OK Sheriffs miffed at being kicked out for OCing

davidmcbeth said:

Most general assemblies have their own police force that takes orders only from the legislature.

Their actually existence is to insure the separation of powers. The can be used to stop an arrest of an assemblyman, etc.

Almost all state constitutions hold the speech and debates of their assemblymen to be above the grasps of the executive and judicial branches...this is why you'll never see an assemblyman waving around a m16 at the floor of their house being arrested ~ they can't be.
Issues with their activities are decided by the house, not by state police or judges.

Don't like this? Change your constitution.

So an assemblyman wanted people disarmed, even policemen in the executive branches, they can likely do this with absolute immunity.

The guys did what they could, and left. That's all that they could have done.

Click to expand...

Sure hope this assemblyman dosen't need a cop in the future.....might be a long response time.

WalkingWolf said:

This is only a warning to police of what is to come if gun control is successful. First the citizens, and then next the police. The only armed presence will be feds.

Click to expand...

cjohnson44546 said:

the Feds... and all the criminals...

Click to expand...

Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference . . .

SFCRetired said:

Sounds like a politician needs to be replaced. Since they don't know, and probably can't find out, who the politician was, the people need to replace all of them.

Remember the old saying about politicians and babies? They both need to be changed often and usually for the same reason.

Click to expand...

I thought it was diapers not babies....

cirrusly said:

I don't think we should have to point out the already obvious reasons why this statement is idiotic. Law enforcement officers are already in potentially dangerous and life threatening situations on a regular basis. A good friend of mine is a LEO in the Chicago area. He tells me he breaks leather on almost a regular basis. Take their tools away and there would be many more fatalities in the line of duty.

I share your frustrations and agree that all law abiding citizens should have the rights recognized in the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act (LEOSA) that allows them to carry "everywhere."

However, LEOs are not the adversary here. Quite the contrary, a recent poll on PoliceOne identified that over 90% of LEOs support law abiding citizens carrying firearms. Emily Miller referenced this statistic on her new talk show "Shooting Straight."

Click to expand...

the only "Idiotic" thing about the statement is calling it idiotic. the LE already has the power of law, they also have multitudes of non-lethal ways to subdue someone.
i would suggest if your friend is pulling on someone every night. that he is especially one of the SOBs that need limiting. hopefully an armed citizen will not have to protect themselves from him.
if you took away the kill licenses that LE enjoy. the death by firearm would be cut in half

cirrusly said:

I don't think we should have to point out the already obvious reasons why this statement is idiotic. Law enforcement officers are already in potentially dangerous and life threatening situations on a regular basis. A good friend of mine is a LEO in the Chicago area. He tells me he breaks leather on almost a regular basis. Take their tools away and there would be many more fatalities in the line of duty.

Click to expand...

This was not the experience of Robert Peel's bobbies. They worked in a society where the average citizen might be armed at will, and yet they found officer safety increased by moving to unarmed patrols.

Something about the willingness to "break leather" over trivialities serving as a incentive for criminals to shoot first to "get the drop" on cops, or out of a twisted form of self-defense… In short, when you're starting confrontations, the safest approach is often the least aggressive one.

Finally, odds are any practice advocated by any officer of any agency in the Chicago area should probably be banned as criminal.

marshaul said:

This was not the experience of Robert Peale's bobbies. They worked in a society where the average citizen might be armed at will, and yet they found officer safety increased by moving to unarmed patrols.

Something about the willingness to "break leather" over trivialities serving as a incentive for criminals to shoot first to "get the drop" on cops, or out of a twisted form of self-defense… In short, when you're starting confrontations, the safest approach is often the least aggressive one.

Finally, any practice any officer of any agency in the Chicago area advocates should probably be banned as criminal.

Click to expand...

Anybody know when the last time a unarmed college police officer was shot?

The difference between Barney Fife and Andy Griffith in Mayberry.......

To bad we have to many Barney Fife's today.

papa bear said:

the only "Idiotic" thing about the statement is calling it idiotic. the LE already has the power of law, they also have multitudes of non-lethal ways to subdue someone.
i would suggest if your friend is pulling on someone every night. that he is especially one of the SOBs that need limiting. hopefully an armed citizen will not have to protect themselves from him.
if you took away the kill licenses that LE enjoy. the death by firearm would be cut in half

Click to expand...

You're drawing some false assumptions from my post. One being, that "breaking leather on a regular basis" means "every night." Second, that he is aggressive and is an "SOB who needs limiting." Both couldn't be further from the truth. He is one of the most reasonable, non-aggressive people I know.

Prior to beginning his undergraduate he was also a police officer. In fact, he was a sworn officer throughout all four years of college with his current department. But he opted NOT to bring his service firearm or any firearm to school. He deemed it "unnecessary."

We were roommates in a portion of our undergrad, and throughout college he was always the individual mitigating situations when arguments escalated. He was excellent at mediating verbal arguments between people, partly in credit to his ability to read and emphasize with others well. His ability to "seek to understand" and his overall communications skills landed him almost unanimously president of our fraternity. In the summers between college he worked as a bouncer. The club staff used him as a proactive approach to disarming arguments between patrons. He'd simply buy one of the patrons a beer and "talk out" the impending argument.

Besides the social aspect of being a mediator he is also very prudent as a person. Our college was in the midwest, which consistently sees harsh driving conditions throughout the winters. In one instance it was sleeting and I was driving down the highway, him in the passenger seat. I was already driving a good 25-20MPH below the 55MPH speed limit, about 50% of the vehicles would pass us. It was slow, but not too slow that I was impeding traffic and causing a hazard myself. However, he suggested "maybe I go a little slower, in case there's some black ice."

How did this translate to his professional conduct? When he was an officer before starting undergrad the department was in a very safe county. He told me he NEVER had to draw his firearm, even once. In fact, in one instance a suspect started pushing him. Given his non-aggressive nature he radioed for backup and his backup and he de-escalated the situation rather than him trying to fend it off with a weapon alone.

Now, after undergrad he is in a district of Chicago that is known to be difficult at the least. Thus, if he tells me he has to "break leather" on a regular basis, and his squad has gotten shot at, I have every reason to believe that at face value. If he were "limited" anymore as you are suggesting, he may not survive in his current patrols.

So I maintain, your original statement is idiotic and your view is equally as brazen and shortsighted when you try to draw these all-encompassing statements.

cirrusly said:

Prior to beginning his undergraduate he was also a police officer. In fact, he was a sworn officer throughout all four years of college with his current department. But he opted NOT to bring his service firearm or any firearm to school. He deemed it "unnecessary."

Click to expand...

This was my favorite line...

I wonder if studets at VT or any of the other schools had students say this....Bet they don't say it anymore.

Once you are helpless in a mass shooting your views will turn, I know first hand.

I have to disarm when I go into a sheriff's office or other government building. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. Let them abide by the laws, regulations, and rules that the rest of us have to suffer under. They need a really good spoonful of their own medicine.

In Alabama it's the Sheriff's Association that is opposed to open carry in a vehicle without a license. The people in at least one poll on the defacto non-governmental state news website overwhelmingly were behind SB354 that would have allowed open carriers to open carry in a vehicle without first obtaining anyone else's permission including the local sheriff.

DocWalker said:

This was my favorite line...

I wonder if studets at VT or any of the other schools had students say this....Bet they don't say it anymore.

Once you are helpless in a mass shooting your views will turn, I know first hand.

Click to expand...

Once you have your skull fractured after being blind sided by four underprivileged thugs and suffer through the pain while swallowing blood for roughly a month while the fractures heal, your outlook on violent crime and firearms will also change. When this happened to me I drew down on them but didn't shoot any one of them. That was 24 years ago. I'm older and wiser now and my mindset has changed. I will still try and remove myself first from a bad situation if possible, but if not blind sided and see it coming I'll do what I have to in order to keep from being killed, maimed, or otherwise.

What was I doing at the time I was attacked? Sitting in my car waiting for hamburgers at a drive through in a "good area of a large Southern town." I'm like a bobble head now and keep my head on a swivel always aware of my surroundings. If I see trouble I leave as soon as possible. If that's not possible or someone else's life is at stake then I will weigh other options available to me such as calling the police if there is time for them to arrive before someone is hurt or killed, or take such action myself to prevent innocents from being harmed.

Tony_B said:

I have to disarm when I go into a sheriff's office or other government building. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. Let them abide by the laws, regulations, and rules that the rest of us have to suffer under. They need a really good spoonful of their own medicine.
<snip>

Click to expand...

But they're SPECIAL ! Waaa waaa waaa.

Suck it up...if they think that they have the RKBA then still carry.

Those that left proved to us that they do not support the 2nd amendment.

LEs have the law and the blue line. they also have many many non-lethal ways to subdue someone for due process of the law.

there are too many people that are un-armed or just being a nuisances that are now dead (lots of dogs too)

to think that LEOs (or any government agency) need lethal force is IDIOTIC thinking

cirrusly said:

...In fact, he was a sworn officer throughout all four years of college with his current department. But he opted NOT to bring his service firearm or any firearm to school. He deemed it "unnecessary." ...

Click to expand...

Then he has no idea what the purpose of a handgun is. It is a defensive weapon carried at all times BECAUSE you think that a weapon should be unnecessary where you are going to be.

If you thought a weapon would be necessary, you do one of two things: don't go, or carry a rifle.

He probably agrees with the law that required Amanda Collins to be raped. She has (and had at the time) a NV CCW permit. But universities by law are exempt. She obeyed the law. She was raped on campus 100 feet from the police station. The next victim Brianna Dennison was murdered.

Cops who think defensive handguns are unnecessary at colleges are the worst kind of hypocrites because others think they are right.

MAC702 said:

Cops who think defensive handguns are unnecessary at colleges are the worst kind of hypocrites because others think they are right.

Click to expand...

Doesn't mean he is opposed to others carrying on campus. It was merely his personal decision not to carry.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk