2013 report of LEO who died on the job

PistolPackingMomma · Jan 5, 2014

Primus said:
So is it wrong to give veterans deferential treatment? How about elderly citizens?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

We are not talking about giving up your seat on the bus or letting someone go ahead of you in line.

Either the law applies equally or not at all.

Clearly, in addition to violence, incarceration and coercion, you also support class segregation.

Fuller Malarkey · Jan 5, 2014

PistolPackingMomma said:
It does make you wonder how he treats those he determines "worth" stopping...:uhoh:

Actually, Pinus established for us what he thinks of those "worth" stopping:

" When you are a bad guy your don't get a castle. You lose your rights as a person when you start crossing certain lines. There are certain heinous crimes which you should lose any "right" you have. But I'm assuming you'd get behind them too and say the cops are being bad guys and he should defend his "castle". Oh the guy rapes kids? Oh well. Murders and eats people? Good for him. Guy was making a bomb to kill innocent citizens? Damn thugs getting in his way right? All of the above has and will continue to happen. Some people aren't people, they are animals.

For the drug stuff, sure I get it. But to blanket say "bad guys should have a defense"?

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ock-gone-bad&p=2018988&viewfull=1#post2018988

Due process is overrated, I guess. Is "contempt of cop" one of those "heinous crimes" that renders us void of rights?

Citizen · Jan 5, 2014

Hey, folks. Lets also not overlook the vast number of reports of cops using traffic stops as pretexts for fishing.

Anybody notice Primus' List of people he doesn't stop are also low-probability for finding anything during a fishing expedition.

I suspect he doesn't leave those people alone because he's trying to help them. I suspect he leaves them alone because stopping them doesn't help him.

Primus · Jan 5, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
It is dishonest to change the conversation from the problem of deferential treatment that some police officers get, TO elderly or veterans, it was NOT the contention of the discussion.

VERY VERY DISHONEST! But not unexpected from you...

Well why would it be so different if an officer got deferential treatment if so did a veteran?

I'm assuming you NEVER cut anyone a break ever right? I'm sure you pulled over every senior citizen for tail lights out right? And cited everyone of them. Oh well if they are on fixed income they need to pay because its the law and you treat everyone the same right?

If you ever were this is not a conversation and side you'd want to be on. Especially since you made a claim that you enforced and "cited" fellow officers for seat belts but never responded when I asked how you did it. I asked if you co ducted traffic stops on them and to exain the process. You never responded. Most likely because you know a traffic stop on another officer is ludicrous. It'd be like pulling over a fire engine for a light out. I'm sure you have "cited " officers. Which means at role call or end of shift you gave them the cite and said "hey while getting coffee I saw you drive by without a belt". I'm still very curious about these encounters.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus · Jan 5, 2014

Citizen said:
Hey, folks. Lets also not overlook the vast number of reports of cops using traffic stops as pretexts for fishing.

Anybody notice Primus' List of people he doesn't stop are also low-probability for finding anything during a fishing expedition.

I suspect he doesn't leave those people alone because he's trying to help them. I suspect he leaves them alone because stopping them doesn't help him.

Actually there's truth to this and there's nothing wrong with this and its LEGAL. A pretext stop is legal and a good tactic.

If I see a drug deal on a corner, SOMETIMES its tactically sound to wait till they are in a confined vehicle. Then the plate light is a good reason for the stop. Not because of the ate light fine, but it its a LEGAL way to stop them and find out what the deal is.

No shame in that at all. Again.... if your not a criminal apologist then you should be happy that a legal tactic is being used to stop BAD GUYS. Should be happy that instead of stopping every car that rolls by and getting 3 guys leaving a 16 hr shift, 2 mothers picking kids up from school, and 1 elderly male getting coffee.

Then saying " sorry sir I have to cite you for the brake light because it wouldn't be fair to the bad guys I cite or atop for this".

Cmon.... this is no secret. I've told dozens of people this from all walks of life (military, family, libertarians, republicans, democrats, etc) and I've yet to have a person say focusing on bad guys is.... bad.

Now don't get me wrong. Regular traffic enforcement is a good thing to so. But personally I dont cite very often. I can stop you give you a verbal warning and hopefully you fix that light. No needs to charge you. Now for the kids (and I stress kids) that say screw it and refuse to fix the light, then maybe when I pull you over and see that its the 4th time you've been warned then ok time for a money fine.

Again.... this is bad how? This is the very POINT of discretion. Helping the good (no citation just a heads up) and pressuring the bad.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

PistolPackingMomma · Jan 5, 2014

Primus said:
Well why would it be so different if an officer got deferential treatment if so did a veteran?

I'm assuming you NEVER cut anyone a break ever right? I'm sure you pulled over every senior citizen for tail lights out right? And cited everyone of them. Oh well if they are on fixed income they need to pay because its the law and you treat everyone the same right?

If you ever were this is not a conversation and side you'd want to be on. Especially since you made a claim that you enforced and "cited" fellow officers for seat belts but never responded when I asked how you did it. I asked if you co ducted traffic stops on them and to exain the process. You never responded. Most likely because you know a traffic stop on another officer is ludicrous. It'd be like pulling over a fire engine for a light out. I'm sure you have "cited " officers. Which means at role call or end of shift you gave them the cite and said "hey while getting coffee I saw you drive by without a belt". I'm still very curious about these encounters.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

You try to justify your asphalt judge routine by using the disadvantaged as an arguing point. Is there ANYONE who isn't facing some hardship or another? Do you only ticket the young, healthy and well off? Do you ask for financial status before you ticket?

You say if we don't like the law, we should get it repealed.

Perhaps you are truly unaware of little sway anyone but lobbyists hold with politicians, but regardless, I suggest that since YOU are paid to enforce the law, apply discretion evenly (no victim, no crime, keep going) or not at all.

PistolPackingMomma · Jan 5, 2014

Citizen said:
Hey, folks. Lets also not overlook the vast number of reports of cops using traffic stops as pretexts for fishing.

Anybody notice Primus' List of people he doesn't stop are also low-probability for finding anything during a fishing expedition.

I suspect he doesn't leave those people alone because he's trying to help them. I suspect he leaves them alone because stopping them doesn't help him.

Excellent observation.

Citizen · Jan 5, 2014

Primus said:
Actually there's truth to this and there's nothing wrong with this and its LEGAL. A pretext stop is legal and a good tactic.

If I see a drug deal on a corner, SOMETIMES its tactically sound to wait till they are in a confined vehicle. Then the plate light is a good reason for the stop. Not because of the ate light fine, but it its a LEGAL way to stop them and find out what the deal is.

No shame in that at all. Again.... if your not a criminal apologist then you should be happy that a legal tactic is being used to stop BAD GUYS. Should be happy that instead of stopping every car that rolls by and getting 3 guys leaving a 16 hr shift, 2 mothers picking kids up from school, and 1 elderly male getting coffee.

Then saying " sorry sir I have to cite you for the brake light because it wouldn't be fair to the bad guys I cite or atop for this".

Cmon.... this is no secret. I've told dozens of people this from all walks of life (military, family, libertarians, republicans, democrats, etc) and I've yet to have a person say focusing on bad guys is.... bad.

Now don't get me wrong. Regular traffic enforcement is a good thing to so. But personally I dont cite very often. I can stop you give you a verbal warning and hopefully you fix that light. No needs to charge you. Now for the kids (and I stress kids) that say screw it and refuse to fix the light, then maybe when I pull you over and see that its the 4th time you've been warned then ok time for a money fine.

Again.... this is bad how? This is the very POINT of discretion. Helping the good (no citation just a heads up) and pressuring the bad.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

QFT for 1. Proof of bad thinking and trying to pawn that off on us. 2. Arrogance.

1. Re-read his second paragraph. If he saw a drug deal, he's got probable cause; he doesn't need a pretext traffic stop. Look at how he jumps to the conclusion that he saw a drug deal, but then traffic-stops them on a pretext to find out what the deal is. And, he uses this as his example to support pretext traffic stops?

2. Arrogance. He says we should be happy he's not stopping every car, three guys, two mothers, and an elderly coffee drinker. Yeah, we're supposed to be grateful for his forbearance. And, lets not forget that just a few posts earlier, he wanted us to believe he was "helping" these sorts of people by not stopping them.

countryclubjoe · Jan 5, 2014

Lets use some common sense...

Most LEO are not going to pull over and detain a couple senior citizens for rolling thru a stop sign without making a complete stop however most LEO will pull over and detain a motorist for the same infraction if said motorist is a person of color and or driving a vehicle with over sized wheels and loud glaring music etc... or if said motorist is sleeping with the LEOS significant other...

While this may be considered profiling, sometimes its just simple "common sense"..

My .02

Best regards

CCJ

Citizen · Jan 5, 2014

Careful, CCJ. You're coming mighty close to generalized cop-bashing. Some might say it does in fact cross the line.

countryclubjoe · Jan 5, 2014

Citizen said:
Careful, CCJ. You're coming mighty close to generalized cop-bashing. Some might say it does in fact cross the line.

Citizen

No disrespect to you but please point out where in my post I am cop bashing..
Thank you and best regards.

CCJ

Primus · Jan 5, 2014

countryclubjoe said:
Lets use some common sense...

Most LEO are not going to pull over and detain a couple senior citizens for rolling thru a stop sign without making a complete stop however most LEO will pull over and detain a motorist for the same infraction if said motorist is a person of color and or driving a vehicle with over sized wheels and loud glaring music etc... or if said motorist is sleeping with the LEOS significant other...

While this may be considered profiling, sometimes its just simple "common sense"..

My .02

Best regards

CCJ

Again you nailed it. Vehicle profiling is another non secret that works. And I agree its common sense tactic used to focus on the bad guys who need focus.

Gang members USUALLY don't drive a crown Vic. They usually don't drive a ford Windstar. Knowing what they do and don't drive is part of knowing your area.

Again how is this bad?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus · Jan 5, 2014

Citizen said:
QFT for 1. Proof of bad thinking and trying to pawn that off on us. 2. Arrogance.

1. Re-read his second paragraph. If he saw a drug deal, he's got probable cause; he doesn't need a pretext traffic stop. Look at how he jumps to the conclusion that he saw a drug deal, but then traffic-stops them on a pretext to find out what the deal is. And, he uses this as his example to support pretext traffic stops?

2. Arrogance. He says we should be happy he's not stopping every car, three guys, two mothers, and an elderly coffee drinker. Yeah, we're supposed to be grateful for his forbearance. And, lets not forget that just a few posts earlier, he wanted us to believe he was "helping" these sorts of people by not stopping them.

1. You are correct if you saw a drug deal you have probable cause. So what do you do? Roll up and 4 dues run 4 ways and your by yourself? Or do you wait till 3 enter 1 vehicle? Still based on that PC you saw you can stop that car if its right after the deal. Or even better. You see a guy enter a vehicle they go for a "meaningless ride" you wait till they stop then conduct traffic stop on buyer.

Your wither purposefully missing the point. I said TACTIC. I didn't say you had to wait for the vehicle.

2. Its not arrogance. Its the truth. The law says if you fail to stop its a 100 citation (mgl 89-9). No exceptions. So if you let ANY person do it you did them a favor. Period. Why is this hard?

Again.... you guys can yell and scream and call me every name in the book. I'm honestly ok with that because when I do these things people actually thank me and understand you are helping them. Now sure you can yell about chains of bondage or they are sheep, tyranny creeping up over unconstitutional stop signs since it STOPS you from traveling which is a right etc. Etc. Oh well. At they end of the day both parties are happy.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Citizen · Jan 5, 2014

countryclubjoe said:
Citizen

No disrespect to you but please point out where in my post I am cop bashing..
Thank you and best regards.

CCJ

The long-standing no-no on this forum is generalized criticism of police. On this forum its called cop-bashing. One of the meanings for general is all or almost all.

In the quote below, you attribute racism to cops. And, you take it almost to the generality by saying "most" cops. Here it is in context, emphasis mine.

"...however most LEO will pull over and detain a motorist for the same infraction if said motorist is a person of color and or driving a vehicle with over sized wheels and loud glaring music etc... or if said motorist is sleeping with the LEOS significant other..."

Did you not mean to attribute racism to most cops?

Fuller Malarkey · Jan 5, 2014

Primus said:
Again you nailed it. Vehicle profiling is another non secret that works. And I agree its common sense tactic used to focus on the bad guys who need focus.

Gang members USUALLY don't drive a crown Vic. They usually don't drive a ford Windstar. Knowing what they do and don't drive is part of knowing your area.

Again how is this bad?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Better question: How does this pertain to the topic at hand? The past two days you've derailed every thread you've posted in, haven't you?

How does what you want us to believe, with no substantiation other than "I am a law man, you just have to trust me", what you do or don't do contribute to the number of dead cops the citizens are stuck paying benefits for and the ongoing refusal to conform to the laws that require safety restraints?

Citizen · Jan 5, 2014

Primus said:
1. You are correct if you saw a drug deal you have probable cause. So what do you do? Roll up and 4 dues run 4 ways and your by yourself? Or do you wait till 3 enter 1 vehicle? Still based on that PC you saw you can stop that car if its right after the deal. Or even better. You see a guy enter a vehicle they go for a "meaningless ride" you wait till they stop then conduct traffic stop on buyer.

That is so disingenuous! You said the tag light being out was a good excuse for stopping. Meaning, you don't need a tag light pretext if you have probable cause--you can just stop them. And you know it. Now, you're just trying to weasel out of it. You revealed in that post that you morph suspicion into certainty, and somebody noticed. Now, instead of trying to walk it back, you're going off on a tangent.

Busted.

Citizen · Jan 5, 2014

Primus said:
SNIP Its not arrogance. Its the truth. The law says if you fail to stop its a 100 citation (mgl 89-9). No exceptions. So if you let ANY person do it you did them a favor. Period. Why is this hard?

Its not hard at all. You said we should be happy you don't stop certain kinds of people. That's arrogance.

The only thing you find hard around here is trying to fly your repeated evasions, tangents, non-sequiturs, and fallacies.

In fact, I just realized something. Whenever I hear the words common-sense gun laws, I know that speaker/writer is trying to fly gun control even before I hear or see anything else from him. I notice the only time you ask "why is this hard" is when you're trying to fly one of your evasions, tangents, etc.

Busted.

countryclubjoe · Jan 5, 2014

Citizen said:
The long-standing no-no on this forum is generalized criticism of police. On this forum its called cop-bashing. One of the meanings for general is all or almost all.

In the quote below, you attribute racism to cops. And, you take it almost to the generality by saying "most" cops. Here it is in context, emphasis mine.

"...however most LEO will pull over and detain a motorist for the same infraction if said motorist is a person of color and or driving a vehicle with over sized wheels and loud glaring music etc... or if said motorist is sleeping with the LEOS significant other..."

Did you not mean to attribute racism to most cops?

No, I meant to attribute " Common Sense" to most cops.. ( Emphasis Mine)...

Maybe we should let the LEO folks on this board weigh in on my post...

Best regards

CCJ

Fuller Malarkey · Jan 5, 2014

Citizen said:
That is so disingenuous! You said the tag light being out was a good excuse for stopping. Meaning, you don't need a tag light pretext if you have probable cause--you can just stop them. And you know it. Now, you're just trying to weasel out of it. You revealed in that post that you morph suspicion into certainty, and somebody noticed. Now, instead of trying to walk it back, you're going off on a tangent.

Busted.

Intellectual Dishonesty
c2.com/cgi/wiki?IntellectualDishonesty‎

- Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion.

If intellectual dishonesty were a shoe, who here would it best fit?

Citizen · Jan 5, 2014

countryclubjoe said:
No, I meant to attribute " Common Sense" to most cops.. ( Emphasis Mine)...

Maybe we should let the LEO folks on this board weigh in on my post...

Best regards

CCJ

Oh, I see. OK. Well, to play fair, I won't go back and delete my post. That way readers can follow thru and see the whole exchange.

2013 report of LEO who died on the job

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member