The NEW LEO Encounters... - Page 3
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 71

Thread: The NEW LEO Encounters...

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    1,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Lakeland Man View Post
    Then by your reasoning, all gun owners are suspect. They shouldn't be trusted because any one of them COULD be a mass murderer. It's been proven in a court of law that gun owners have killed people.

    I reject that argument. Like I stated, it's exactly the same as the Brady bunch argument.
    1. I guarantee you that I'm suspect in the eyes of a lot of police, both as a gun owner and for any number of other reasons, none of them crimes or cause for reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed.
    2. Let me be clear: I have NO need or desire to be "trusted" by police. I only need for the police to know and obey the law.

  2.   
  3. In my personal life, I've run about 25 to 1 encounters with "good" officers v. the one "bad" officer who waved my "shall issue" Concealed Pistol License in my face and told me that it could be revoked because another customer (not the management, another customer) was alarmed by the handgun in the holster on my belt, with a retention strap fastened, while I was eating dinner in a restaurant at dinner time. He then proceeded to strong arm a waitress who was too young to serve alcohol to escort him while he trespassed me from the premises. When the restaurant owners did find out about the encounter the next day, they called me, apologized profusely about the encounter, they had no desire for police intervention the night before, had no desire for me to be removed from the premises, and specifically invited me, family and friends to return to their restaurant, bearing our firearms.

    The following weekend a group of 12-14 of us openly carrying as we normally do met in the restaurant with some of our families and friends for a luncheon. The Chief of Police and any of his force was invited to join us for social interaction, but was warned that we were invited guests of the restaurant and any attempt to unlawfully remove us from private property would result in a lawsuit filed against the police officers and the city. We never saw any police officers in any capacity. In response to my email, the Chief of Police justified the officer's earlier action of removing me from private property as a "matter of public safety", even though that same officer never disarmed me and watch me get into my vehicle still fully armed and drive away.

    Notice, though, what I started this post with. That encounter was 1 in probably 25 various interactions I have had with law enforcement officers during traffic stops and whatnot and all of the other officers were nothing less than completely professional.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  4. #23
    We, average citizens, are the feared enemy of government, and the militarization of every police department is their solution. Too many people don't pay attention and buy the bunk, that it is to protect us, when in fact it is to protect them from us.

    We all have seen video (not from the media, but from citizens) of military style strike forces removing families from every house in a 20 block area of Boston from their homes at gunpoint, all over an unarmed, wounded 19 year-old. Boston is the home ground of citizens standing up to a tyrannical government over 200 years ago, only to beget a city full of surrender monkeys, that make the French look some real Rambo style warriors.

    The first spark of freedom from government started in Boston, and it has totally and completely eliminated, a city full of subjects to the system that do not deserve to call themselves Americans or patriots. But that is the plan, the militarization of law enforcement, and the propaganda ministers selling it to people that will trade freedom for a false sense of security.

    Attachment 9987
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  5. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lakeland Man View Post
    NavyLCDR, let me ask you a question. Now I don't know if you are active duty or reserve, but if there were a crime committed "on post" who would you call? And when you DID call the SP's, would you expect them to be as incompetent as you seem to think civilian LE are?
    I am active duty. Currently deployed on an aircraft carrier. If there is crime committed I report it to the ship's security duty officer. The level of incompetence would depend entirely upon the individuals involved. I would like you to show us where I state that civilian LE are incompetent. What I have stated, and what continues to prove to be true is that largest source of misinformation regarding firearms laws continue to prove themselves to be gun shop employees, CCW instructors and LE officers. That doesn't mean police officer are incompenent. What it means is that they cannot be expected to be law experts.

    Here's the perfect example for you Lakeland Man. I saw in a meeting of a local group of democrats and the topic was firearms laws. They had the County Sheriff, the head law enforcement officer in the county there, and the city Chief of Police. Myself and a couple other members of my group were openly carrying our handguns in holsters on our belt. The meeting was held in a public building - the government operated public library. We had asked the leader of the group if we could attend their meeting ahead of time, and were told it would be fine if we attended. One of the questions that one of the audience posed to the Sheriff and to the Chief of Police was exactly why was my group allowed to carry our firearms in a public library, and what could be done about it.

    The Chief of Police stated that we were allowed to carry our firearms in the public library because there were no signs on the building prohibiting it. The Sheriff agreed with the Chief of Police. I happen to live in Washington State where this meeting took place. RCW 9.41.290 prohibits local governments from enacting firearms bans that are not specified in state law. RCW 9.41.300 specifies the locations where firearms are prohibited, and public government buildings is not one of the prohibited places (except for courthouses). So the real answer to the person's question about firearms in the library had absolutely nothing to do with signs or not because if the library was posted, the signs themselves would be a violation of state law and would be completely meaningless. So what does this tell you about the Sheriff and Chief of Police? Are they incompetent? No. They can't be expected know every law about every subject. But when they are approaching me in the public library regarding my firearm, I better be ready to defend myself against their mistaken beliefs about what the law actually says. The very first defense is simply to ask, "Officer, are you detaining me?" If the answer is no, then, "Thank you officer, I will be going about my business then."
    I would disagree about their incompetence. Being in LE especially an elected Sheriff or a Chief comes with certain responsibilities. Can they be expected to know every law verbatim? No, absolutely not. But IMO their incompetence comes from their inability to admit their lack of knowledge when a question is posed. If you don't know the law then just say so, instead of spreading misinformation throughout the public.

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    We, average citizens, are the feared enemy of government, and the militarization of every police department is their solution. Too many people don't pay attention and buy the bunk, that it is to protect us, when in fact it is to protect them from us.

    We all have seen video (not from the media, but from citizens) of military style strike forces removing families from every house in a 20 block area of Boston from their homes at gunpoint, all over an unarmed, wounded 19 year-old. Boston is the home ground of citizens standing up to a tyrannical government over 200 years ago, only to beget a city full of surrender monkeys, that make the French look some real Rambo style warriors.

    The first spark of freedom from government started in Boston, and it has totally and completely eliminated, a city full of subjects to the system that do not deserve to call themselves Americans or patriots. But that is the plan, the militarization of law enforcement, and the propaganda ministers selling it to people that will trade freedom for a false sense of security.

    Attachment 9987
    From NavyLCDR, I quote, "In response to my email, the Chief of Police justified the officer's earlier action of removing me from private property as a "matter of public safety", even though that same officer never disarmed me and watch me get into my vehicle still fully armed and drive away."
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I am in no way disparaging cops in general - not even a little bit. I believe that the vast majority of policemen and women are honorable people and most police forces are administered competently. I also know that due to the stress of the job and the authority given, there is a code of silence and solidarity that will not be breached. (recently a State Trooper is being ostricized by fellow officers for not supporting his partner, caught on dash cam, for arresting a sober passenger as 'the drunk driver' when the actual driver gets away. Someone, even the innocent had to be collared.). If these police are upholding the Constitution, then they best do it and their fellow officers should be supporting that oath and not each others wrong doing.

    In the above quotes... going from home to home, forcing people out of their homes while assuming the position... is totally unconstitutional and completely wrong! And which of those officers lodged a complaint or refused to violate their fellow citizens rights? Show me one... I see a lot of gung-ho vigilantes herding people out and going through their houses without a warrant, or stating a reason for the search, or having any dialogue whatsoever - just - GET OUT! These officers, are of course following orders but this is the type of thing that turns into really bad things for the folks.
    In the above quote from NavyLCDR - the Chief of Police condones his officers action even though it's illegal. We can all parce words here and state "public safety, etc" but the action was illegal, pure and simple.

    This country is going down a slide that is getting steeper by the day and the nations police forces are complicit in this descent!
    “You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you mad.” – Aldous Huxley

  7. Quote Originally Posted by MI .45 View Post
    From NavyLCDR, I quote, "In response to my email, the Chief of Police justified the officer's earlier action of removing me from private property as a "matter of public safety", even though that same officer never disarmed me and watch me get into my vehicle still fully armed and drive away."
    As a follow-up, the Chief of Police of Oak Harbor, WA, where the encounter occurred was replaced. The new chief of police, Ed Green, who I believe took over in November last year, is absolutely the most professional and knowledgeable LEO I have had the chance of talking with. There was a little drama over the city council refusing to remove an illegal ordinance banning firearms in city parks early this year, and I met a few times with Chief Green to discuss the issue and he is 100% solid in his support of all the rights of citizens from the 2nd through the 4th and 5th Amendments.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,421
    Quote Originally Posted by Lakeland Man View Post
    @vernsimpson...I'm sorry about the trouble you had with your neighbor. Did he abuse his police authority in any way? If so, then he was completely wrong. If he did not, then his status as a police officer makes no difference. He may as well have been a CPA or a garbage man. Don't confuse what a person does for a living with who they are. Your story doesn't give enough details to understand what really happened and how his job entered into the equation.
    So a person who is known in their personal life to practice double-standards of conduct between themselves and their neighbors should not be expected to practice double-standards of conduct between themselves and those over whom they have virtually unlimited control and power? Yes, I know the Constitution and lower-level laws are what "limit" a cop's power, but that's what's being discussed here (in part), that laws are only a protector of The People's rights and liberties when they're followed by its enforcers, and it happens more than often enough that they aren't followed, that it's only prudent to distrust them out in the field. That you think that someone who is a cop for a living can divorce him/herself from "who they are" (in the example above, a practitioner of double-standards) just because they put on a uniform is exactly the attitude that supports cops' abusive attitudes over that of reality. What they do is who they are, and they'll do it when claiming a neighborhood fire hydrant as their own personal parking spot at home, just like they'll do it when dragging people out of their homes in Boston for no (legal) reason, or searching cars on open highways at gunpoint because one ex-cop went off the rails in So Cal.

    The cops, ex-cops and cop badgefluffers on this forum always seem to whine about nobody ever posting about LEOs doing a good thing. If we did, here's what every headline would look like:

    Extra! Extra! Cop Does His Job!

    Don't you guys get it? Cops are supposed to do good, even great things! They're supposed to be legitimate protectors of both life and rights. Instead they expect to be seen as such just because they put on a uniform (or full-on battle gear these days) and made it through the Academy, and seem to think they don't have to earn that reputation every single day.

    You guys want to stop seeing stories posted about bad cops, then go out and do your jobs well, and demand that your compadres do theirs well too. And when the leaders of your agencies support the bad ones and only support you when you support them too, then either get another job if you can't handle the pressure, or become a whistle-blower. There are legal protections for them that are violated on a daily basis too. By whom? Take a wild guess.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  9. #28
    Blues, I did my job. I did it well. I didn't abuse my authority. I performed my duty with conviction and compassion. I always tried to remember why I went into Law Enforcement in the first place. And I never expected and very rarely received thanks or even appreciation for what I did and for what I risked. That included from my wife (now ex-wife). So I am a strong supporter and "badge fluffer" because I fully understand what it means to be hated, scorned and mistrusted on a daily basis. It tend to make you bitter and you begin to look at the general public differently.

  10. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Lakeland Man View Post
    Blues, I did my job. I did it well. I didn't abuse my authority. I performed my duty with conviction and compassion. I always tried to remember why I went into Law Enforcement in the first place. And I never expected and very rarely received thanks or even appreciation for what I did and for what I risked. That included from my wife (now ex-wife). So I am a strong supporter and "badge fluffer" because I fully understand what it means to be hated, scorned and mistrusted on a daily basis. It tend to make you bitter and you begin to look at the general public differently.
    The problem is not the rank and file LEO, just trying to do their job, and go home at end of shift.

    However, just as our children are being indoctrinated by government in school, the tactics and objectives that LEO's are being trained in are desensitizing them to citizens and subtly instilling the concept that citizens are the enemy.

    The Constitution, narry a mention for your kids in school, or the cadet LEO going through BLET.
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  11. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,421
    Quote Originally Posted by Lakeland Man View Post
    Blues, I did my job. I did it well. I didn't abuse my authority. I performed my duty with conviction and compassion. I always tried to remember why I went into Law Enforcement in the first place. And I never expected and very rarely received thanks or even appreciation for what I did and for what I risked. That included from my wife (now ex-wife). So I am a strong supporter and "badge fluffer" because I fully understand what it means to be hated, scorned and mistrusted on a daily basis. It tend to make you bitter and you begin to look at the general public differently.
    Like I said, a story's headline about cops doing good simply reads, "He did his job." You just wrote the body of that story underneath that headline. It's much more refreshing to read than the contempt for citizens Deserteagle spews on a regular basis. But like every other "hater" here, I didn't say all cops were deserving of distrust, I said that enough are that it's only prudent to distrust them until after the contact is over and they haven't violated our rights and/or well being. But even at that point, all I could really say or think is, "Cool. That cop just did his job." It's not hate on my part, and my scorn is reserved only for those who earn it. But distrust is just prudent caution, and you know as well as I, it goes both ways. When was the last time most citizens could honestly say they were approached by a cop as though he trusted them? If it's prudent on their part to approach a car they pulled over with caution because a lot, not all, of citizens have proven they need to exert that caution, then it's just as prudent for citizens to be cautious and distrusting of cops for the exact same reason. And you know when both parties know for sure that the other was trustworthy? Of course you know. You were a cop. When the contact was over is the only time you fully trusted a citizen, and the only time a (prudent) citizen trusted you.

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Just because you got extensive training in how to be overly cautious of every contact you made, doesn't mean that citizens who figure out for themselves that it's prudent for them to do the same thing for the exact same reason you did it is legitimately worthy of criticism. I don't hate or have scorn for you or any other cop I've never encountered. I reserve the right, however, to reserve my trust only to those (of any profession or background) who have earned it through personal interaction. The very fact that I have very little (as close to none as I can possibly make it) personal interaction with cops only serves to suggest that I'm either a criminal genius and never get caught in my criminal endeavors, or that I am a consistent and committed law abiding citizen, and if the latter is true (which it is), any cop who would care that I have no wish to interact with them would only prove that my distrust is warranted, because they wouldn't be protecting my rights to pick my friends and associations as I see fit.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast