imported post
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"
Now I'm not trying to bash on anyone here or belittle them, and I'm not trying to find a good arguement. But I feel you allneed some information here as the way things are going on this thread, you are hurting your cause more than helping it. So I'm going to try and give some constructive criticism, so please don't take this negatively.
First Thx, I'm disappointedwith the way you conducted yourself on their site. They have some very valid points and youdid seem to go searching for a specific answer to something they couldn't answer. You really need to put yourself in their shoes. My suggestion is to go to the police station and request a ride-along. Ask questions, observe, get a feel for what they go through. Do this every week for roughly six months, then look at how you feel about their actions.
Now I'm probably the last one in the world they would appreciate because I use to hold a position in which I would, in some cases, destroy their careers. But I have learned to really appreciate what they do.
You mentioned on the thread:
Your job from my understanding, is not to prevent crime.
In reality, they are there to prevent crime, and they do the best they can with what they have to work with. The problem is not theirs, and it is not yours specifically, it is the lawmakers problem that we have to deal with. It is the laws we have which prevent the LE from preventing crime. In some cases, it is a good thing. If it were not for the laws we have, you could have easily been arrested on an 'assumption' that you are 'going' to commit a crime when you were given the citation of disorderly conduct. Think about it, the laws we have now really did protect you.
One of the biggest problems we have today is the attitude of following the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law. As JohnnyB from St Helens suggested, "sue".
Sueing is not the answer, although it is necessary in extreme circumstances when an officer steps over his/her bounds considerably. Your case is not an extreme, and as they pointed out on the thread at police.com, disorderly conduct can be construed as having a few phone calls of 'man with a gun'.
My point is, we need to know the laws and we need to know how to conduct ourselves in court. There is no need to argue with the officer on the street, they don't get paid enough to put up with the crap they have to go through on a daily basis. And having to deal with the negative, hostile criminals they deal with every day, that negative hostility rubs off on them. They tend to want to vent their frustrations just as you and I do. And if you give them a hard time on the street, they will vent.
With that said, let me redirect my attention to another comment made here.
OMG! This is the crap that only reaffirms my distrust of the police. It has always been my position that they have WAY too much power and authority to trample all over your rights if they want to. Who is the court going to believe, you or the cop? It's always in their favor not matter what unless you have solid proof against their word... How is it again... "guilty until proven innocent"..? If that's not ass backwards and twisted, I don't know what the hell is. :cuss:
Kevin
This is where you are wrong and I believe most of us, unfortunately feel this way. Think about what is said here and then put yourself in the shoes of a criminal. The criminal tramples all over your rights and doesn't give a rats a-- about it. The officer deals with the criminal daily. The officer doesn't want to deal with the attitude of the criminal, they just want the criminal off the street. The courts on the other hand, trying to help the officer, but having to keep with the laws, end up letting the criminal go free for the officer to chase down once again.
You see, on the police.com thread, an officer stated:
NO ONE will change how we do our jobs on the street, no one will convince us we do it wrong, only our chief and legal advisors can do that.
This is where you and I come in. We can't be hating the officer for trying to protect themselves. It's hard being a public servant, and you can't please everyone. So they issue little citations like disorderly conduct, simply to please the worriers. It's in the courts where you can make policy changes. And the courts may take their side, but only for a short while, until they have a judicial complaint against them. You see, you can have a judge de-benched because they take sides. You've explained well enough on this forum, the laws regarding open carry, but you need to propose your arguement to the judge. The courts have the power to make the officer's employer change their policy. Believe me, I've witnessed it first hand with Worst Valley City.
"There are 3 kinds of people in the world:
The Cops,
The Criminals,
and the Potential Criminals.
Where do you fit? "
Yes, that is some of their mentalities,and it usually comes from years of service dealing with the felonsbehind barsand those released to the public. Understand though, the officer is employed by a public entity. The citieshave bonds in place to protect the officer. If the officer gets (on average) three complaints against their bond, they are dismissed from their employment because they lose their bond. If an officer goes from city to city getting fired from complaints against their bonds, they will no longer be able to get employment as a police officer. Only in the courts can you get these complaints enforced. Public servants have to be very, very careful.
But like I said, follow the spirit of the law. Going after an officer, or a city just out of spite will bite you in the butt later on. And it may have much larger repercussions to a very large movement like OpenCarry.
We as a society are already well on our way to a destruction we cannot comprehend because of the selfish, greedy, selfcentered law suits and complaints we file so often. By all means, continue your persuit of happiness, but be tolerant of others. Try to understand the position an officer is in before going off on them.
Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts.
