Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Sheriff wrote:
Sheriff wrote:
But for a useful fool.have a foolproof verification process
But for a useful fool.have a foolproof verification process
"he is a strong supporter of gun rights."
The second quote seems to contradict the first one."if I see a person walking around carrying a gun in plain sight, I will want to stop and question him". He understands and said very quickly that this would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of the person so stopped"
Comments like his bring back memories of when pagers and cellphones were first coming on the streets. Some cops saw citizens with pagers and thought that if they didn't look like doctors or lawers then they were probably drug dealers and the pager was enough probable cause to stop and search someone on the street. Now we have replaced pagers with holstered firearms and we have the same mentality to deal with. If we are carrying a gun and don't have a badge displayed then we must be up to no good. Well, that's a load... wait...my pager's going off....let's see...Oh...I have to return this call.....back later.Liko81 wrote:"he is a strong supporter of gun rights."The second quote seems to contradict the first one."if I see a person walking around carrying a gun in plain sight, I will want to stop and question him". He understands and said very quickly that this would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of the person so stopped"
I'm a big supporter of the 1st ammendment, as long as others don'tsay something stupid.
Oh, yale, then I am screwed! If you'll recall from our meet-up, I wear a pager, a cellphone AND a pistol.buster81 wrote:Comments like his bring back memories of when pagers and cellphones were first coming on the streets. Some cops saw citizens with pagers and thought that if they didn't look like doctors or lawers then they were probably drug dealers and the pager was enough probable cause to stop and search someone on the street. Now we have replaced pagers with holstered firearms and we have the same mentality to deal with. If we are carrying a gun and don't have a badge displayed then we must be up to no good. Well, that's a load... wait...my pager's going off....let's see...Oh...I have to return this call.....back later.Liko81 wrote:"he is a strong supporter of gun rights."The second quote seems to contradict the first one."if I see a person walking around carrying a gun in plain sight, I will want to stop and question him". He understands and said very quickly that this would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of the person so stopped"
I'm a big supporter of the 1st ammendment, as long as others don'tsay something stupid.
when i approach a civilian... my training kicks in... i become a machine... i don't recognize attitudes... i recognize THE LAW. and the law says don't be suspicious.AWDstylez wrote:It is more dependant on weather you take an attitude or just treat the guy like another human being. I can guess that your encounters may not be very good.SFCRetired wrote:That's highly dependant on what area you're in.Thankfully, police officers like this are in a small minority.
On a Special Forces website that I and a few others here belong to, we DO have a 100% foolproof verification process.I've said it once, I will say it again. Just because a person enters a forum and says they are a cop.... doesn't mean they are one. On the Internet a person can be anything they choose to be.
Furthermore, when identification and verification is required to enter certain areas of "cop" forums, everybody has a friend who will join up and provide credentials for identification to the web site. It still doesn't mean the person who eventually uses the account is a real cop. (Tickles me to death that one cop forum claims to have a foolproof verification process :lol: )
So if one of these "others" you speak of let me use their sign in and password, it would still be foolproof?On a Special Forces website that I and a few others here belong to, we DO have a 100% foolproof verification process.
Hawkflyer wrote:when i approach a civilian... my training kicks in... i become a machine... i don't recognize attitudes... i recognize THE LAW. and the law says don't be suspicious.AWDstylez wrote:It is more dependant on weather you take an attitude or just treat the guy like another human being. I can guess that your encounters may not be very good.SFCRetired wrote:That's highly dependant on what area you're in.Thankfully, police officers like this are in a small minority.
funny the first thing we learned at I Take Child Molesters Off The Street Forensics Academy was to spell dependent.
DETECT DETER OBSERVE REPORT
I'd tell ya but then I'd have to kill ya. Or What, you think a bro would betray a bro?So if one of these "others" you speak of let me use their sign in and password, it would still be foolproof?
Citizen makes a very astute observation and suggestion here, Paul.PaulBlart wrote:Hawkflyer wrote:when i approach a civilian... my training kicks in... i become a machine... i don't recognize attitudes... i recognize THE LAW. and the law says don't be suspicious.AWDstylez wrote:It is more dependant on weather you take an attitude or just treat the guy like another human being. I can guess that your encounters may not be very good.SFCRetired wrote:That's highly dependant on what area you're in.Thankfully, police officers like this are in a small minority.
funny the first thing we learned at I Take Child Molesters Off The Street Forensics Academy was to spell dependent.
DETECT DETER OBSERVE REPORT
(Buzzer)
'tis unseemly for the satirist to stoop to mere arguing and sarcasm.
Suggested edit:
"The one place we LEOs seem to have trouble is spelling. I admit it. Its a wide-spread failing in the profession. I could only spell dependent correctly because I had to look it up. (It took a little longer than usual because I came across doughnut on the way--notice I spelled that one correctly, to. )"
"What is the combination of the boathouse at Hereford?"On a Special Forces website that I and a few others here belong to, we DO have a 100% foolproof verification process.
Color! Color. Ambushed by a cup of coffee! (In the keyboard?)ODA 226 wrote:"What is the combination of the boathouse at Hereford?"On a Special Forces website that I and a few others here belong to, we DO have a 100% foolproof verification process.
I want to know what dictionary displays the word 'doughnut' beforre 'dependent' or were you reading it backwards?(Buzzer)
'tis unseemly for the satirist to stoop to mere arguing and sarcasm.
Suggested edit:
"The one place we LEOs seem to have trouble is spelling. I admit it. Its a wide-spread failing in the profession. I could only spell dependent correctly because I had to look it up. (It took a little longer than usual because I came across doughnut on the way--notice I spelled that one correctly, to. )"