imported post
grumpycoconut wrote:
Nice metaphor about whetting a sword. Gotta admire that one. Especially when it uses
whet,a word rarely used in that sense, correctly.
Not sure how you skipped from what I said to what you said.
You're barking up the wrong tree to attempt the "we're imperfectly human" argument with me. I have first-hand dealings with the Blue Wall of Silence. On more than one occasion.
I can go on for a bit without getting into generalized cop-bashing, and without demanding inhuman perfection. What say I just hit one or two more points.
Cops whoexceed their authority. We know there are a fair number of these people. Not because we run into them as OCers,but because of something far more damning--good cops saying, right here on this forum, thatcops can't know all the laws. This sort of nonsense apology was offered a number of times. I finally shut it down by repeatedly pointing out something. If a cop doesn't know that OC is illegal, what in the nine hells is he using for authority to
Terry stop an OCer? It can't possibly be that the cop is mistaken about the law. There is no law against it to be mistaken about in all but 6 states. So, what were they using for authority? Certainly nothing in statutory or case law. Sorry. No apologies accepted. If he didn't know cold that he had authority for the stop, he had no business making anything other than a consensual contact. Sorry. We have too many examples of cops "making it up as they go along." But, again, and just to be clear, its not the cop who illegally
Terry stopped an OCer that tells the tale. Its the good cops who have come on this forum and tried to explain or justify it by claiming cops can't know all the laws.
Also, I am quite certain that the illegal
Terry stops we've had reported were not the first 4th Amendment violation for the officer involved. I very much doubt the officer picked the OCer and said to himself, "Well now, for the first time in my career I am going to violate the 4th Amendment. And I will never do it again." And, I'm betting there are plenty of pals who look the other way.
ElitismI said, and elitism I meant. A recent copy of one of the gun magazines, say within the last two months, had a guest editorial by an LEO. Even though he kept it more or less on an even keel, the elitism showed through the cracks. "They may complain about us, but theysure need us", or some such. AsI recall the sheepdog-sheepmetaphor was included.
From what I can tell of police attitudes, one ofLE's human failings is that some of them seem totakeLE's own propoganda a little too literally.Can't tell the difference between their own sales pitch andfacts."Without us there would be anarchy."Even your own words, "Step forward and...keeping the tribe running smoothly." Somehow, LE seems to overlook that civilization went well at the local level for centuries before police departments started formingin the 1840's.Just a few constables,if that.Why, society would fall apart or the sheep would be slaughtered by the wolves if it weren't for the heroesmaking upThe Thin Blue Line, if the sales pitch were to be believed.
If police want my respect, it would be simpleto obtain.
Become familiar with the principles in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights and
use them.
Adopt and
apply the idea that the LEO only has the precise authority he has been given and not one millimeter more.
Stop treating rights as something to get around. Or something that gets in the way. Stop looking for creative ways to get around them.
Stop lying to people--we have far too many reportsof police giving false information aboutthe legality of OC. Random, hit or miss phone calls to police get a false answer? I could see it if 20 OCers all called the same cop, but when they all callor ask different cops at random, and get false answers,to believe thatnone of those cops was making it uptodiscourageOCjust to avoid 911 calls, or out of a bias against armed citizens puts a strain on my credulity it is quite unable to withstand. Does anyone really believe that the only lies told have to do only with OC?
Rights arevital to society;this includesthe same society the officer lives in andclaims he is trying to protect. Rights are not balanced against security. This is a lie. Rights
are security. Security and rights are the same thing. The Framers, those whoargued for the Bill of Rights anyway, recognized this. They recognized government can cause far more damage than criminals. How else would this apply at its most basic level, where else would rubber meet the road, than for an LEO torespect religiously the rights of the suspect at the time he is "suspecting" him? If not then, when? Where?
Full circle back to the Blue Wall of Silence. Some of what I've discussed above could not possibly exist for more than about two seconds without the Blue Wall of Silence.
Also, the BWS necessarily includes that enough officers agree that the wrongs are OK. Or not that important. No big deal.
And, how can a participant in the BWS claim hedeeply respects the rights of suspects?Even if hedoesn't violatea suspect's rights himself,not even a little bit,his respects stops right at that exact point he fails or refuses to report another officer's violation, doesn't it?
False loyalty. Elitism. Blue Wallof Silence.