• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Any LEOs hanging around here ?

P-51Mustang

New member
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
3
Location
USA
I know that LEOs are not lawyers or usually do not have a law background, but why are there so many (you tube) situations where the police are completely unaware of the law or completely misinterpret the law?

Video after video I am seeing people harassed, arrested, held at gunpoint and more, because the officer did not know the law. Specifically I am talking about open carry. In states where open carry is completely legal, why do police not know that it is legal? For example I recently watched a video where the officer was totally convinced that when open carrying, it was actually considered concealed carry because the holster concealed a portion of the hand gun.

In addition, they do not seem to understand that (where open is legal and where your do not have to produce id when there is no presumption of illegal activity) you do not have to produce id when no crime has been committed.

I have read (don't know the actually truth) that police are able to lie about the law because undercover officers are allowed to lie, and this transfers over to regular police.

Matt
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
I am not a LEO. But I might have enough experience (not just as told in Ferry Tales) to suggest an answer.

Cops (prison guards/private security/crossing guards/principals and teachers) have as a major component of their job duties the responsibility to see that people do what they are supposed to do. Now "what they are supposed to do" is almost the complete oppposite of "what you are not allowed to do".

Laws are written to list what you are not allowed to do. Case law is just commentary on the various ways someone's actions can be construed as doing what they are not allowed to do. Neither statutes nor case law say anything about what you are supposed to do.

In order to see that people do what they are supposed to do, the people need to believe (to a varying degree) that cops, etc. have authority - the means to force you to do something in spite of the fact that you may not want to do it. Let'sjust deal with cops for a second, OK? They have been granted to power of arrest, and of employing a variety of levels of force up to and including deadly force (with some restrictions, of course) to cause you to comply with their authority. But making people "comply" sounds so bad and evil, so they look at it sideways and instead of saying you refused to comply with their authority to do/not do something they say that you do not "respect" their authority.

That's strange because my 16+ years working with criminals has taught me, if nothing else, that as a class they very much respect the authority of a cop. They respect it so much that theu go out of their way to avoid having to get involved with a cop's authority.

Some cops believe that they are like parents and that the rest of the population (well, maybe excepting judges and attorneys) are like children. I do not care which social theory/philosopht you cotton to - the only way for a parent to parent is by being demanding compliance with their authority. So these "some cops" believe that in order to do their job they must demand absolute compliance with their authority. They seem to have been absent the day when it was explained that as the child grows up the parent needs to demand compliance with fewer and fewer things and allow the child to start making their own decisions about what to do and what not to do. These "some cops" seem to be stuck at believing even the slightest non-compliance will cause total chaos, global anarchy, and the end of civilization as they know it.

When a child asks "Why?" when the parent tells them to do something/not do something the parent can either take time out from what they really want to be doing and engage in a philosophical discussion with someone who has less comprehension power than a door mat, or they can invoke The BISS Doctrine*. Most often even the parents who start out with a philosophical discussion end up invoking The Biss Doctrine. It is so much easier, it gets what you want done when and how you want it done, or failing either of those results gives the parent the excuse to use force (yelling, stomping their feet, holding their breath till they turn blue, taking away priveleges, or even corporal punishment) in order to command compliance with their authority. Coips know this and some cops seem to want to avoid all the histrionics and get straight to the place where you do comply with their authority.

Now you know.

stay safe.

* The BISS Doctrine (every parent's fall-back): Because I Said So!
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
It is important to differentiate what a particular cop knows vs. what that particular cop is required to do as a result of department policy. A cop is a citizen doing a job and likely desires to retain his job. True, some cops bring their biases to their job and the hapless law abiding citizen is subject to those biases. This is where the courts should be used to gain a redress of wrongs. I am encouraged that the courts are siding with the hapless citizen more often these days. The citizenry needs to work to change the laws and the attitudes of the top cops in their jurisdictions. Given the trend in the several states our 2A right is becoming less infringed, if you will.

I believe it is the rare exception that any particular cop does not know that OC is not unlawful where that right has not been infringed. As I stated earlier, look to top cops and their possibly agenda driven policies.

I know a few cops and they risk their employment status if they act on their belief system regarding liberty and specifically the 2a in a jurisdiction that does not recognize our 2A right. Each cop should be "judged" on his own acts. Every LEA is fair game for legitimate criticism. LEAs are not citizens. They are government bureaucracies and by definition are anti-liberty and anti-citizen.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
I would also be curious in regards to just how many hours a police recruit spends in the police academy being taught and studying the US Constitution and or your states Constitution?

TIA

Best regards

CCJ
 

rickyray9

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2009
Messages
109
Location
Northern Nevada
I was a LEO for a couple years in NV and went to an academy in 2009. Constitutional law was paired up with RAS/PC instruction in an 8 hour class. I was an OCer before the academy, so I definitely noticed that the instructor made special mention to OC. The example he used was along the lines of "You can't just grab somebody's $800 Kimber out of their holster and throw it on the gravel without a damn good reason. It's gonna get all scratched up and they're gonna come looking for answers and the department will have to pay for it. Ultimately though, you'll be the one paying for it, if you know what I mean."

That's Northern Nevada though, and NNV awesome
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Technically, cops do not need to study the constitution, they will not be tasked to enforce the constitution. Their knowledge on a specific laws constitutionality is not a requirement of employment. In fact, a cop judging a law unconstitutional and thus acting on that judgement could very well end a very promising career in LE.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
So the term " Its not about being right, Its about doing right" DOES NOT apply to LEO?

CCJ
 

joanie

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
306
Location
..
I know that LEOs are not lawyers or usually do not have a law background, but why are there so many (you tube) situations where the police are completely unaware of the law or completely misinterpret the law? Video after video I am seeing people harassed, arrested, held at gunpoint and more, because the officer did not know the law. Specifically I am talking about open carry. In states where open carry is completely legal, why do police not know that it is legal? For example I recently watched a video where the officer was totally convinced that when open carrying, it was actually considered concealed carry because the holster concealed a portion of the hand gun.


No, police may be alot of things but they are not stupid, if they were, I wouldn't be at such a disadvantage regarding them. They know it's legal, they just don't like it. So they will come up with anything they can to get you on. Perhaps you've seen the video where a cop busted a man OCing for droping his cigerette but on the ground while being stopped by them. When he was not allowed to move to dispose of it properly, and they likely went the whole day watching others who weren't open carrying do the same thing. I'm certainly not in favor of smoking, or littering, however the cop's reasons were clear in the video. They were smart enough to know there was a heavy fine for littering. From what I understand it's not easy becomming a cop, many written tests and mental fitness evaluations so they can't really can't fall back on not being smart. This can even be attributed to the kind of folks they hire as police. My own take is that they pass on many to choose the most sadistic, perveted, and corrupt to hand the job over to. But thats my take and not the opinion of those who run this board that promotes the 2ed amendment just so long as we only discuss handguns, staying within the law, and only speaking nicly of police.

Freedom of speech, just watch what you say- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T6eJEJZHzo - Ice T

You can do it your own way if it's done just how I say- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZwAu8UGQCY Metallica

The videos you have seen on YT is but a small fraction of what actually takes place, most don't go out expecting trouble so they don't record their activites. You are seeing less than 5 percent of the total injustice at the hands of LEOs. Thats not to say there aren't better cops out there, ones that don't seem to mind about people OCing, ones that aren't prone to abuse their power, but they are rare and I'm only presenting the standard of most police. My take is that there are bad cops, and worse cops, the good ones were fired or demoted into obscurity.


Cops (prison guards/private security/crossing guards/principals and teachers) have as a major component of their job duties the responsibility to see that people do what they are supposed to do. Now "what they are supposed to do" is almost the complete oppposite of "what you are not allowed to do".

Thats a mild way of saying they are no longer public servants, but rather government officals. There was abusive police even at the time when they were presented as public servants. But their training, expectations, and supervision was so much diffrent then. Now, police are trained to see the people as the enemy, a possible threat, to see terrorists around every corner. Add to that the type of people they give the job to like to appear as big shots, gansters, or thugs (tuff guys) So when they do encounter one who asserts their rights, like say OCing, they see it as a challenge to their status. They're the only ones with the guns, you don't get to carry them, and shouldn't have them.

Thats my take, I know it's not a popular one here but I can't help it.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
...They know it's legal, they just don't like it. So they will come up with anything they can to get you on...

If by "it" you mean OC, then you are in error here. Many, in fact, do not know that OC is legal. Both of my encounters in Montgomery that resulted in my being detained were because the officer(s) thought it was unlawful for me to carry in the manner I did where I did. They were wrong.

A certain retired police officer I keep mentioning has routinely proved that he was, as a police officer, grossly ignorant of the law (and continues in that ignorance, constantly telling folks blatant falsehoods about the law). Some of the stories he relates would cause many around here to refer to him as a "thug cop." Even I, who almost never uses that term, would not argue its application in this case. However, still, at the bottom of it all, was that officer's deep and pervasive ignorance of the law.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
Cops have certain powers, certain requirements and among them is not protecting you (or any individual), or serving anyone except their commander.

They have a great knowledge of street criminal affairs, great knowledge of how to use the system, great knowledge of what will get them in trouble.

Their job is to arrest people. Some cops, if they can't arrest someone, it's usually because they are unmotivated or aren't trying very hard that day, but it's their job one.

One might even suggest that a certain amount of plausibly deniable ignorance of a law works in their favor.

Why they do it, I don't know. They certainly seem to have quotas. It doesn't seem to be because of poor pay (as we've seen in that thread).
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Any LEOs hanging around here ?

Oh, sure. There are a few self-acknowledged cops registered as forum members. A few more ex-cops. Generally, they're pretty supportive of rights, especially the 2A.

The whiner-cops, the cops who come here to tell us how things are under the pretext of building bridges, those with a shaky grasp of rights, and those with lots of distorted ideas of rights don't last long. They usually get the unvarnished straight scoop pretty quick without sugar coating, their specious explanations exposed fast. And, they get tired of dealing with people who don't buy their self-serving or specious arguments.

Then there are the monitors. Haven't heard much about them for a long time, but I'd be very surprised if cops who are antagonistic to OC don't peek in from time to time to see what we're up to. I'd be really surprised if we weren't checked on from time to time. Anytime there is a youtube video showing a cop vs OCer, I'll bet some cops track back to this forum to see what's going on. Same for any lawsuits or formal complaints. I saw one time that a cop sought intel from colleagues in other departments just because a Freedom of Information request landed--if he had any idea there was a forum, I'm betting he was here checking things out.
 

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,508
Location
Secret Bunker
I do not mean this in a "bashing" way at all, but I think what I am about to relay pretty much somes up the problem with police & "law-abiding citizens who know the law". I know several police officers some of them retired and some still working. One is a family member. I asked them all if they could recite their oath from memory, and as I feared none of them could completely. This confirmed what I have always been afraid of. They take the oath to obtain the power, once the power is obtained, the oath becomes secondary to them. This should never be the case! As we do with school childern and the pledge of allegiance "Peace officers" should be required to recite their oaths daily. The point being that they need to be conditioned to understand their powers are to be used to uphold (1) The Constitution of the United States. (2) The State Constitution in which they serve. (3) Local laws of the city/township, in that order.

When a officer imposes their will on a law-abiding citizen in lieu of the law, they are the criminal. Somewhere, some how many of today's police have forgotten this or simply don't care. The days of having "To serve & protect" on the side of police cars have long vanished. Now we have "Law Enforcement Units" and "commanders" who refer to officers as "Their Troops". Something is very, very wrong with this train wreck of thought. :eek:
 

joanie

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
306
Location
..
If by "it" you mean OC, then you are in error here. Many, in fact, do not know that OC is legal. Both of my encounters in Montgomery that resulted in my being detained were because the officer(s) thought it was unlawful for me to carry in the manner I did where I did. They were wrong.

A certain retired police officer I keep mentioning has routinely proved that he was, as a police officer, grossly ignorant of the law (and continues in that ignorance, constantly telling folks blatant falsehoods about the law). Some of the stories he relates would cause many around here to refer to him as a "thug cop." Even I, who almost never uses that term, would not argue its application in this case. However, still, at the bottom of it all, was that officer's deep and pervasive ignorance of the law.


I'll allow for that possibility, but I'll also allow for the possibility that the cop in question was umm, for lack of a better term, "playing dumb" I've seen this alot, and not only with police. Cases of people refusing to see whats right in front of them. You can show them pictures, direct them to documents, slap the evedence in front of their eyes and give them reading glasses, they will still refuse to see it. Mark Dice prooved this when he had people in certain areas signing petitions to ban water, or to ban guns in such a way that there would be door to door confications. Most people were eager to sign.

The bottom line is most police know, and most police don't like it. Many police have thier orders to take down anyone OCing, take their gun, and make sure they are allowed to have it before giving it back and few do this relunctantly. Why, because this is their big chance to practice being big shots or put their traning into play. They probibly go home and brag to their friends and family about how they had to take down a dangerious criminal.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The only point of my post was to refute your generalization that cops know the law. I see that you acknowledge that the generalization is not true.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
An IQ of 105 is slightly above average (but likely within the testing error). It is not low average. Low average would be below 100. If you take into account the testing error, it would be improper to say that anyone was low average unless they were (depending on the instrument) at least five to ten points below the mean of 100.

About 2/3 of the population falls between IQs of 85 to 115.
 

joanie

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
306
Location
..
It's doesn't take a stright "A" student to know that OCing is legal, or that even in the places where it's not, that the law is unconstitutional. You need not have a high IQ, to know the 2ed amendment. I'd be willing to bet that most TSA at the airports know the 4th amendment, they probibly heard it from those complaining about the searches and groapings. Yet, they play dumb every time "theres no such thing as a right to privacy" this passenger is making it up. 9/11 and all that. Have they stopped a single terrorist?, can anyone come up with a single case that wasn't staged?

Police know enough about the law to bust you on it. they know exactly what they can get away with, they know how to bait people or set them up, They don't want to know about our rights, don't care to hear about them, but to some degree they know. What?, do they really think people OCing a firearm for all to see where they can just as eassaly conceal it is out to commit a crime, or a criminal?

Heres what they are thinking, "theres someone flaunting their rights in my face, what can I get them on?" So they feel perfectly justified in what they do. To them, the OCer is rubbing their freedom in their face. The reason a police person seems polite and nice, if they in fact are, is not because they really like you. It's because they are fishing, for something to get you on. They keep you talking until you incrimanate yourself. Thats why they ask the same questions over and over again, its why they ask you questions not relivant to why they stopped you or the situation at hand. Then the baiting tactics, if they can strike a nerve, they will. If they know what will get to someone they want to bust, they will say or use it.

"not such a tough guy now, are you?"

was a bating tactic that didn't work used on me by sergent Brown of the county sheriffs department in 2008 the night before the election where Obama became president. When I ignored the question and tried to walk away another badged thug grabbed me and screamed,

"you don't walk away when he is asking you a question"

With nothing to charge me with, they used another trick up their sleeve. The (lie and say this person is a danger to themself and others) tactic. That will keep them locked up and force drugged for a week. Not to mention it can be used in the future to justify other actions against this person. If they can make you seem crazy for what you might speak up about, they can get away with doing anything to you. As was prooven again twice in 2011. When it comes down to actually having to prove the case, or the charges in court, the case is always finally dismissed. No reprocussions to the LEO.

I can't believe any cop or number of cops who can get away with this are not very smart.
 
Top