A certain retired police officer...

How do you recognize an ass?

They have a different perspective than i95.

XD40sc said:

How do you recognize an ass?

They have a different perspective than i95.

Click to expand...

Nope. A person behaving like an ass is someone posting off-topic for the sole purpose of trashing another poster--technically a rules violation here, but the staff have been doing nothing about it lately, so I have taken to simply pointing it out when it happens, which violates the same rule, but, again, the mods aren't doing anything about it.

And, yes, in that post, you behaved like an ass.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

A certain retired police officer whom I know was telling someone today that, if he encountered an OCer in a metropolitan area, he'd tell him to leave immediately. If the carrier did not, the cop'd hang around until enough of his fellow cops showed up so they would be able to beat the carrier up. He didn't say that they would (maybe they would've), but clearly, he was into intimidating law abiding folk doing something he did not want them to do.

Man I am glad he is no longer in law enforcement. The way he speaks makes me wonder if he weren't more of a criminal than the folks he typically arrested.>

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

Someday, when such actions will not negatively impact others and (ironically) provide him benefit in another regard, I may take those suggestions. However, at the moment, the downside of taking action against this retired cop would do more harm than the upside will do good.

He is no longer a cop, so his attitude can no longer allow him to abuse citizens. However, his attitude will prove to be his downfall now if he does not change it and if I do nothing like your otherwise excellent suggestions.

I know this is all horribly vague, but I was really just venting more than looking for a way to proceed. My way to proceed is dictated by circumstances I'd rather not discuss.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Click to expand...

How can exposing his thuggery harm others, other than those he worked with who remain on the job. It is logical to conclude that he has fellow thugs currently employed in the subject LEA. This seems to be a departure from your position of confronting thuggery, in a reasonable and responsible manner, wherever it manifests itself.

I am venting. As I said, I am not looking for solutions. Folks here are unaware of the full set of circumstances with which I am dealing and the constraints within which I must act. I am dealing with the broader situation in the appropriate way.

Again, I am just venting about this particular comment by this erstwhile thug cop.

I hate that he say those things and is proud of that thuggish behavior. That is my only point.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>

Thanks for the clarification. I co-mingled venting and a implied request for ideas. I see now that you clearly, by your posts, did not do that. My apologies.

Thank you for understanding.

You keep showing class. I appreciate that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

This topic is not about terrorists. It is about cops. Certain cops should be feared for the criminal and unreasonable way they will use force that they feel they should be able to wield at will. This guy has bragged about dragging motorists through the car window when they wouldn't step out of the car.

He was the precise kind of cop that makes so many here hate and castigate all cops. However, he was not the typical cop. He was the kind of cop we should fear as much as we would've feared any other criminal.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

With as broad of description for terrorism as is employed today (GreenPeace, militias, Occupy, Constitutionalists, etc) , the behavior of the officer counts.
Not by a realistic understanding, but by the definition used by the government for the past 15-20 years, yeah, that cop was a terrorist levying war against the people of Constitution of the United States, if your depictions of him are accurate.

Because others misuse words, does not mean that I will, nor that I will sit idly by while others use them in ways that lead to unclear communication.

Terrorists use particularly horrific acts to invoke terror in the people in order to motivate them and a government into changing behavior and policy out of fear. Period. I don't care if others misuse the word; that is what it means.

Again, though, this thread is not about terrorism. It is my venting about one particular rogue cop who is now retired, but still brags about his bullying tactics.

A perspective on the term "terrorist" from NC and Common Law. The definition of it is not as narrow as some believe. Also, nowhere within the statute are cops excluded.



Statute

This is a common law offense. State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 541-42 (1968); State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. 418, 418 (1843); State v. Staten, 32 N.C. App. 495, 496-97 (1977) (citing Dawson).

Elements

A person guilty of this offense

(1) arms himself or herself with an unusual and dangerous weapon

(2) for the purpose of terrifying others and

(3) goes about on public highways

(4) in a manner to cause terror to the people.

Punishment

Class 1 misdemeanor. G.S. 14-3(a).

Notes

Generally. For the elements of this offense, see Dawson, 272 N.C. at 549, and Staten, 32 N.C. App. at 497.

For a case in which the evidence was sufficient to establish this offense, see, for example, Dawson, 272 N.C. at 549 (armed with a carbine and four pistols, the defendant and three others drove on the public highways at night, firing bullets into a store and two homes).

Element (1). In Huntly, the court held that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Huntly, 25 N.C. at 422. In that case it was argued that a gun cannot constitute an unusual weapon, “for there is scarcely a man in the community who does not own and occasionally use a gun of some sort.” Id. The court rejected that argument, concluding: “A gun is an ‘unusual weapon,’ wherewith to be armed and clad. No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements–as a part of his dress–and never we trust will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment.” Id.

In State v. Lanier, 71 N.C. 288, 289 (1874), the defendant was charged with going armed to the terror of the people after riding a horse, at a canter, through a courthouse. Witnesses saw no arms of any kind. The North Carolina Supreme Court “attach[ed] no importance to the fact that the defendant had no arms” stating, “we think it may be conceded that the driving or riding without arms through a court house or a crowded street at such a rate or in such a manner as to endanger the safety of the inhabitants amounts to a breach of the peace and is an indictable offence at common law.” Id. at 290.

Element (3). It appears that the offense would not occur if the defendant remained on private property.

Element (4). The offense of affray involves fighting in public to the terror of the people. For purposes of that offense, cases hold that if members of the public experience fear, the “to the terror of the people” element is satisfied. In re May, 357 N.C. 423, 428 (2003). In an unpublished case involving a charge of going armed to the terror of the people, the North Carolina Court of Appeals found this element satisfied where the defendant shot his gun while driving closely behind another vehicle on a public highway. State v. Toler, 716 S.E.2d 875 (N.C. App. 2011) (unpublished) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that his actions were not “to the terror of the people” where the only people involved were those in the victim’s car, and stating: “We find this to be substantial evidence that this behavior was intended to be to the terror of the people and was in fact to the terror of the people. The fact that a limited number of witnesses testified regarding Defendant’s actions does not change the character of those actions.”).

Charging issues. Although it is proper to enumerate the acts or threats of violence that the defendant undertakes while armed, such allegations are not required.Dawson, 272 N.C. at 549 (indictment upheld absent such allegations).

Back to former/retired police officers.

I used to work with a former Sheriff's Deputy who admitted that if he say an open carrier that he would 'have a talk with them.'
I believe it was the same one who told me about how he did a drug bust one day. He knew that a guy was dealing from his apartment but did not have enough to get a warrant. So he called in a false gas leak and offered to 'help' the manager make sure everyone got out safely. He then used that as a pretext for entering the suspect's apartment and getting enough evidence to get the arrest that he wanted.

You get some strange/discussed looks from the Deputies of Snohomish County (Washington) if you imply that they were buddies with him.

Freedom1Man said:

Back to former/retired police officers.

I used to work with a former Sheriff's Deputy who admitted that if he say an open carrier that he would 'have a talk with them.'
I believe it was the same one who told me about how he did a drug bust one day. He knew that a guy was dealing from his apartment but did not have enough to get a warrant. So he called in a false gas leak and offered to 'help' the manager make sure everyone got out safely. He then used that as a pretext for entering the suspect's apartment and getting enough evidence to get the arrest that he wanted.

You get some strange/discussed looks from the Deputies of Snohomish County (Washington) if you imply that they were buddies with him.

Click to expand...

The search was unlawful and anything subsequent to it should have been tossed as fruit of the poison tree. He also broke the law by calling in a false report. A first year law student would have got the charge kicked. And the cop should have been charged. That he is 'proud enough' of his unlawful actions to brag about it says a lot about him.