If you haven't read this or sent this...u should have

Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful reply. However, I don't buy two of your comments.

If you were to just go observe an OC-er and not contact them you would be just as effective and would not invoke any issues with your 'boss'.

Second, you are immune from being sued in all but the most egregious situations and even then it just doesn't happen. So, your defense that you must make contact does not cut it.

I'd just like to have you discuss the REAL reason you guys do it not some 'he made me' excuse. But if you don't feel comfortable looking at motivation (especially among others in your profession who are not so 'nice') then that's your prerogative.

And the example of going out and contacting hunters because it's the start of squirrel season and they are perfectly legal is silly. You're not a game warden. In fact I'd say that if that happened and you had reasonable suspicion they were without permits you'd contact the local ranger and have him do it.

It's all about 'reasonable and articulable suspicion'. If you don't have it you shouldn't be stopping people doing perfectly legal things.

Dakota663 said:

OC for ME - I see what you are saying how the one sentence in the email that had the Culver's 5 provided ID, this could have been avoided - could be interpreted as blaming them for the situation. I will counter, however, that if you read the rest of the email, it is pretty clear from everything else I said that the change that needed to be made was in LE because this one was handled incorrectly.
<snip>

Click to expand...

I was in the midst of a lengthy reply and figured it was not worth it. You refuse to read what I wrote in the initial response to your e-mail. You refuse to accept responsibility for what you wrote in your e-mail as your views then, and possibly your views now on OCers.

This is the Missouri sub-forum. Your e-mail was posted almost 20 months ago, and you didn't post it. I figured that you would not come here to defend your position because you didn't post the e-mail. I responded to the e-mail for the benefit of the readers of this thread back then, and I stand by every word I wrote. Your words back then were anti-liberty and anti-citizen. Respond on point and I will engage in a lively debate. Resort to false claims and innuendo and I will chalk you up as another cop who claims to be one of the good guys but whose words tell a different story.

You don't know me either and I have a record here on OCDO regarding my views of LE and the citizens who join that profession. If you are a good cop, great, but I cannot afford to take you at your word. Even folks in WI, and Madison I suspect, hold the same view as I in-spite of your claims. All I know is that good cops and bad cops look the same. Even nice sounding, polite cops, will violate a OCer's rights. Too many videos to link to prove this is true, you will just have to take my word on this point.

Example of a "nice cop": Find the thread regarding a WI cop (not MPD)telling a law abiding citizen that he will shoot him in the head if. There are few folks around here who think the OCer deserved his treatment, maybe you will too.

The LEOs safety is paramount, to the detriment of the citizens rights and the rule of law.

WHAT!!! LEOs do not use past experiences, professional training, proven investigative techniques, instinct, to determine if 'crime is afoot'? I'll betcha a dollar to a box of doughnuts that Officer Alan has been allowed to use, in a court room, his 'instincts', combined with 'time of day', the 'type of neighborhood', and other such 'intangibles' to detain a citizen who has not displayed any criminal activity to 'just check the citizen out'. Because, we all know that any one thing may not indicate criminal activity, but if Officer Alan can string enough 'things' together, the citizen must be guilty of some thing, and the Officer Alan will not rest until he finds that something. If nothing, well, just arrest anyway and see if a judge will go along with the lie. If not, no big deal, no scratch out of his wallet.

Click to expand...

I did not state that you "simply stop." You may have read that, that is on you, but you are a cop and cops use the bolded to justify a stop and the courts have held that you can simply stop because of you stringing together intangibles. No observed criminal act is required depending on the situation. If you state that you have never done the above then I will retract and apologize. You would be the very very rare cop indeed.

Welcome to OCDO and be safe.

Maverick9 said:

Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful reply. However, I don't buy two of your comments.

If you were to just go observe an OC-er and not contact them you would be just as effective and would not invoke any issues with your 'boss'.

Click to expand...

Given that I have a clear set of facts ahead of time, I would agree 100%. In fact, if I knew the information was correct that I was receiving through the radio was true, I wouldn't have to respond at all. I would even go as far to say that in probably 75% of the OC calls we get (and we don't get many anymore) the person is GOA (gone on arrival) so we don't make contact anyways. The problem is the information provided to us or dispatch is usually not that clear.

Consider the people who call in OC complaints: They fall into one of three categories: 1) they are ignorant of the law 2) they want to screw with gun owners because they don't like guns 3) they don't see the entire picture and fill in the rest themselves. How accurate do you think the information is that we get from people like this? Usually #1 is pretty easy for the dispatcher to deal with and connect the dots for us that is is PROBABLY an OC case. #2 and #3 you won't get good information from, period so in those cases you have to verify. I mentioned before - I've been to calls dispatched as noise complaints only to arrive on the scene of a shooting, and vice versa. My job is a circus, on the best of days.

I agree that a no-contact could often be the best approach. We use it for other calls. Right now, our SOP is to contact people. I think part of that comes from the fact that there is a known weapon involved. Is it right? Probably not. I think that will loosen up as LE gets used to WI citizens legally carrying firearms. I think it has loosened tremendously already. The reality is when CCW came around in WI, everyone cried "the sky is falling, there will be blood in the streets!" The same thing happened in MN, OH, and everywhere else when they lifted CCW prohibitions. Of course, everything went swimmingly. Well, after a while the community, politicians and police officers see that the sky isn't going to fall, then they adapt and what was once thought of as new and bizarre becomes normal and no big deal.

Second, you are immune from being sued in all but the most egregious situations and even then it just doesn't happen. So, your defense that you must make contact does not cut it.

I'd just like to have you discuss the REAL reason you guys do it not some 'he made me' excuse. But if you don't feel comfortable looking at motivation (especially among others in your profession who are not so 'nice') then that's your prerogative.

And the example of going out and contacting hunters because it's the start of squirrel season and they are perfectly legal is silly. You're not a game warden. In fact I'd say that if that happened and you had reasonable suspicion they were without permits you'd contact the local ranger and have him do it.

It's all about 'reasonable and articulable suspicion'. If you don't have it you shouldn't be stopping people doing perfectly legal things.

Click to expand...

We have qualified immunity if we follow department policy and procedure. If we deviate from this, we are flying solo. If I don't contact someone my department expected me to and they go and do something bad - I face discipline or termination - and rightfully so. I can tell you my motivation - that is to do my job, protect people's rights, not get in trouble so my family can eat and protect the people of the community. If you want me to say that cops get a kick out of busting legal gun owners, I will tell you in my experience, that is not true. I have heard horror stories elsewhere - again usually NJ, Mass, NYC. Heck - COPS used to get arrested at JFK just switching planes because they had a legal, duty pistol checked in their luggage, but didn't have an NYC pistol permit. Cop or not that is absurd and a terrible infringement on our (yours and mine) rights.

As for the squirrel hunters, I do have authority to enforce DNR laws and write those violations, and it is my job to ensure people are following the law within our city parks. Did I KNOW they were perfectly legal? No. I was 90% sure. I told you we also have gang members who hold their meetings in that park. We have had people walk out there and commit suicide. Tell me one thing in life that is 100% sure. Tell me if you would trust your life to someone on the phone you don't know who called someone in a dispatch center you've never met who told you something over the radio. While many may just carry guns to exercise their 2A right, I would wager most of us also carry a firearm because we don't 100% trust all the people we may encounter on a day to day basis.

Anyways, I appreciate your sentiment that we shouldn't be contacting people at all without reasonable suspicion - but I guess what I am trying to say is when we get called to something, it is almost never black and white and usually we can't figure out what is going on until we actually show up and talk with someone. We serve the people and if our citizens determine some day determine they don't want police officers actively looking for criminals and responding to potential crimes in progress - then I'm ok with that. We can sit in the station and wait until people come in to report crimes after the fact. To date, that is not what the vast majority of the community wants however and recognizes our job requires we go out and interact with people.

The best thing you could do to understand our perspective is go on a ride along sometime or attend a citizen's academy. If you guys were in my state, I would invite you out with me but I don't think you want to drive 14 hours to spend another 8 hours being relatively bored in another car. It wouldn't take long for you to see that what information dispatch gets and then relays to us is rarely the 100% truth. That's why we verify, whether it's our call or the boss'. I don't know how else to explain it - there isn't some ulterior motive, that's the simple truth of the matter and it is one of the basic things we must do to do our jobs.

The LEOs safety is paramount, to the detriment of the citizens rights and the rule of law.

WHAT!!! LEOs do not use past experiences, professional training, proven investigative techniques, instinct, to determine if 'crime is afoot'? I'll betcha a dollar to a box of doughnuts that Officer Alan has been allowed to use, in a court room, his 'instincts', combined with 'time of day', the 'type of neighborhood', and other such 'intangibles' to detain a citizen who has not displayed any criminal activity to 'just check the citizen out'.

Articulable and reasonable suspicion takes into account the totality of the circumstances. Neighborhood, time of day, etc can be a factor. You are right that an observed criminal act is not necessarily required to conduct a Terry stop - an observed criminal act would provide probable cause to effect an arrest and we wouldn't be dinking around with stops at that point. If you disagree with the precedent set by SCOTUS as to Terry stops, then I can appreciate but then your problem shouldn't be with me, it should be with the courts and the law.

The reality is I have plenty of people I can stop who are engaging in actual criminal behavior without having to go snooping around looking for folks who aren't breaking any laws.

Because, we all know that any one thing may not indicate criminal activity, but if Officer Alan can string enough 'things' together, the citizen must be guilty of some thing, and the Officer Alan will not rest until he finds that something.

Speak for yourself. You don't speak for me, and I doubt you speak everyone on this board. At least not based on the PMs I have gotten since I responded to this topic. Have I detained someone on a Terry stop to learn they were not involved in the commission of a crime? Of course. I've had plenty of calls where the caller says "6/02 medium build male white with blue jeans, black shirt and brown hair just did XYZ." Or "blue Pontiac Grand Am 4dr just drove off without paying for gas." Sometimes, an innocent person is in the wrong place at the wrong time, and as soon I, or any other officer I work with determine this person was not involved in the crime they are released. Most are very understanding and cooperative throughout the process, though I can totally understand when people get upset for being stopped. The more time I spend on the wrong guy, the less time I have to go find the guy who actually committed the crime. I care about getting the right person because I actually care about the community in which I live and work.

I appreciate if you disagree with how US law enforcement does their job or how the SCOTUS has ruled we can do our job - but to state that I will take a citizen who has not displayed any criminal activity, and "not rest until I find something" is ridiculous.

If nothing, well, just arrest anyway and see if a judge will go along with the lie. If not, no big deal, no scratch out of his wallet.

Here, you are directly accusing me of lying to support arrests. I have never done such a thing and I never will. You are making assumptions about my behavior and character based solely on the fact that I am a police officer, based on videos or incidents you have seen or heard about involving other officers. If you think I would jeopardize my family, my career, my reputation and my honor by lying to support an arrest, then you are gravely mistaken.

It is clear we will not see eye to eye and I think we can agree to disagree on how we feel about the statements I have made in the original email or in this thread. I don't think we will be able to resolve the disagreement we have about my character or your allegations on how I conduct myself professionally. That's fine with me too. I think if this is how you discuss these matters in the future, you will alienate potential allies within law enforcement, at the detriment to our Second Amendment rights. But in the end of the day, if we all do what we feel is right then we can be confident in our decisions and our conduct.

I think I have explained my position clearly, I hope that I have clarified some things, and have defended myself against baseless allegations. I have also learned some things myself through the conversations I have had with others on this board and in this thread. You are free to respond of course, but I don't think the back and forth between you and I will result in any progress and I think I have said everything to you I have to say. If anyone else wants to carry on the conversation in a respectful and mutually open-minded manner to better understand my job as a law enforcement officer, or so I can better understand your sentiments or concerns as a legally armed citizen, as several others have, I will be happy to participate.

Dakota663 said:

The LEOs safety is paramount, to the detriment of the citizens rights and the rule of law.

WHAT!!! LEOs do not use past experiences, professional training, proven investigative techniques, instinct, to determine if 'crime is afoot'? I'll betcha a dollar to a box of doughnuts that Officer Alan has been allowed to use, in a court room, his 'instincts', combined with 'time of day', the 'type of neighborhood', and other such 'intangibles' to detain a citizen who has not displayed any criminal activity to 'just check the citizen out'.

Click to expand...

Articulable and reasonable suspicion takes into account the totality of the circumstances. Neighborhood, time of day, etc can be a factor. You are right that an observed criminal act is not necessarily required to conduct a Terry stop - an observed criminal act would provide probable cause to effect an arrest and we wouldn't be dinking around with stops at that point. If you disagree with the precedent set by SCOTUS as to Terry stops, then I can appreciate but then your problem shouldn't be with me, it should be with the courts and the law.

The reality is I have plenty of people I can stop who are engaging in actual criminal behavior without having to go snooping around looking for folks who aren't breaking any laws.

Because, we all know that any one thing may not indicate criminal activity, but if Officer Alan can string enough 'things' together, the citizen must be guilty of some thing, and the Officer Alan will not rest until he finds that something.

Click to expand...

Speak for yourself. You don't speak for me, and I doubt you speak everyone on this board. At least not based on the PMs I have gotten since I responded to this topic. Have I detained someone on a Terry stop to learn they were not involved in the commission of a crime? Of course. I've had plenty of calls where the caller says "6/02 medium build male white with blue jeans, black shirt and brown hair just did XYZ." Or "blue Pontiac Grand Am 4dr just drove off without paying for gas." Sometimes, an innocent person is in the wrong place at the wrong time, and as soon I, or any other officer I work with determine this person was not involved in the crime they are released. Most are very understanding and cooperative throughout the process, though I can totally understand when people get upset for being stopped. The more time I spend on the wrong guy, the less time I have to go find the guy who actually committed the crime. I care about getting the right person because I actually care about the community in which I live and work.

I appreciate if you disagree with how US law enforcement does their job or how the SCOTUS has ruled we can do our job - but to state that I will take a citizen who has not displayed any criminal activity, and "not rest until I find something" is ridiculous.

If nothing, well, just arrest anyway and see if a judge will go along with the lie. If not, no big deal, no scratch out of his wallet.

Click to expand...

Here, you are directly accusing me of lying to support arrests. I have never done such a thing and I never will. You are making assumptions about my behavior and character based solely on the fact that I am a police officer, based on videos or incidents you have seen or heard about involving other officers. If you think I would jeopardize my family, my career, my reputation and my honor by lying to support an arrest, then you are gravely mistaken.

It is clear we will not see eye to eye and I think we can agree to disagree on how we feel about the statements I have made in the original email or in this thread. I don't think we will be able to resolve the disagreement we have about my character or your allegations on how I conduct myself professionally. That's fine with me too. I think if this is how you discuss these matters in the future, you will alienate potential allies within law enforcement, at the detriment to our Second Amendment rights. But in the end of the day, if we all do what we feel is right then we can be confident in our decisions and our conduct.

I think I have explained my position clearly, I hope that I have clarified some things, and have defended myself against baseless allegations. I have also learned some things myself through the conversations I have had with others on this board and in this thread. You are free to respond of course, but I don't think the back and forth between you and I will result in any progress and I think I have said everything to you I have to say. If anyone else wants to carry on the conversation in a respectful and mutually open-minded manner to better understand my job as a law enforcement officer, or so I can better understand your sentiments or concerns as a legally armed citizen, as several others have, I will be happy to participate.[/QUOTE]I respectfully retract the "If nothing, well, just arrest anyway and see if a judge will go along with the lie. If not, no big deal, no scratch out of his wallet." You have stated that would not and have not. I will not dispute your assertion. Thank you for information that I did not warrant.

OC in WI is not a crime when not conducted in a prohibited place. Thus a Terry stop could not reasonable be articulated to be justified under current WI law for a MWG call. If I am wrong please correct me. You have alluded to a department policy that directs you to make contact because of the weapon.

I will no longer bother you with any further commentary. You are correct we shall agree to disagree. Please be safe.

Dakota663 said:

<snip> I think if this is how you discuss these matters in the future, you will alienate potential allies within law enforcement, at the detriment to our Second Amendment rights. <snip>

Click to expand...

Sorry. One last item. Then I really will leave you be.

I do not need allies in LE, I need LE to follow the law. Department policy is not the law. That will be a huge step towards restoring liberty for us all.

Lots of good points in everyone's thoughts and in no means at all am i qualified to be a moderator of such a discussion, hell half the time I ain't even polite.

Let me offer up a perspective on one point.

1. Officer contact.

Now this is indeed a bit more complex than it should be as it is NOT a violation to make contact. So if you are an officer and want to keep your job, if the boss says you must make contact, you have to do so or find yourself in dutch with the powers that be.

Now no criminal activity must be afoot because the boss said make contact, not violate rights so since "casual" contact is indeed NOT a violation, the boss can FORCE an officer via command to do so and since it is not a violation of oath or constitution the officer must do it so to speak. Now if the citizen refuses such contact, well that may be all the officer can report, as I alluded to earlier it is when the officer presses beyond that we develop a problem and yes, often those are indeed fishing trips for some officers etc.

So while SCOTUS has been clear, "no duty to protect" that does not mean an officer is free from the wrath of his boss for not following a legal order to make contact if the officer does not do so.

I think the entire conversation surrounding this point exposes the number one problem with police work from an officer perspective as well as citizens and that is political interference.

There are other points to the discussion worthy of healthy evaluation, a rare thing on internet forums but I do believe these few points might assist everyone.

There have been several high profile videos of police officers responding VERY poorly in WI, there have even been illegal arrest, the young lady who was arrested after attending church comes to mind, can't quote her name etc but she had a heck of a time with stuff like getting her gun back etc. With things like that in our memories, Officer Alan, you must forgive all skepticism as it is fully warranted by the actions of others who wear a badge. We are not hillary types who say so what when it comes to governmental injustice.

we are going to be worse than lawyers when it comes to every adjective, noun and verb and while an officer may indeed be a liberty loving person, the government we observe is about gaining and maintaining control and the police are used to do that very task. It is not a matter of separation as you are the government and anything you say can and will be used against you in the quest for liberty.

"Agree to disagree" is code for refusing to communicate and educate. Perhaps the conversation should end, but what I am seeing from the cheap seats is an officer who somewhat lumps all ocer's together and some ocer's who lump all officers together and we all know it is not the case so generalizations do not apply. If videos of cops offering to make up charges did not exist, citizens would not think officers make up charges etc etc.

hell I ain't sure this added anything to the conversation, I should just stick with being my old grouchy self, I just thought at one point the conversation might develop into something with merit and value, such is the hope of internet forums,

LMTD said:

Lots of good points in everyone's thoughts and in no means at all am i qualified to be a moderator of such a discussion, hell half the time I ain't even polite.

Let me offer up a perspective on one point.

1. Officer contact.

Now this is indeed a bit more complex than it should be as it is NOT a violation to make contact. So if you are an officer and want to keep your job, if the boss says you must make contact, you have to do so or find yourself in dutch with the powers that be.

Now no criminal activity must be afoot because the boss said make contact, not violate rights so since "casual" contact is indeed NOT a violation, the boss can FORCE an officer via command to do so and since it is not a violation of oath or constitution the officer must do it so to speak. Now if the citizen refuses such contact, well that may be all the officer can report, as I alluded to earlier it is when the officer presses beyond that we develop a problem and yes, often those are indeed fishing trips for some officers etc.

Click to expand...

Yes.

I think the entire conversation surrounding this point exposes the number one problem with police work from an officer perspective as well as citizens and that is political interference.

Click to expand...

Could not agree with you more.

There have been several high profile videos of police officers responding VERY poorly in WI, there have even been illegal arrest, the young lady who was arrested after attending church comes to mind, can't quote her name etc but she had a heck of a time with stuff like getting her gun back etc. With things like that in our memories, Officer Alan, you must forgive all skepticism as it is fully warranted by the actions of others who wear a badge. We are not hillary types who say so what when it comes to governmental injustice.

we are going to be worse than lawyers when it comes to every adjective, noun and verb and while an officer may indeed be a liberty loving person, the government we observe is about gaining and maintaining control and the police are used to do that very task. It is not a matter of separation as you are the government and anything you say can and will be used against you in the quest for liberty.

Click to expand...

I understand your sentiment and being upset with the conduct of others in the past. That is understandable. I am not one who looks kindly upon government interference in my life either. I do see there is importance in maintaining rule of law as well as liberty - the whole Hobbes social contract thing. People will vary in their opinion as to where there is balance between bringing order to chaos and protecting liberty.

"Agree to disagree" is code for refusing to communicate and educate. Perhaps the conversation should end, but what I am seeing from the cheap seats is an officer who somewhat lumps all ocer's together and some ocer's who lump all officers together and we all know it is not the case so generalizations do not apply. If videos of cops offering to make up charges did not exist, citizens would not think officers make up charges etc etc.

hell I ain't sure this added anything to the conversation, I should just stick with being my old grouchy self, I just thought at one point the conversation might develop into something with merit and value, such is the hope of internet forums,

Click to expand...

I think that's fair too. Perhaps we have come to some agreements. Good luck guys, and stay safe yourselves.

Wow

Being I started this thread....

I would like to thank the officer for his candor and honest responses too all the questions and comments.

I posted this because I felt you had an understanding of the problems faced with officers and law abiding citizens. I salute you for that...

But until my dying day....If someone called 911 about a guy wearing a CUBS jersey (poor bastard...LOL) but the caller was upset about it, and the wearer was not breaking the law.....WHY NOT SHOW UP.......OBSERVE......AND TELL THE CALLER THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE!!

Same with a firearm.....if I am minding my own business and someone calls MWAG.....meet the caller first....observe my ass....and if I am minding my own business...leave me alone.

Police issue citations for Veterans flying the American Flag, women for breastfeeding, jaywalking and silly crap like that all the time!!!!!!!!!!

Cite the caller with mis-use of 911!!!!

What is the saying.??....."Ignorance is no excuse for the law".....do your job...write them a ticket!!!

zekester said:

..., women for breastfeeding, ....and silly crap like that all the time!!!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

I agree -some things shd be handled by citizens to take the burden off of cops...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The burr under my saddle is the presumption, by some, that I must verbally refuse to be contacted. I may choose to ignore the officer. I did that the first time I was stopped, formally "consensually contacted" and the cop detained me to explain that I was not being detained :banghead:. He just wanted to let me know that someone called in about me. Well, since I was detained (2 minutes max, if I recall) I said yeah, it happens from time to time and that he was the first cop that stopped me for OCing. I thanked him for the heads up and we parted ways. Nice guy. So, there are cops in my little town that will "casually contact" me to politely inform me that someone called in about my gun.....thanks for the public service?

The second time I was "stopped" the cop waited until I was getting coffee at the QT, in the morning, and kinda sided up to me while getting his free coffee that someone called me in. This was a different situation cuz he just started telling me while he stirred his coffee. I said thanks for the tip and asked what should I do about it. He said there is not much you could do about it and that he always "sneaks into" a position to informally inform the OCer. This convo took about 10 minutes cuzz I learned that he hates being seen as "confronting" a OCer. Again, nice guy.

I have not been stopped since.

Fair disclosure: I OC and when I put a coat on due to the weather conditions I "CC." I'm a wee bit cold blooded and the low 60's forces me to don a coat/jacket. Technically my CCing is not really "concealed means concealed", pistol still on the hip and not concealed all that well.

OC very good job at reading between Officer Alan's lines. The more I read his letter the more irritated I got. He and others just don't get it that citizens, well most citizens, just want to be left alone. I don't care if a officer is polite about breaking the law, I don't want to educate, I just want to be left alone.

Thanks. Officer Allen is not a "bad" cop. He simple continues to buy into the cop's side of the equation that the liberty side of the equation. He, as are all LEOs, in my prayers for a safe and uneventful day, each and every day they are on the clock. I wish that all cops had to worry about were their waistline and not their life and livelihood.

"Our safety is of course, paramount."

That's the one that really gets me. As many times as I've read the news and court decisions, "the police do not have a duty to protect us". This one, just today, hammered it home.

Griz said:

"Our safety is of course, paramount."

That's the one that really gets me. As many times as I've read the news and court decisions, "the police do not have a duty to protect us". This one, just today, hammered it home.

Click to expand...

As ours should be to us! That is why it is our responsibility for our own safety. As a LEO I accepted the risks, it seems the ones of late expect the public to accept the risk while they shoulder none.

WalkingWolf said:

As ours should be to us! That is why it is our responsibility for our own safety. As a LEO I accepted the risks, it seems the ones of late expect the public to accept the risk while they shoulder none.

Click to expand...

Oh come off it. Really it gets old and I try my hardest to be the bigger man and just ignore you but some of the things cross the line. Listen in the 50s when you were a "cop" it wasn't anything like it is now.

For the record unless you can cite an exact officer that says that then your just talking out of your a**. Police and fire and ems put their a** in the wind everyday. Yes they choose to do it. Maybe they aren't mentally stable or smart enough to take a safe accounting desk job.

A BG vs an Leo? Correct officer safety is paramount and will be acted upon accordingly. This does cause problems no one is denying that.

A leos life vs a citizens life? Are you nuts? There isn't enough space to list things first responders (fire ems etc) do to help people while putting their a** on the line.

I hate to even engaged you on some things but really some thongs you say are so egregious. You somehow seem to have a mentality that when you did "the job" it was all glory and perfect and no bad guys. As soon as you left apparently all leos became bad and a bunch of wusses. It turns my stomach.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

So NOW we are bad guys? Your attitude is more clear with every post.

WalkingWolf said:

So NOW we are bad guys? Your attitude is more clear with every post.

Click to expand...

There is no "we" unless you have multiple personalities. That was a direct response towards you in regards to your comment that leos put there lives before LACs lives. Period so stop twisting words and just deal with it. Or don't. Either way I'm done engaging you

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

The letter was about police in relation to open carry. Officer Alan's remarks on safety were in regards to Lawfully Armed Citizens. The context of this discussion has been from the beginning to the end about lawful citizens. You would have to be very ignorant not to get that. Or you meant it! That OCers are the bad guys.

The more you post the more you reveal about yourself.

How many LACs are the true first responders. In the St Louis area it was pass along in a TV news blip that first responders would only respond to "serious" auto accidents due to the snow and ice. So, "first responders" are not always the first to put their azzes in the wind. Your high horse is dead and I will not beat it any longer.