You cant imply that LEO's are the best people to use lethal force because of good training and experience, then exceuse their mistakes more often when they screw up just as badly as anyone could have.
If they claim to be super human, people will hold them to super human standards.
molonlabe
Member
And that my friends is the rub to all of us unwashed masses.
NineseveN
member
First, let me say that I do agree that there are some folks on this board that are most assuredly anti-LEO, their bias is obvious.
However, for many of us, it's not the individual LEO that bothers us so much as it is the whole "thin blue line" thing. A lot of LEO's feel they are not civilians, they feel they are different and different rules apply to them because the system tells them so. Examples such as the thread here where the bookie was killed by an officer's negligence and in that thread it was brought up that there is no safety rule #2 (never point a weapon at anything you are not willing to destroy) for LEO's, or this case where this guy is drunk carrying a weapon and gets into a fight (unknown if he started it or not) and then proceeds to chase down the folks he was fighting with, waiving his gun around in public (again, mind you, he was under the influence of alcohol).
It's not the cop's fault that he is not going to be charged with the same things a civilian would in the same situation, he doesn't control that. So while I think Hernandez should be charged with some felonies and do some jail time just like any Civilian would in this case, how can I fault him if the folks in charge of that won't push the case? I can't. I can fault him for what he did, but the system bears the blame for allowing him to be subject to different rules no doubt simply because he caries a badge. He'll be fired, maybe. We'll see what happens, that is just my presumption given the track record of law enforcement punishing one of their own.
To me, a police officer is a civilian that has a job like anyone else. It's more dangerous than being an accountant, but less dangerous than being a crabber or an underwater welder. When he or she is off duty, they're a civilian unless a situation calls for immediate police presence, then they can provide that.
Now I have a feeling folks are going to come at me with the old "read the definition of the word, 'civilian' and you'll see LEO's are not civvies." I understand the definition of the word, but I cannot get past what I have been educated to understand, the DoD (my employer through sub-contract) regards local law enforcement as civilian law enforcement, as do many other federal agencies I am sure. I remember back when police officers were called just that, police officers...when the change went to popularizing the term 'law enforcement', the police forces across the country became militarized and now all of the sudden they're non-civilians as far as they're concerned and the rules don't apply to them. That's just not right.
However, the same can be said of the flip side of that coin. Holding law enforcement officers to a higher degree of scrutiny than one would any other civilian in a high-impact profession is wrong, thinking the police are always in the wrong is just as bad as thinking they are always in the right or that somehow the rules don't apply to them. Both methods of thought are counterproductive and false, and I see a lot of such bias both ways here. I think the pot and the kettle should realize that they're both black on this one.
Peace.
However, for many of us, it's not the individual LEO that bothers us so much as it is the whole "thin blue line" thing. A lot of LEO's feel they are not civilians, they feel they are different and different rules apply to them because the system tells them so. Examples such as the thread here where the bookie was killed by an officer's negligence and in that thread it was brought up that there is no safety rule #2 (never point a weapon at anything you are not willing to destroy) for LEO's, or this case where this guy is drunk carrying a weapon and gets into a fight (unknown if he started it or not) and then proceeds to chase down the folks he was fighting with, waiving his gun around in public (again, mind you, he was under the influence of alcohol).
It's not the cop's fault that he is not going to be charged with the same things a civilian would in the same situation, he doesn't control that. So while I think Hernandez should be charged with some felonies and do some jail time just like any Civilian would in this case, how can I fault him if the folks in charge of that won't push the case? I can't. I can fault him for what he did, but the system bears the blame for allowing him to be subject to different rules no doubt simply because he caries a badge. He'll be fired, maybe. We'll see what happens, that is just my presumption given the track record of law enforcement punishing one of their own.
To me, a police officer is a civilian that has a job like anyone else. It's more dangerous than being an accountant, but less dangerous than being a crabber or an underwater welder. When he or she is off duty, they're a civilian unless a situation calls for immediate police presence, then they can provide that.
Now I have a feeling folks are going to come at me with the old "read the definition of the word, 'civilian' and you'll see LEO's are not civvies." I understand the definition of the word, but I cannot get past what I have been educated to understand, the DoD (my employer through sub-contract) regards local law enforcement as civilian law enforcement, as do many other federal agencies I am sure. I remember back when police officers were called just that, police officers...when the change went to popularizing the term 'law enforcement', the police forces across the country became militarized and now all of the sudden they're non-civilians as far as they're concerned and the rules don't apply to them. That's just not right.
However, the same can be said of the flip side of that coin. Holding law enforcement officers to a higher degree of scrutiny than one would any other civilian in a high-impact profession is wrong, thinking the police are always in the wrong is just as bad as thinking they are always in the right or that somehow the rules don't apply to them. Both methods of thought are counterproductive and false, and I see a lot of such bias both ways here. I think the pot and the kettle should realize that they're both black on this one.
Peace.
Nineseven,
Thanks for clarifying your position. I agree that the role of police in the US is as a civilian force. I've been a member of the National Guard as well where we trained for both roles, both as civilian assistants to law enforcement, and of course as soldiers. Very different roles. I'll be the last to argue that different rules should apply to the police. I think it's just that we find ourselves in those situations much more frequently. A police officer will draw their weapon many more times in the course of their duties than an armed citizen, but we still need justification for doing so.
This was my statement that you are referring to:
My statement was that rule #2 does not apply to law enforcement. Perhaps I could have worded it a little better, but there are situations when it is necessary to cover someone at gunpoint. And I'm not saying it doesn't apply exclusively to law enforcement.
And this is the point that I think upset some people on the other thread. There are instances where it is necessary for an armed citizen to do the same. In fact the example I gave was of someone encountering an intruder in their home. How many of us would challenge them at the low ready? Not me. Whose under you? Is the floor a safe backstop? What if the guy comes at you? That's part of what I mean by a lot of stuff to weigh in a short time. That's just one situation and you never know the circumstances of the next until your confronted with it. How about the guy with a knife. He want's to die but can't do it himself. As you are covering him he's thinking about it. When he makes up his mind and charges I don't want to start off from a handicap. A highly fluid situation like either a self defense situation or a felony arrest has too many variables to consider all of them in advance. Don't get me wrong, rule #2 is gold for the range, hunt, home, etc., but there are times when it has to be violated. And as I said before, the individual making that decision has to take responsibility for that.
Thanks for clarifying your position. I agree that the role of police in the US is as a civilian force. I've been a member of the National Guard as well where we trained for both roles, both as civilian assistants to law enforcement, and of course as soldiers. Very different roles. I'll be the last to argue that different rules should apply to the police. I think it's just that we find ourselves in those situations much more frequently. A police officer will draw their weapon many more times in the course of their duties than an armed citizen, but we still need justification for doing so.
This was my statement that you are referring to:
NineseveN said:
My statement was that rule #2 does not apply to law enforcement. Perhaps I could have worded it a little better, but there are situations when it is necessary to cover someone at gunpoint. And I'm not saying it doesn't apply exclusively to law enforcement.
And this is the point that I think upset some people on the other thread. There are instances where it is necessary for an armed citizen to do the same. In fact the example I gave was of someone encountering an intruder in their home. How many of us would challenge them at the low ready? Not me. Whose under you? Is the floor a safe backstop? What if the guy comes at you? That's part of what I mean by a lot of stuff to weigh in a short time. That's just one situation and you never know the circumstances of the next until your confronted with it. How about the guy with a knife. He want's to die but can't do it himself. As you are covering him he's thinking about it. When he makes up his mind and charges I don't want to start off from a handicap. A highly fluid situation like either a self defense situation or a felony arrest has too many variables to consider all of them in advance. Don't get me wrong, rule #2 is gold for the range, hunt, home, etc., but there are times when it has to be violated. And as I said before, the individual making that decision has to take responsibility for that.
NineseveN
member
gmarshall139 said:
I agree, it should have been worded better. The problem that folks will have is that we all know there is abuse by poorly trained or screened police officers. I have seen and heard about cops covering folks with their muzzles that have shown no aggression, no intent, are not suspects of a violent crime and have not made any suspicious movements or gestures because they feel that power comes from the barrel of a gun. Now, they may be right, a gun does give some power, but they're here as civil servants, all I ask is that a concerted effort be made for police officers to be mindful of whom they serve. Probably about 30% of the folks I talk to and interact with are LEO or former LEO, I am in no way bashing cops, I have a high respect for them, but only when they follow the rules.
Not relevant unless a cop confronts a violent perp in the cop's home. In my opinion, a police officer does not have the same rights in public while performing their duties that a free citizen has while being the victim of a crime in their own home. There is no comparison.
The man has a knife in this scenario, it is a weapon, command, cover, then follow procedure. This is a far cry from a guy that makes money taking sports bets or any other non-violent offender. At this point the perp has opportunity to use deadly force, the officer may legitimately be thought of as in danger or close proximity to it. It is reasonable to cover the suspect with your muzzle in this case.
The care with which one treats rule #2 shows a lot about how seriously they take safety, and in the realm of law enforcement or even military, it shows a lot about their character in regards to doing their job.
Rule #2:
Never point a firearm at anything you do not intend to or are willing to destroy.
If you're going to tell me it is and should be standard operating procedure to be willing to or have intent to destroy (fire upon and possibly kill) a non-violent offender or a felony suspect that has made no credible indication of being a threat and who is allegedly innocent until proven guilty just to shave a few hundredths of a second off of your draw time for the safety of the police and in doing so place the "suspect in danger", we will disagree vehemently and argue until the cows come home. This, IMHO, is completely unacceptable and is highly indicative of the reasons why some of the more rational and unbiased of us still have an inherent lack of trust when dealing with unfamiliar officers of the law, no matter how much respect we have for the profession.
Peace.
Last edited:
SSN Vet
Member
judging other
judge not lest you be judged
isn't that why we have boards of inquiry and jurys
judge not lest you be judged
isn't that why we have boards of inquiry and jurys
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked