UTOC-45-44
Regular Member
imported post
THAT's how it's suppose to go:celebrate
Thank you Venator
TJ
THAT's how it's suppose to go:celebrate
Thank you Venator
TJ
-
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.
-
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.
LEO's who violate/don't know gun laws
- Thread starter OldShooter
- Start date
imported post
Sir... Drop the carrots and put your hands in the air!!
Ya... The call takers really need to know how to help solicit information to determine what a "man with a gun" is doing.
If a guy is with his family shopping is should be more than obvious he is just legally packing and not a threat to the public.
Sir... Drop the carrots and put your hands in the air!!
Ya... The call takers really need to know how to help solicit information to determine what a "man with a gun" is doing.
If a guy is with his family shopping is should be more than obvious he is just legally packing and not a threat to the public.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Shotgun49 wrote:
Its a diversion. A red herring.
The simplicity of it is that an LEO should not be taking nonconsensual enforcement action without knowing for a complete fact that a law exists and is being violated.
If there is no law against it, an LEO cannot possibly misunderstand it. There is nothing in theCode to misunderstand if there is no law there at all.
If there is no law against it, an LEO can not possibly be mistaken about it, except that he added his own idea into it.
The problem we have is not LEO's not understanding the law. The problem we have is LEO's taking nonconsensual enforcement action without a shred of lawful authority to take that action.
What are they thinking? It definitely is not, "That is illegal.Iknow it is illegal because I have read the Code on it."
Shotgun49 wrote:
Don't let the conversation steer towards LEO's not knowing the law.
Its a diversion. A red herring.
The simplicity of it is that an LEO should not be taking nonconsensual enforcement action without knowing for a complete fact that a law exists and is being violated.
If there is no law against it, an LEO cannot possibly misunderstand it. There is nothing in theCode to misunderstand if there is no law there at all.
If there is no law against it, an LEO can not possibly be mistaken about it, except that he added his own idea into it.
The problem we have is not LEO's not understanding the law. The problem we have is LEO's taking nonconsensual enforcement action without a shred of lawful authority to take that action.
What are they thinking? It definitely is not, "That is illegal.Iknow it is illegal because I have read the Code on it."
unreconstructed1
Regular Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
exactly what I have said all along. I have worked a few different jobs in my life, and they all involve 1 thing ... TRAINING.
most jobs have guiidelines and protocols that you have to follow, and these are put into an employees manual. in a way, local, state, and federal law is an LEOs employee handbook. If they can't take the time to learn how to properly do their job, then they should be given the opportunity to find work in a different field, simple as that.
a carpenter can't install windows in teh floor, and doors in teh ceiling and claim "they didn't know", why should an LEO?
Citizen wrote:
exactly what I have said all along. I have worked a few different jobs in my life, and they all involve 1 thing ... TRAINING.
most jobs have guiidelines and protocols that you have to follow, and these are put into an employees manual. in a way, local, state, and federal law is an LEOs employee handbook. If they can't take the time to learn how to properly do their job, then they should be given the opportunity to find work in a different field, simple as that.
a carpenter can't install windows in teh floor, and doors in teh ceiling and claim "they didn't know", why should an LEO?
imperialism2024
Regular Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Personally, I blame the glut of malum prohibitum "crimes" for overreaction of LEOs. If the only laws on the books were ones that involved a clear victim, it would be a simpler thought process. LEO sees something questionable. LEO thinks, "Is someone being harmed?" If the answer is "Yes", LEO stops the person and investigates. If the answer is "No", LEO continues on with his business and leaves the person alone. No need to consult various codes of "prohibited" activity.
Citizen wrote:
I'll give a +1 to that.
Personally, I blame the glut of malum prohibitum "crimes" for overreaction of LEOs. If the only laws on the books were ones that involved a clear victim, it would be a simpler thought process. LEO sees something questionable. LEO thinks, "Is someone being harmed?" If the answer is "Yes", LEO stops the person and investigates. If the answer is "No", LEO continues on with his business and leaves the person alone. No need to consult various codes of "prohibited" activity.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
imperialism2024 wrote:
Where on earth do these types of people get the idea that they can seize another human being without first clearly knowing there is a law against it? Remember that a nonconsensual encounter isa seizure of the person--see Terry vs. Ohio.
There is something fundamentally wrong with the thinking of an individual who is willing to seize another without total certainty that there is a law against it.
imperialism2024 wrote:
You've got a good point. Part of the problem for sure. But I think it goes deeper than that.
Where on earth do these types of people get the idea that they can seize another human being without first clearly knowing there is a law against it? Remember that a nonconsensual encounter isa seizure of the person--see Terry vs. Ohio.
There is something fundamentally wrong with the thinking of an individual who is willing to seize another without total certainty that there is a law against it.
imperialism2024
Regular Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Anyhow, as I look at it, a fundamental flaw of Americans (and perhaps other cultures as well) is to classify everything into two categories, and to then rank one as good, and one as evil. Combined with the erroneous notion of democracy, it is natural for people living in this country to think that all behavior deviant from the norm in a community is illegal. Ever since the 1860s, the right of the minority has been subjugated to the majority. So... someone is open carrying? He isn't conforming to society... he thus must be doing something wrong.
Just my thoughts on it...
Citizen wrote:
I don't know if that's a rhetorical question or not...
Anyhow, as I look at it, a fundamental flaw of Americans (and perhaps other cultures as well) is to classify everything into two categories, and to then rank one as good, and one as evil. Combined with the erroneous notion of democracy, it is natural for people living in this country to think that all behavior deviant from the norm in a community is illegal. Ever since the 1860s, the right of the minority has been subjugated to the majority. So... someone is open carrying? He isn't conforming to society... he thus must be doing something wrong.
Just my thoughts on it...
Sheriff
Regular Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
This is correct. If the police academy, the department, or the field training officer has not taught a particularlaw to their troops.... the troops have no business attempting to wing it on what they feel the law should be or probably is.
I honestly feel the problem lies in the fact that hiring standards have been lowered so much just to attract applicants now. Even if the troops are taught, it just doesn't sink in with some of them. They simply aren't the brightest crayons in the box to begin with.
(And this isn't cop bashing, it's a fact of life in 2008!)
Citizen wrote:
This is correct. If the police academy, the department, or the field training officer has not taught a particularlaw to their troops.... the troops have no business attempting to wing it on what they feel the law should be or probably is.
I honestly feel the problem lies in the fact that hiring standards have been lowered so much just to attract applicants now. Even if the troops are taught, it just doesn't sink in with some of them. They simply aren't the brightest crayons in the box to begin with.
(And this isn't cop bashing, it's a fact of life in 2008!)
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
Sheriff wrote:
Sheriff wrote:
LOL. This is the first time I heard this.
imported post
SpringerXDacp wrote:
The pool of candidates has not changed much over the years. You have some real good people out there that want to be a cop for all the right reasons.
They have to be bright enough to pass the state mandated testing and are not the Gumps someone wants you to see them as.
With all the training that happens in 6 months plus another 40 days of FTI training it is hard to remember it all. Things that you will encounter or have experienced as a citizen will be at the top of your mind.
Most rookies are wet behind the ears and still need real world experience to build off. Most are not going to enforce laws that do not exist.
SpringerXDacp wrote:
I would not buy much stock in what some people say.LOL. This is the first time I heard this.
The pool of candidates has not changed much over the years. You have some real good people out there that want to be a cop for all the right reasons.
They have to be bright enough to pass the state mandated testing and are not the Gumps someone wants you to see them as.
With all the training that happens in 6 months plus another 40 days of FTI training it is hard to remember it all. Things that you will encounter or have experienced as a citizen will be at the top of your mind.
Most rookies are wet behind the ears and still need real world experience to build off. Most are not going to enforce laws that do not exist.
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO, you took it wrong. I was only laughing at the ...brightest crayon in the box...thing. You know, similar to; someone being a sandwich short of a picnic/etc. :lol:
Oops!!! For got the smiley.
LEO 229 wrote:
SpringerXDacp wrote:I would not buy much stock in what some people say.LOL. This is the first time I heard this.
The pool of candidates has not changed much over the years. You have some real good people out there that want to be a cop for all the right reasons.
They have to be bright enough to pass the state mandated testing and are not the Gumps someone wants you to see them as.
With all the training that happens in 6 months plus another 40 days of FTI training it is hard to remember it all. Things that you will encounter or have experienced as a citizen will be at the top of your mind.
Most rookies are wet behind the ears and still need real world experience to build off. Most are not going to enforce laws that do not exist.
LEO, you took it wrong. I was only laughing at the ...brightest crayon in the box...thing. You know, similar to; someone being a sandwich short of a picnic/etc. :lol:
Oops!!! For got the smiley.
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Exactly
Sheriff
Regular Member
imported post
Ohh brother, here we go again! :lol:
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Isn't this also the same thing I just said? They aren't the brightest crayons in the box to begin with, they can't remember simple things. If a Michigan Police Academy instructor tells me on the 32nd day of classes that OC is legal in Michigan.... I am going to easily remember it.
Ohh brother, here we go again! :lol:
LEO 229 wrote:
So you think allowing convicted drug addicts to apply to the state police now isn't a change over the years? It damn sure wasn't allowed in 1985 or 1995.
LEO 229 wrote:
Isn't this also the same thing I just said? They aren't the brightest crayons in the box to begin with, they can't remember simple things. If a Michigan Police Academy instructor tells me on the 32nd day of classes that OC is legal in Michigan.... I am going to easily remember it.
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
So you're saying while the quality of education in America has fallen below that of some third-world countries, government programming of children has been increasing in schools, moral responsibility has been diminished, high school graduates can't read a ruler or understand fractional math nor read all the words on their diploma, and job applicants in every field have been sub-standard quality, police applicants haven't changed?
imported post
Is there a law specifically against being addicted to drugs? I just ask because you say "convicted drug addicts." I am surprised anyone with a felony drug conviction could become an officer, but I have don't necessarily have a problem with a recovered drug user being a police officer. If they haven't been charged with any drug crimes (Or perhaps have a past misdemeanor for a marijuana charge or something similarly minor) and have recovered, what is the problem? They got their lives straight and IIRC they're drug tested as police officers, so they wouldn't be able to work as an officer if they continued to use drugs.
It's interesting how people have no problem with socially acceptable drug use but at the same time will not forgive a past use of an illegal drug. Honestly alcohol is a FAR more dangerous drug than marijuana (And many other illegal drugs), so if that's all it was about then I really don't see the problem.
Also remember even Methamphetamine is a legally prescribed drug. Many people bring up "meth" for some reason like it's this drug that makes you want to kill and feel no pain (Which is also a fallacy, it is not a pain killer). Yet few of these people realize that the prescription drug Desoxyn is methamphetamine, which can be legally prescribed to anyone, including children, for whom it is indicated.
I guess my point is that if they've recovered then there shouldn't be a problem. Honestly, it could even be an advantage in that they may be more familiar with the way that certain criminals do things.
Is there a law specifically against being addicted to drugs? I just ask because you say "convicted drug addicts." I am surprised anyone with a felony drug conviction could become an officer, but I have don't necessarily have a problem with a recovered drug user being a police officer. If they haven't been charged with any drug crimes (Or perhaps have a past misdemeanor for a marijuana charge or something similarly minor) and have recovered, what is the problem? They got their lives straight and IIRC they're drug tested as police officers, so they wouldn't be able to work as an officer if they continued to use drugs.
It's interesting how people have no problem with socially acceptable drug use but at the same time will not forgive a past use of an illegal drug. Honestly alcohol is a FAR more dangerous drug than marijuana (And many other illegal drugs), so if that's all it was about then I really don't see the problem.
Also remember even Methamphetamine is a legally prescribed drug. Many people bring up "meth" for some reason like it's this drug that makes you want to kill and feel no pain (Which is also a fallacy, it is not a pain killer). Yet few of these people realize that the prescription drug Desoxyn is methamphetamine, which can be legally prescribed to anyone, including children, for whom it is indicated.
I guess my point is that if they've recovered then there shouldn't be a problem. Honestly, it could even be an advantage in that they may be more familiar with the way that certain criminals do things.
Sheriff
Regular Member
imported post
Weak9mm, I agree with you in principle, but not in reality. Departments nationwide are having to lower various standards just to attract and hire qualified applicants as a police officer. One of these standards is the testing procedures, because so many applicants can't pass.
Here's a small quote from...
http://www.policeone.com/police-recruiting/articles/1331243-Many-Calif-agencies-struggle-to-find-qualified-officers/
quote: "He offers the written and physical entrance tests once a month and has to test about 300 people to get roughly 30 qualified candidates, he said."
Because of "political correctness". what the article can't come right out and say is that 90% of police applicants nowadays are too stupid or too out of shape to be cops. They get out of high school, sit in mommy's basement on the Internet all day for 5 years eating Hostess Twinkies, and then decide at age 22 they want to be a cop.
Another quote from the article....
quote:"Sometimes, people have really bad driving records, recent arrests or recent drug use," Gordon said. "We tell them it's going to be hard to get hired."
Some departments still haven't lowered standards enough to accept convicted drug users or those who take 3 hours to run a mile. And some departments have. It's pretty sad, IMHO.
Weak9mm, I agree with you in principle, but not in reality. Departments nationwide are having to lower various standards just to attract and hire qualified applicants as a police officer. One of these standards is the testing procedures, because so many applicants can't pass.
Here's a small quote from...
http://www.policeone.com/police-recruiting/articles/1331243-Many-Calif-agencies-struggle-to-find-qualified-officers/
quote: "He offers the written and physical entrance tests once a month and has to test about 300 people to get roughly 30 qualified candidates, he said."
Because of "political correctness". what the article can't come right out and say is that 90% of police applicants nowadays are too stupid or too out of shape to be cops. They get out of high school, sit in mommy's basement on the Internet all day for 5 years eating Hostess Twinkies, and then decide at age 22 they want to be a cop.
Another quote from the article....
quote:"Sometimes, people have really bad driving records, recent arrests or recent drug use," Gordon said. "We tell them it's going to be hard to get hired."
Some departments still haven't lowered standards enough to accept convicted drug users or those who take 3 hours to run a mile. And some departments have. It's pretty sad, IMHO.
Sheriff
Regular Member
imported post
ps - If you really want to see what lands in our police academies nowadays, there's a new show on cable TV called "The Academy". The show cracks me up.
The other night an instructor asked a student if he wanted to take over as the "class sergeant". The student said yes.
So the student took over as "class sergeant."
The instructor walked in and said, "What the hell do you think you are doing recruit?" He answered, "I am the new class sergeant, sir!"
"Who told you that, recruit?"
"You did, sir!"
"Did I tell you that?"
"Sir, yes sir!"
"Are you sure I told you that?"
"Sir, yes sir!"
"Recruit, did I ask you if you wanted to be the new class sergeant, or did I tell you that you are the new class sergeant?"
"Sir, you asked me sir!"
"That's right, recruit! I asked you! You just stood here and lied to us all, recruit!"
The kid was terminated and thrown off the academy property. Is this the kind of person you want out on the street enforcing CC and OC laws? His thought process is warped from the very beginning. He "assumed" things. What if he gets out on the street and "assumes" things? I applaud the instructor for terminating him immediately!
ps - If you really want to see what lands in our police academies nowadays, there's a new show on cable TV called "The Academy". The show cracks me up.
The other night an instructor asked a student if he wanted to take over as the "class sergeant". The student said yes.
So the student took over as "class sergeant."
The instructor walked in and said, "What the hell do you think you are doing recruit?" He answered, "I am the new class sergeant, sir!"
"Who told you that, recruit?"
"You did, sir!"
"Did I tell you that?"
"Sir, yes sir!"
"Are you sure I told you that?"
"Sir, yes sir!"
"Recruit, did I ask you if you wanted to be the new class sergeant, or did I tell you that you are the new class sergeant?"
"Sir, you asked me sir!"
"That's right, recruit! I asked you! You just stood here and lied to us all, recruit!"
The kid was terminated and thrown off the academy property. Is this the kind of person you want out on the street enforcing CC and OC laws? His thought process is warped from the very beginning. He "assumed" things. What if he gets out on the street and "assumes" things? I applaud the instructor for terminating him immediately!
possumboy
Regular Member
imported post
Sheriff wrote:
The problem is LEOs need to be above question. DC is currently trying to fire officers because they feel their character can be questioned in court.
Previous drug use could become and issue for LEOs in court depending on why they are in court. For traffic violations, I do not see this as a problem. I could think of a few reasons LEOs's integrity needs to be spotless in court.
Sheriff wrote:
The problem is LEOs need to be above question. DC is currently trying to fire officers because they feel their character can be questioned in court.
Previous drug use could become and issue for LEOs in court depending on why they are in court. For traffic violations, I do not see this as a problem. I could think of a few reasons LEOs's integrity needs to be spotless in court.