-
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.
Accosted for open carry in Milwaukie, OR
- Thread starter ocman1991A1
- Start date
imported post
Thecarguy wrote:
officer safety is way more important than so called rights. if all it takes is to have everyone in a cage for me to be safe when all i'm doing is my job i'm paid to do... thats alright with me.
after all, i'm the only one in this room professional enough that i know to handle dis glock fouwty.
Thecarguy wrote:
I agree, heroes like us cops should be able to do whatever we want. rights are just something hippies whine about.
officer safety is way more important than so called rights. if all it takes is to have everyone in a cage for me to be safe when all i'm doing is my job i'm paid to do... thats alright with me.
after all, i'm the only one in this room professional enough that i know to handle dis glock fouwty.
suntzu
Regular Member
imported post
PaulBlart wrote:
I saw the "I'm a pro dea agent" that is on youtube too....
PaulBlart wrote:
let me guess--immediately after saying "dis glock foty"-, you shot yourself in the foot and then went about handling other guns in front of people who were shocked that anyone would trust you enough to handle a gun?
I saw the "I'm a pro dea agent" that is on youtube too....
suntzu
Regular Member
imported post
so did the police cover up for their own and find the officers committed no wrong doing, OR did they actually do the right thing for once?
you don't have to put up with bodily threats from LEOs--perhaps you should consider pressing charges against the initiating officer as well as suing the department.
so did the police cover up for their own and find the officers committed no wrong doing, OR did they actually do the right thing for once?
you don't have to put up with bodily threats from LEOs--perhaps you should consider pressing charges against the initiating officer as well as suing the department.
suntzu
Regular Member
imported post
PaulBlart wrote:
If that is the way the police want to be--then suing would be a great attention getter for them.
PaulBlart wrote:
But that tells the person nothing about whether the officers were reprimanded, suspended, or fired or just given an at-a-boy and a slap on the back.
If that is the way the police want to be--then suing would be a great attention getter for them.
Orygunner
Regular Member
imported post
Carguy, the struggle I have with what you said is this:
I understand that a police officer just wants to be safe. However, I resent the common idea that police officers are somehow better than us, that their lives are somehow more important, and that they have some sorts of special rights that regular citizens do not have.
The police have no more RIGHTS than any other citizen, they have POWERS granted to them by the state/county/city government. That includes power of arrest, the power to detain under reasonable articulatable suspicion, and some powers for the use of force to affect arrests.
If I am talking with someone and notice they have a gun in reach, am I allowed to threaten them with deadly force when they are otherwise completely non-aggressive? Hell no! And neither shoulda police officer. However, if someone is acting aggressively towards me and I believe my life is in danger? Well, of course! Police officersshould NOT be using or threatening the use of deadly force against someone merely because they have a firearm nearby. If someone is acting aggressively or is otherwise determined to be a threat to the officer (has warrants for arrest, etc) then the officer should of course have the option to separate them from their weapon, but not unless there's another cause for alarm besides simply having a weapon in reach.
There's no Oregon law I know if that states you have to notify a police officer that you have a firearm, or even show them your CHL. When an officer runs your license, I understand they're notified by the system you havea CHL. If an officer is threatened MORE by the fact that he's dealing with someone that's part of a group of people several times LESS likely to commit a crime than the average person in society, that officer needs a reality check.
I haven't been pulled over in quite some time (over 15 years). Now that I carry am much more aware of my rights, I do not intend to either notify the police officer that I have a CHL, that I am carrying a weapon, and I certainly will NOT hand my weapon over to them for any reason.
My RIGHTS trump any officer's idea of what makes them safer anytime and everytime. They have no more right to be safe than I do, and frankly, if they don't care about or respect MY rights, I find that extremely threatening.
...Orygunner...
Carguy, the struggle I have with what you said is this:
I understand that a police officer just wants to be safe. However, I resent the common idea that police officers are somehow better than us, that their lives are somehow more important, and that they have some sorts of special rights that regular citizens do not have.
The police have no more RIGHTS than any other citizen, they have POWERS granted to them by the state/county/city government. That includes power of arrest, the power to detain under reasonable articulatable suspicion, and some powers for the use of force to affect arrests.
If I am talking with someone and notice they have a gun in reach, am I allowed to threaten them with deadly force when they are otherwise completely non-aggressive? Hell no! And neither shoulda police officer. However, if someone is acting aggressively towards me and I believe my life is in danger? Well, of course! Police officersshould NOT be using or threatening the use of deadly force against someone merely because they have a firearm nearby. If someone is acting aggressively or is otherwise determined to be a threat to the officer (has warrants for arrest, etc) then the officer should of course have the option to separate them from their weapon, but not unless there's another cause for alarm besides simply having a weapon in reach.
There's no Oregon law I know if that states you have to notify a police officer that you have a firearm, or even show them your CHL. When an officer runs your license, I understand they're notified by the system you havea CHL. If an officer is threatened MORE by the fact that he's dealing with someone that's part of a group of people several times LESS likely to commit a crime than the average person in society, that officer needs a reality check.
I haven't been pulled over in quite some time (over 15 years). Now that I carry am much more aware of my rights, I do not intend to either notify the police officer that I have a CHL, that I am carrying a weapon, and I certainly will NOT hand my weapon over to them for any reason.
My RIGHTS trump any officer's idea of what makes them safer anytime and everytime. They have no more right to be safe than I do, and frankly, if they don't care about or respect MY rights, I find that extremely threatening.
...Orygunner...
SlackwareRobert
Regular Member
imported post
So an officer is justified in shooting someone for moving towards a gun on the dash,
when it was the officer who tells the passenger to put his hands on the dash....
And how do they expect you to get the paperwork out of the glove box?
It is this attitude that I will not notify, and will defend myself regardless of the who
the aggressor is. If he approaches me with hand on gun, then I have all the
information I need that I am threatened.
I have never been notified by an leo that his partner has his gun in his hand, nor if he
was carrying a backup concealed.
When I am asked if I have any weapons, I always reply, "I do not know, and I don't
consent to a search", let them prove that it is a lie.
If he threatens my life he better never take his eyes off of me, because I will defend
myself at the first opportunity.
If his partner is dumb enough to think it is funny he also will be a danger to my life.
I don't disarm especially when I am being threatened with bodily harm.
There is no grey area to my life.
If the leo is worried about me, then he is more than welcome to move along.
I do not mind and will not complain about not getting a ticket.
So an officer is justified in shooting someone for moving towards a gun on the dash,
when it was the officer who tells the passenger to put his hands on the dash....
And how do they expect you to get the paperwork out of the glove box?
It is this attitude that I will not notify, and will defend myself regardless of the who
the aggressor is. If he approaches me with hand on gun, then I have all the
information I need that I am threatened.
I have never been notified by an leo that his partner has his gun in his hand, nor if he
was carrying a backup concealed.
When I am asked if I have any weapons, I always reply, "I do not know, and I don't
consent to a search", let them prove that it is a lie.
If he threatens my life he better never take his eyes off of me, because I will defend
myself at the first opportunity.
If his partner is dumb enough to think it is funny he also will be a danger to my life.
I don't disarm especially when I am being threatened with bodily harm.
There is no grey area to my life.
If the leo is worried about me, then he is more than welcome to move along.
I do not mind and will not complain about not getting a ticket.
DenWin
Regular Member
imported post
AlCon:
Well, interesting post to say the least. I am not LEO, I'm military. I don't know how different LE agencies train, but my unit's training uses a dimmer switch, not a flip switch. Whereas this individual officer's aggressive attitude seemed to only be on, I tune mine depending on the situation. The first part of the story I am fine with. Take a more aggressive stance, let my partner know there is a gun, and go do my checks. Afterwards, though, his stance was still very aggressive. I would have been more on the defensive than normal, but it wouldn't have been to that extreme. There's a gun, I don't know him, but the checks came back clean. Okay, moving on, keep my self prepared for the deadliest course of action, but know what the most likely course of action is going to be, which is probably a friendly person just going for a drive to take a look at a Corvette (that was it, right?) and is a good, law abiding, citizen. Just my two cents.
DenWin
EDIT: Heh heh
I realize not everyone might know that AlCon means All Concerned, just making sure no one thinks I'm talking to some one with the handle AlCon.
AlCon:
Well, interesting post to say the least. I am not LEO, I'm military. I don't know how different LE agencies train, but my unit's training uses a dimmer switch, not a flip switch. Whereas this individual officer's aggressive attitude seemed to only be on, I tune mine depending on the situation. The first part of the story I am fine with. Take a more aggressive stance, let my partner know there is a gun, and go do my checks. Afterwards, though, his stance was still very aggressive. I would have been more on the defensive than normal, but it wouldn't have been to that extreme. There's a gun, I don't know him, but the checks came back clean. Okay, moving on, keep my self prepared for the deadliest course of action, but know what the most likely course of action is going to be, which is probably a friendly person just going for a drive to take a look at a Corvette (that was it, right?) and is a good, law abiding, citizen. Just my two cents.
DenWin
EDIT: Heh heh
I realize not everyone might know that AlCon means All Concerned, just making sure no one thinks I'm talking to some one with the handle AlCon.imported post
HI all.
Ok, I know I am a FNG here (1st post) but I think when car guy said Superior position, I think he meant tactically, not morally.
(The cop, being to the rear of him, and he seated in a car, the cop had a strait draw, wile 1911 would have to draw and turn around).
I know I have been pulled over in Washington county before wile carrying, not only did I not have and Issue with the female Beaverton cop, she let me off with a warning.
I was going 9 over on Hall blvd, when I was pulled over, I kept my hands on the wheel until she got to the window, I then told her I had a CWP, and the pistol was holstered.
She thanked me for telling her, and then I got the License, registration and Insurance card for her, she took them back, came back 2 minutes later handed them back to me, said she was letting me off with just a warning and asked me to have a good evening.
The real reason she pulled me over was, it was dusk, and my headlights were not on, and being closed to 10pm (It stays light here in the summer months until 11ish) and that could be a indicator I was drunk.
I told her I had not had anything to drink, and I wished her a nice quite night.
It was quite uneventful, but then again, I was polite to the officer, and took the position to tell her before she asked, this lets them know you not a threat.
In reading 1911 account, the way I read it, you were not polite to the officer, then you escalated thing by being flip with him.
The old adage, you get more bees with Honey comes to mind here.
And there is being "Dead Right" you were right, but it could have got killed.
So how would that have helped you?
In my mind, the time to push your "Rights" is in a court room, not in a cops face.
HI all.
Ok, I know I am a FNG here (1st post) but I think when car guy said Superior position, I think he meant tactically, not morally.
(The cop, being to the rear of him, and he seated in a car, the cop had a strait draw, wile 1911 would have to draw and turn around).
I know I have been pulled over in Washington county before wile carrying, not only did I not have and Issue with the female Beaverton cop, she let me off with a warning.
I was going 9 over on Hall blvd, when I was pulled over, I kept my hands on the wheel until she got to the window, I then told her I had a CWP, and the pistol was holstered.
She thanked me for telling her, and then I got the License, registration and Insurance card for her, she took them back, came back 2 minutes later handed them back to me, said she was letting me off with just a warning and asked me to have a good evening.
The real reason she pulled me over was, it was dusk, and my headlights were not on, and being closed to 10pm (It stays light here in the summer months until 11ish) and that could be a indicator I was drunk.
I told her I had not had anything to drink, and I wished her a nice quite night.
It was quite uneventful, but then again, I was polite to the officer, and took the position to tell her before she asked, this lets them know you not a threat.
In reading 1911 account, the way I read it, you were not polite to the officer, then you escalated thing by being flip with him.
The old adage, you get more bees with Honey comes to mind here.
And there is being "Dead Right" you were right, but it could have got killed.
So how would that have helped you?
In my mind, the time to push your "Rights" is in a court room, not in a cops face.
ocman1991A1
Banned
imported post
re read the post, i was never not polite. me telling him what he is sayin is not true is not rude. me not telling him i'm armed is not illegal or immoral. the leo has complete blame for what he did as it was unprovoked.
i did nothing out of the ordinary or wrong.
re read the post, i was never not polite. me telling him what he is sayin is not true is not rude. me not telling him i'm armed is not illegal or immoral. the leo has complete blame for what he did as it was unprovoked.
i did nothing out of the ordinary or wrong.
imported post
ocman1991A1 wrote:
If you had answered the first question with a smile on your face and good afternoon sir, and then said, I would like you to see that my pistol is on my console because it is too uncomfortable to have in my holster wile I am in the car.....I can tell you, it sure would have gone very differently.
People sometimes forget that LOE's are, well human beings, they can make mistakes, they may act unpredictable when provoked, like I said, the place to press "Your rights" is in a court of law, it a control environment, out on the streets is not the time or the place to be in the cops face.
Interrupting, and telling him this and that in a unbupt maner is hostal, it will never make a cop back down, if anything, it's a fast way to get a trip to the gray bar motel or a trip to the morge.
And what of your dear sweet Girlfriend? What if the gal cop overreacted to a perceive threatting move you made wile arguing with the first cop, and fire into the car? Yes, she would have been wrong to do so, and your girl and your child would be the ones to pay the price.
No amount of money won from a law suit could ever replace either on them, and your first though should have been to do your best to keep them safe, not be in the cops face pushing for a fight over a point of law.
Being agressive or just a jerk to a cop, even when your right and there wrong, you will 9 times out of 10 be the one in found to be in the wrong at first.
I am not saying anything you did was, by the letter of the law incorrect. What I saying is, if you had been a bit friendlier to then at first, you would have lowered there perceived threat level, and things would have been far less tence.
What I would suggest to you is ask the Milwalkee cops to see the dash cam's recording of the stop (If they have one) and then sit with there chief and watch it, I bet you a McDonalds happy meal, you will be shocked at how you were really acting.
ocman1991A1 wrote:
I just re-read you first post, wile your answers were short and to the point, they were also abrupt and not very friendly.
If you had answered the first question with a smile on your face and good afternoon sir, and then said, I would like you to see that my pistol is on my console because it is too uncomfortable to have in my holster wile I am in the car.....I can tell you, it sure would have gone very differently.
People sometimes forget that LOE's are, well human beings, they can make mistakes, they may act unpredictable when provoked, like I said, the place to press "Your rights" is in a court of law, it a control environment, out on the streets is not the time or the place to be in the cops face.
Interrupting, and telling him this and that in a unbupt maner is hostal, it will never make a cop back down, if anything, it's a fast way to get a trip to the gray bar motel or a trip to the morge.
And what of your dear sweet Girlfriend? What if the gal cop overreacted to a perceive threatting move you made wile arguing with the first cop, and fire into the car? Yes, she would have been wrong to do so, and your girl and your child would be the ones to pay the price.
No amount of money won from a law suit could ever replace either on them, and your first though should have been to do your best to keep them safe, not be in the cops face pushing for a fight over a point of law.
Being agressive or just a jerk to a cop, even when your right and there wrong, you will 9 times out of 10 be the one in found to be in the wrong at first.
I am not saying anything you did was, by the letter of the law incorrect. What I saying is, if you had been a bit friendlier to then at first, you would have lowered there perceived threat level, and things would have been far less tence.
What I would suggest to you is ask the Milwalkee cops to see the dash cam's recording of the stop (If they have one) and then sit with there chief and watch it, I bet you a McDonalds happy meal, you will be shocked at how you were really acting.
ocman1991A1
Banned
imported post
Jeffytune wrote:
submit to your master with a smile. yea right.
**** you and this cop and the rest of them how about that?
they are wrong not me. end of story. my complaint has gone no where and the shit head chief won't respond, i have very little chance of any suit going anywhere, and it would cost a lot of money.
i was polite, and to the point. the cop was a asshole, threatening, AND A CRIMINAL.
"take your raping with a smile"
great advice
Jeffytune wrote:
yea thats great.
submit to your master with a smile. yea right.
**** you and this cop and the rest of them how about that?
they are wrong not me. end of story. my complaint has gone no where and the shit head chief won't respond, i have very little chance of any suit going anywhere, and it would cost a lot of money.
i was polite, and to the point. the cop was a asshole, threatening, AND A CRIMINAL.
"take your raping with a smile"
great advice
ocman1991A1
Banned
imported post
There you go. Take it with a smile right? That complaint went real well didn't it. Maybe if i would've smiled at the chief i would've had better luck.
these @#$%s are all cowards, everyone of them.
they completely ignored the fact that he told me he was going to point a gun at my head, they ignored the facts that he told me you must conceal carry, and told me that i must inform him. which is coercion.
menacing and coercion... supported by milkwaukie police cowards.
if i had to guess, i would say that Hall lied to them, and said he never said those things, and his coward **** bag partner backed him up.
-------------------------------------------
Mr. *********
[align=justify]This is in response to your February 23, 2009 e-mail to the Mayor and City Council regarding “Letter to chief (sic) Bob Jordan regarding an officer’s threat against me.” Chief Jordan reports to me as City Manager, and, therefore, the responsibility to respond is mine.[/align] [align=justify]In your e-mail you state that the Chief “has not satisfied my requests for information about investigation and/or actions taken against Officer Hall.” You further state that you “will take a lack of response as an endorsement of blatant harassment and I believe criminal activity by the City of Milwaukie Police Department.”[/align] [align=justify]Contrary to your conclusion, on the face of it your letter states facts that support a conclusion of an acceptable response by Officer Hall. One of the most statistically dangerous encounters in law enforcement is the routine traffic stop. This type of encounter is exponentially more dangerous with the presence of a firearm in the motorist’s vehicle. Officer Hall demonstrated legitimate concern for officer safety when he called out “gun” during the stop. This action was consistent with officer safety training and practice recognized throughout the United States.[/align] [align=justify]The United States Supreme Court articulated its recognition of hazards posed by traffic stops in Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977). The Court upheld actions of an officer who ordered occupants out of a vehicle, an action far less intrusive that that you describe in your letter. In reaching its decision the Court stated as follows:[/align]
There you go. Take it with a smile right? That complaint went real well didn't it. Maybe if i would've smiled at the chief i would've had better luck.
these @#$%s are all cowards, everyone of them.
they completely ignored the fact that he told me he was going to point a gun at my head, they ignored the facts that he told me you must conceal carry, and told me that i must inform him. which is coercion.
menacing and coercion... supported by milkwaukie police cowards.
if i had to guess, i would say that Hall lied to them, and said he never said those things, and his coward **** bag partner backed him up.
-------------------------------------------
Mr. *********
[align=justify]This is in response to your February 23, 2009 e-mail to the Mayor and City Council regarding “Letter to chief (sic) Bob Jordan regarding an officer’s threat against me.” Chief Jordan reports to me as City Manager, and, therefore, the responsibility to respond is mine.[/align] [align=justify]In your e-mail you state that the Chief “has not satisfied my requests for information about investigation and/or actions taken against Officer Hall.” You further state that you “will take a lack of response as an endorsement of blatant harassment and I believe criminal activity by the City of Milwaukie Police Department.”[/align] [align=justify]Contrary to your conclusion, on the face of it your letter states facts that support a conclusion of an acceptable response by Officer Hall. One of the most statistically dangerous encounters in law enforcement is the routine traffic stop. This type of encounter is exponentially more dangerous with the presence of a firearm in the motorist’s vehicle. Officer Hall demonstrated legitimate concern for officer safety when he called out “gun” during the stop. This action was consistent with officer safety training and practice recognized throughout the United States.[/align] [align=justify]The United States Supreme Court articulated its recognition of hazards posed by traffic stops in Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977). The Court upheld actions of an officer who ordered occupants out of a vehicle, an action far less intrusive that that you describe in your letter. In reaching its decision the Court stated as follows:[/align]
- [align=justify]“The State freely concedes the officer had no reason to suspect foul play from the particular driver at the time of the stop, there having been nothing unusual or suspicious about his behavior. It was apparently his practice to order all drivers out of their vehicles as a matter of course whenever they had been stopped for a traffic violation. The State argues that this practice was adopted as a precautionary measure to afford a degree of protection to the officer, and that it may be justified on that ground. Establishing a face-to-face confrontation diminishes the possibility, otherwise substantial, that the driver can make unobserved movements; this, in turn, reduces the likelihood that the officer will be the victim of an assault.[/align][align=justify]We think it too plain for argument that the State’s proffered justification—the safety of the officer—is both legitimate and weighty. ‘Certainly it would be unreasonable to require that police officers take unnecessary risks in the performance of their duties.’ Terry v. Ohio, supra at 392 U.S. 23. And we have specifically recognized the inordinate risk confronting an officer as he approaches a person seated in an automobile.[/align][align=justify]According to one study, approximately 30% of police shootings occurred when a police officer approached a suspect seated in an automobile. Bristow, Police Officer Shootings—A Tactical Evaluation, 54 Crim.L.C. & P.S. 93 (1963).”[/align]
ocman1991A1
Banned
imported post
ps, i checked... 54 officers were killed on duty intentionally in 2008 in the entire country. WOW. thats so dangerous.
COWARDS
ps, i checked... 54 officers were killed on duty intentionally in 2008 in the entire country. WOW. thats so dangerous.
COWARDS
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
ocman1991A1 wrote:
I would respond to the city with your pointsabout the officers comments, etc....
Only you can decide when to stop asking the city questions and demanding more action. Chances are the city officials got a very clean version of what went down. Suggest they watch the video..if it still exists and if it doesn't ask what happened to it. You can FOIA the video, I have done it in my area and they charged me $20, may or may not be worth it. You can also FOIA all the info on the stop, notes, logs, reports, video, email, etc... Keep after them.
ocman1991A1 wrote:
I would respond to the city with your pointsabout the officers comments, etc....
Only you can decide when to stop asking the city questions and demanding more action. Chances are the city officials got a very clean version of what went down. Suggest they watch the video..if it still exists and if it doesn't ask what happened to it. You can FOIA the video, I have done it in my area and they charged me $20, may or may not be worth it. You can also FOIA all the info on the stop, notes, logs, reports, video, email, etc... Keep after them.
ocman1991A1
Banned
imported post
Venator wrote:
I am requesting discovery evidence in the traffic case.
i wonder if the judge will allow me to go far enough to get him to commit perjury on the stand.
Venator wrote:
i already did.
I am requesting discovery evidence in the traffic case.
i wonder if the judge will allow me to go far enough to get him to commit perjury on the stand.
imported post
ocman1991A1 wrote:
So how many cops have to die to not be considered cowards?
55?
100?
1000?
54 is a not a statistic, it's a tragedy and a outrage.
You know, the biggest motivation a cop has is the desire to go home to there family alive.
That does not make then a coward.
Seems to be that you have stated the best reason why he should have pulled you out of the car and thrown the cuffs on you.
On a side note, just between you and me, have you ever considered that you could benefit from taking an anger management course?
ocman1991A1 wrote:
Wow...I mean....Wow.
So how many cops have to die to not be considered cowards?
55?
100?
1000?
54 is a not a statistic, it's a tragedy and a outrage.
You know, the biggest motivation a cop has is the desire to go home to there family alive.
That does not make then a coward.
Seems to be that you have stated the best reason why he should have pulled you out of the car and thrown the cuffs on you.
On a side note, just between you and me, have you ever considered that you could benefit from taking an anger management course?
ocman1991A1
Banned
imported post
Jeffytune wrote:
if a cop has a desire to go home and see his family maybe he shouldn't be a part of our current police state. if he thinks his job is dangerous he should pick a different career.
Why should i be abused and have my rights violated, and accept crimes committed against me just because LEOs are cowards. My rights are more important than LEOs safety.
Why should i have cuffs on again? For having an opinion? For being mad that i was a victim of a crime? Mad for being harassed? Mad for being threatened with a deadly weapon because the coward has a different opinion?
54 is an unbelievably low number. its so low that its actually safer to be a cop than not to be one.
Its more dangerous to be a pizza delivery driver than a LEO.
America's Most Dangerous Jobs
Job Number Of Fatalities Fatality Rate*
Timber Cutters 105 122.1
Fishermen 52 108.3
Pilots 230 100.8
Structural Metal Workers 47 59.5
Extractive Occupations 69 53.9
Roofers 65 30.2
Construction Workers 288 28.3
Truck Drivers 852 27.6
All Occupations 5,915 4.3
Jeffytune wrote:
you must be a cop.
if a cop has a desire to go home and see his family maybe he shouldn't be a part of our current police state. if he thinks his job is dangerous he should pick a different career.
Why should i be abused and have my rights violated, and accept crimes committed against me just because LEOs are cowards. My rights are more important than LEOs safety.
Why should i have cuffs on again? For having an opinion? For being mad that i was a victim of a crime? Mad for being harassed? Mad for being threatened with a deadly weapon because the coward has a different opinion?
54 is an unbelievably low number. its so low that its actually safer to be a cop than not to be one.
Its more dangerous to be a pizza delivery driver than a LEO.
America's Most Dangerous Jobs
Job Number Of Fatalities Fatality Rate*
Timber Cutters 105 122.1
Fishermen 52 108.3
Pilots 230 100.8
Structural Metal Workers 47 59.5
Extractive Occupations 69 53.9
Roofers 65 30.2
Construction Workers 288 28.3
Truck Drivers 852 27.6
All Occupations 5,915 4.3
ocman1991A1
Banned
imported post
suntzu wrote:
their pathetic response was some bullshit about terry stops and how its officer safety for the pig to say "gun".
what the **** does that have to do with anything? that is not what i am complaining about. i'm complaining about his threats and coercion.
the only logical explanation for them totally ignoring this is that they believe it didn't happen. most likely because les hall lied to them
suntzu wrote:
yeap, they covered up. officer Les Hall and his bitch partner lied, or the chief covered up for them. No mention by anyone his remarks to me.
their pathetic response was some bullshit about terry stops and how its officer safety for the pig to say "gun".
what the **** does that have to do with anything? that is not what i am complaining about. i'm complaining about his threats and coercion.
the only logical explanation for them totally ignoring this is that they believe it didn't happen. most likely because les hall lied to them