Prompted response to LEO's

the wheeelman · Mar 3, 2009

imported post

This post is in response to a post by someone on this forum which a while back. It basically personally attacks most of us on here and seemingly paints a good picture of how some LEO's may feel. Here isa snippet:

"What I'm discovering about this forum generally is that it's peopled with confrontive types who are searching, baiting, clamoring for an argument. Moreover, what I'm seeing is that this vast enclave of users particulary is enamored of arguing with or confronting law enforcement.

Seemingly the psychological basis for such behavior is feelings of inferiority and a psychic need to compensate for those feelings. What better mechanism for such compensation than to openly carry a loaded firearm while maintaining that YOU know more about police procedure than the police.

You're welcome to your ichthyphallic reveries. Load up that compensated sidearm of yours and get out on the street.

You're on your own."

I would like to draw attention to two classic Research Experiments which may help LEO's understand why people perceive them as we do. Also, why they can't see otherwise. LEO's think we have problems with authority and we are trying to compensate for feeling inferior to them...NEWS FLASH: I don't believe anyone herefeels inferior to LEO's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

Do to the nature of some LEO's thinking "They ARE the LAW" they can issue it as they see fit making things exponentially worse. They think since they are the authority they can act as they please without challenge from us lowly citizens.

david.ross · Mar 3, 2009

imported post

...

I don't differentiate between LEOs and people, there is no "Us and Them". The ideology of Us and Them is frowned upon in law enforcement.

As for the person who posted, I'm sure he didn't think of, "I'm done being bullied by criminals and enough is enough! I'm armed you thugs, so don't even think about it." So ideally with many armed the criminals will move on to easy targets.

Huck · Mar 4, 2009

imported post

feelings of inferiority and a psychic need to compensate for those feelings

Click to expand...

I'd say that the guy's talking about himself.

Moreover, what I'm seeing is that this vast enclave of users particulary is enamored of arguing with or confronting law enforcement.

Click to expand...

This guy has missed the fact that inevery one of the incidents involving OCers and LEOs, it was the LEOs who started the so calledconfrontation.I've never heard of aOCing citizen just walking up to a LEO and getting in his face.And since when is pointing out that what someone is doing is perfectly legal arguing?Standing up for one's rights is not arguing!One way to avoid these "confrontations" would be if allthe LEOs would be as knowledgeable about the carry laws in their state as the citizens are.

I cant see how anygood, honestLEO would have a problem with armed honest citizens. After all, aint we on the same side?

r6-rider · Mar 4, 2009

imported post

ok... so if the cops know the law and theres no problem between citizen and LEO, where is the bait/confrontation?

or does me be a dumb dumb cause me not leo and is just stupid civvie with boom stick

david.ross · Mar 4, 2009

imported post

Huck,

Hah, if any OCer intentionally goes up to a cop starting a confrontation, they should watch the video below. :lol:

How not to get your ass kicked by the police!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

and be polite

see 2:04 - "What the F#@$ you want MotherF#@$er!"

Flintlock · Mar 4, 2009

imported post

I can't speak for others but in my personal experience and understanding, it is much more of an issue with a superiority complex froma police officerstandpoint as opposed to a inferiority issue with regards to open carriers. I don't own firearms or carry them to feel stronger.

It is the police officers that harass, detain, disarm, search,and arrest peaceable open carriers while "enforcing" laws that don't exist thatis partly what is causing the formal complaints, law-suits,information requests,letters, e-mails, protests,assembly, groups creation, donations, memberships,and frankly, the creation of web sites such as this. That may not be fair as there are tens ofthousands of "good" officers and hundreds of bad ones, but those bad ones are everywhere, in every state, and everylocality in our country, and they have a lot of power to curtail your liberties.

I do not want an anarchist society and I support law enforcement. But it has to be conducted in a way that encroaches on the liberties of citizens as little as humanly possible or better yet, not at all.

Thereare a lot of law enforcement officersout there and to get to the guts of it, what are law enforcement officers? They are agents of government. Either from a municipality, city, county, state, or federal agency, they are what they are and people are wary and scepticle oftheir local and federalgovernment and for good reason. Again, that may be an unfair association, but it is what it is. The government passes unconstitutional laws and the police enforce them.

When people start trusting government again, they will trust the police again as well.

Doug Huffman · Mar 4, 2009

imported post

Cut and shoot wrote:

You're welcome to your ichthyphallic reveries. Load up that compensated sidearm of yours and get out on the street.

I'm good at obscure words and neologisms. 'Ichthyphallic' was a wonderful chase to a solecism and so a bit disappointing. The more likely proper word by etymological provenance and local context ("compensated sidearm") is 'ithyphallic'.

The OP of ichthyphallic made three posts in 2007 and not again. I would leave sleeping trolls lie.

Dustin · Mar 4, 2009

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

When people start trusting government again, they will trust the police again as well.

And not trying to be a doomsday pirate, but I don't see that happening...ever...

suntzu · Mar 4, 2009

imported post

So I read through what was posted...and here are my conclusions--perhaps I am wrong of course and the following conclusions would be therefore faulty.

1. I don't think this board is peopled by the confrontational types. Most of us simply want to be left alone to go about our business in peace, free from harassment, assault and violations of our rights and our person.

2. I don't think it is an "inferiority" complex that makes individuals carry guns.. The OP obviously does not carry one and must therefore depend him others to defend them and theirs. Neither do I think that the people on this board need to compensate for anything.

3. I do think that the majority of LEOs have a "superiority complex--which borders on the feelings of godhood" and that they feel that it is leos versus the people, and they have it ingrained into them that they are always right and we the people are always wrong and that we the people should simply follow every order given without hesitation, complying with every command at once--even to allow the search of our person and our possessions and the violations of our rights--because we have to give up our rights in order to get security don't you know--ask them and they will tell you.

4. It is obvious to me that the person who wrote the Ichthyphallic article was himself compensating for his inability to get along well with others whose opinions differed from his own highly preconceived ideas about how rosy the world really is, and about how law enforcement would never knowingly violate our rights, would never set anyone up, and would always do the right thing, without hesitation. It is also obvious to me that the Ichthyphallic author was having to deal with their own superiority complex--because it shows in his psychological need to feel superior in every aspect.

5. He feels that his intelligence is superior to those around him. I would surmise that the author is a male, most likely between 23-30 years of age, has an education, most likely through the first year of college but may or may not have completed his degree. The author tries to compensate for his lack of knowledge by trying to use large words in order to make himself look smarter than he really is. The author most likely worked in law enforcement or knew someone who did/does and therefore may have had a bad experience with one of the Constitution loving individuals who still inhabit this country and who knew the laws better than the officer did and because of this, the citizen may have filed a complaint resulting in disciplinary/legal action which could have conceivably left the author with bad feelings toward the citizenry. The statement by the author of "your on your on" tells me that the author has hard feelings toward the public--and in particular toward those members of the people who have made the decision to keep and bear arms, as well as learn the laws as they apply toward the carry of a firearm, the places where they can be carried, the areas which are off limits, and who have made the decision to hold leos who overstep their authority, and who make up laws as they go along, who think they can step on the people at will as well as the cities who employ them both legally and financially responsible where at all possible.

I could of course be wrong. I leave that possibility open.

I personally don't want a confrontation with LEOs--but I would certainly be willing to file a complaint, file a lawsuit, and file a civil rights complaint with the FBI if my rights were violated...and everyone else should as well.

LEOs simply need to get over the superiority complex that many--not all, but many of them have.

To those LEOs who read this who do really try to treat the people with respect and decency--I give you a thumbs up, but to those LEOs who simply think they can do as they please, and who think they can violate our rights with impunity and then claim that they did nothing wrong and try to cover it up--you should be in jail with the rest of the criminals.

suntzu · Mar 4, 2009

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

When people start trusting government again, they will trust the police again as well.

Won't happen.

suntzu · Mar 4, 2009

imported post

insane.kangaroo wrote:

...

I don't differentiate between LEOs and people, there is no "Us and Them". The ideology of Us and Them is frowned upon in law enforcement.

I don't differentiate either--I think they should be subject to the exact same laws as you and I--if there is a place I can't carry--a courthouse for example, then I would ideally like to see LEOs disarmed in them as well. They are not special simply because they were a badge and call themselves police officers. That isn't a popular opinion--but that is exactly the opinion I have, popular or not.

I disagree however that law enforcement does not view it as "us versus them"--they have shown time and again how they see/view the people. LEOs simply do not take well to the idea of a citizen not immediately following every order issued to them, and do not take kindly to the idea that a citizen would not permit a "reasonable request to search their person or property". It is ingrained into them from the day they start their training that their orders/requests are to be followed without question, and without hesitation by the public, and that failure to follow a "request" is to be viewed suspiciously.

Carnivore · Mar 4, 2009

imported post

There's Idiots on both sides of the Badge, I don't necessarily have to differentiate one from the other unless I'm forced to evaluate.. (ie.) leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone.

I don't have time in my day to day schedule toassessevery other jane and jon doe that I pass. On the other hand, most LE's I've ever given a second look at usually appear to have tons of idle time on their hands, and tend to get very bored with their jobs. So just like an ornery kid, they need to do things to spice up their day, and the best way to do that is to single out individuals, or groups of individuals, Profiling, or Micro profiling their way through their day..

I'm sure the majority of LE's feel that OCing a sidearm is an Ordained right that only a police commishioner can bless one with..

ixtow · Mar 9, 2009

imported post

The only thing that 'wearing' a gun compensates for, is everyone who shirks the responsibility.

Why do you think cops do it? They have to, or they are utterly useless for the role they are intended to fill.

Same reason for me. Civic Duty requires me to disallow criminals from victimizing others and myself. Running, hiding, or being dumb enough to believe that your cell phone will help you or your fellow man, is selfish, degenerate, ignorance.

Deliberately choosing to lack the tools to maintain civilized society does not justify allowing degeneration.

People who make this 'he's compensating for feeling inadequate' argument, are often the very people suffering from the accusation they levy.

They want to be disarmed so that they do not have to face their selfish cowardice, and can hide behind the excuse; "there was nothing I could do." And in the face of someone who CAN DO SOMETHING, they are forced to experience their own inferiority and cowardice.

Since it is a slap in the face to them, the shock causes them to spout-off with the same old "Nuh-uh, YOU'RE the inferior one!" No matter how carefully worded they make the attack, it's reactionary root is clear.

No one ever accused them of being inferior. They identified it themselves when forced to face it (someone OCing when they do not), and were offended by their own identification of the circumstance. "That guy isn't helpless, and I am. How dare he exist and make me feel this way! I must now attempt to knock him down to my own level of ineptitude and cowardice, lest the truth of this matter become obvious to others, and I'll look bad!"

It never corsses their mind that they too could carry. And why would it? Their objective is to insult and blame others, never to take responsibility themselves. If they feel inferior, it must be someone else's fault. And what better way to insult that person, than to accuse them of said inferiority felt?

I've never met or known a single human being who felt a need to carry a gun because it made them feel more manly or superior. It is those who choose not to that make themselves inferior, by choice. I am not arrogant or 'superior' just becaue someone else chooses to stoop below my standards. This is the slight of hand they play to defend their position as selfish, cowardly degenerates.

For carrying a weapon, yes, I am superior to those who do not. I have maintained a standard. those who do not, have stooped below it and seek to justify this lowering of themselves by pointing up at the higher standard they have failed to reach and calling it names.

It's a pattern in virtually all liberal agendas. "Pull others down to our own level of failure."

Legba · Mar 10, 2009

imported post

Yes, I wear a gun to compensate - for being unarmed otherwise.This guy may have worked hard for his "B" in freshman psychology, but there's no morbid manifestation of an inferiority complex at work here, sorry. I carry for work, and I deal with various police agencies on a regular basis, without incident. Our cordial working relationship has not always carried over into my off-duty life, however. I don't like confrontation, but I value my privacy and my liberty more than most people, and do not welcome presumptions upon either.

As for knowingmore about police procedures than the police, I never claimed any such thing, but as for the Ohio Revised Code, I would definitely score above average in a test of its contents. The dimissal with prejudice of the last suit brought against me by a law enforcement agency belies their own mastery of the subject.

I would also submit that this guy's Greco-Roman invocation of "fishdick reveries" says more about his maturitythan ours.

-ljp

ixtow · Mar 10, 2009

imported post

suntzu wrote:

insane.kangaroo wrote:

...

I don't differentiate between LEOs and people, there is no "Us and Them". The ideology of Us and Them is frowned upon in law enforcement.

I don't differentiate either--I think they should be subject to the exact same laws as you and I--if there is a place I can't carry--a courthouse for example, then I would ideally like to see LEOs disarmed in them as well. They are not special simply because they were a badge and call themselves police officers. That isn't a popular opinion--but that is exactly the opinion I have, popular or not.

I disagree however that law enforcement does not view it as "us versus them"--they have shown time and again how they see/view the people. LEOs simply do not take well to the idea of a citizen not immediately following every order issued to them, and do not take kindly to the idea that a citizen would not permit a "reasonable request to search their person or property". It is ingrained into them from the day they start their training that their orders/requests are to be followed without question, and without hesitation by the public, and that failure to follow a "request" is to be viewed suspiciously.

Click to expand...

I experienced this first hand when I attended the academy. Instructors there actually offered tips on how you can get away with beating the bloody hell out of someone for not yielding their rights. "We know they don't have to, but [snicker] who is the judge going to believe? Just make up whatever excuse you need to."

Lessons were tendered on "Don't turn on your dash cam when you're planning to beat someone." No joke. They literally talked about planning to beat the hell out of someone before even seeing their face, and how to keep from creating evidence, and how to cover it up.

It was normal to hear the suggestion that, if you make a legitimate arrest of a person carrying narcotics, save some, you never know when you'll need it. They repeated the scenario of a person refusing to allow a search of their vehicle as the perfect opportunity for it. The position and posture of an officer approaching a vehicle for a traffic stop offers him the chance to throw things in the window onto the center console, floor, or passenger seat. That crack rock you saved from the dealer you arrested? Teach this punk a lesson! Let him rot in prison for daring to defy you.

Sun roof? Convertible? You are so screwed. Beer cans, bags full of weed, you name it, toss it right in! Then claim to have 'found it.'

The general attitude of "We wander around and can pick someone at random to do whatever the hell we want to" is why I quit. And they loved to joke "and, these fools are paying us to do this to them!" They're predators. And trained/screened to be.

Kudos for the ones who defy it.

Dustin · Mar 10, 2009

imported post

ixtow wrote:

I experienced this first hand when I attended the academy. Instructors there actually offered tips on how you can get away with beating the bloody hell out of someone for not yielding their rights. "We know they don't have to, but [snicker] who is the judge going to believe? Just make up whatever excuse you need to."

Lessons were tendered on "Don't turn on your dash cam when you're planning to beat someone." No joke. They literally talked about planning to beat the hell out of someone before even seeing their face, and how to keep from creating evidence, and how to cover it up.

It was normal to hear the suggestion that, if you make a legitimate arrest of a person carrying narcotics, save some, you never know when you'll need it. They repeated the scenario of a person refusing to allow a search of their vehicle as the perfect opportunity for it. The position and posture of an officer approaching a vehicle for a traffic stop offers him the chance to throw things in the window onto the center console, floor, or passenger seat. That crack rock you saved from the dealer you arrested? Teach this punk a lesson! Let him rot in prison for daring to defy you.

Sun roof? Convertible? You are so screwed. Beer cans, bags full of weed, you name it, toss it right in! Then claim to have 'found it.'

The general attitude of "We wander around and can pick someone at random to do whatever the hell we want to" is why I quit. And they loved to joke "and, these fools are paying us to do this to them!" They're predators. And trained/screened to be.

Kudos for the ones who defy it.

That's just nasty ...

Sonora Rebel · Mar 10, 2009

imported post

suntzu wrote:

So I read through what was posted...and here are my conclusions--perhaps I am wrong of course and the following conclusions would be therefore faulty.

1. I don't think this board is peopled by the confrontational types. Most of us simply want to be left alone to go about our business in peace, free from harassment, assault and violations of our rights and our person.

2. I don't think it is an "inferiority" complex that makes individuals carry guns.. The OP obviously does not carry one and must therefore depend him others to defend them and theirs. Neither do I think that the people on this board need to compensate for anything.

3. I do think that the majority of LEOs have a "superiority complex--which borders on the feelings of godhood" and that they feel that it is leos versus the people, and they have it ingrained into them that they are always right and we the people are always wrong and that we the people should simply follow every order given without hesitation, complying with every command at once--even to allow the search of our person and our possessions and the violations of our rights--because we have to give up our rights in order to get security don't you know--ask them and they will tell you.

4. It is obvious to me that the person who wrote the Ichthyphallic article was himself compensating for his inability to get along well with others whose opinions differed from his own highly preconceived ideas about how rosy the world really is, and about how law enforcement would never knowingly violate our rights, would never set anyone up, and would always do the right thing, without hesitation. It is also obvious to me that the Ichthyphallic author was having to deal with their own superiority complex--because it shows in his psychological need to feel superior in every aspect.

5. He feels that his intelligence is superior to those around him. I would surmise that the author is a male, most likely between 23-30 years of age, has an education, most likely through the first year of college but may or may not have completed his degree. The author tries to compensate for his lack of knowledge by trying to use large words in order to make himself look smarter than he really is. The author most likely worked in law enforcement or knew someone who did/does and therefore may have had a bad experience with one of the Constitution loving individuals who still inhabit this country and who knew the laws better than the officer did and because of this, the citizen may have filed a complaint resulting in disciplinary/legal action which could have conceivably left the author with bad feelings toward the citizenry. The statement by the author of "your on your on" tells me that the author has hard feelings toward the public--and in particular toward those members of the people who have made the decision to keep and bear arms, as well as learn the laws as they apply toward the carry of a firearm, the places where they can be carried, the areas which are off limits, and who have made the decision to hold leos who overstep their authority, and who make up laws as they go along, who think they can step on the people at will as well as the cities who employ them both legally and financially responsible where at all possible.

I could of course be wrong. I leave that possibility open.

I personally don't want a confrontation with LEOs--but I would certainly be willing to file a complaint, file a lawsuit, and file a civil rights complaint with the FBI if my rights were violated...and everyone else should as well.

LEOs simply need to get over the superiority complex that many--not all, but many of them have.

To those LEOs who read this who do really try to treat the people with respect and decency--I give you a thumbs up, but to those LEOs who simply think they can do as they please, and who think they can violate our rights with impunity and then claim that they did nothing wrong and try to cover it up--you should be in jail with the rest of the criminals.

Suntzu... The above observation is prob'ly the best you've ever posted.

Brilliant analysis!

Sonora Rebel · Mar 10, 2009

imported post

ixtow wrote:

suntzu wrote:

insane.kangaroo wrote:

...

I don't differentiate between LEOs and people, there is no "Us and Them". The ideology of Us and Them is frowned upon in law enforcement.

I don't differentiate either--I think they should be subject to the exact same laws as you and I--if there is a place I can't carry--a courthouse for example, then I would ideally like to see LEOs disarmed in them as well. They are not special simply because they were a badge and call themselves police officers. That isn't a popular opinion--but that is exactly the opinion I have, popular or not.

I disagree however that law enforcement does not view it as "us versus them"--they have shown time and again how they see/view the people. LEOs simply do not take well to the idea of a citizen not immediately following every order issued to them, and do not take kindly to the idea that a citizen would not permit a "reasonable request to search their person or property". It is ingrained into them from the day they start their training that their orders/requests are to be followed without question, and without hesitation by the public, and that failure to follow a "request" is to be viewed suspiciously.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I experienced this first hand when I attended the academy. Instructors there actually offered tips on how you can get away with beating the bloody hell out of someone for not yielding their rights. "We know they don't have to, but [snicker] who is the judge going to believe? Just make up whatever excuse you need to."

Lessons were tendered on "Don't turn on your dash cam when you're planning to beat someone." No joke. They literally talked about planning to beat the hell out of someone before even seeing their face, and how to keep from creating evidence, and how to cover it up.

It was normal to hear the suggestion that, if you make a legitimate arrest of a person carrying narcotics, save some, you never know when you'll need it. They repeated the scenario of a person refusing to allow a search of their vehicle as the perfect opportunity for it. The position and posture of an officer approaching a vehicle for a traffic stop offers him the chance to throw things in the window onto the center console, floor, or passenger seat. That crack rock you saved from the dealer you arrested? Teach this punk a lesson! Let him rot in prison for daring to defy you.

Sun roof? Convertible? You are so screwed. Beer cans, bags full of weed, you name it, toss it right in! Then claim to have 'found it.'

The general attitude of "We wander around and can pick someone at random to do whatever the hell we want to" is why I quit. And they loved to joke "and, these fools are paying us to do this to them!" They're predators. And trained/screened to be.

Kudos for the ones who defy it.

"Curbstone Justice... Contempt of Cop... You can do anything on the street... 'only the judge will decide... " These attitudes are endemic to some departments. 'Lotta sadist types in LE... lotta cops with 'issues' as the saying goes. I was a cop too... and resigned for the same reasons. I loved the fact I could carry a pistol off-duty. Not for the citizenry... just for my own self-defense (particularly in downtown Baltimore at night). A CC permit in Maryland is virtually non-existant otherwise. 'Had a perp I'd arrested who was being led from the courtroom by the bailiff... Passed me on his way to the lock-up. 'Saidd: "You didn't lie on me man... you didn't lie on me.." Offhand compliment of respect from a criminal who'd been 'lied on' by some cop (or cops) under oath previously. 'Never forgot that. If you do the investigation correctly... and presnt evidence correctly... you don't have to embellish it with fabrications. This is what so 'n so did... this is how they did it... It's all in the details. Many cops are lazy... 'Saw that too. Many cops are just vicious... the JBT types. There is an 'Us vs Them' mentality. Sometimes I'll watch 'Cops'... and maybe it's different now... but most of these arrests involve 3 or more cops pilin' all over the perp to effect the arrest. Sometimes there's enuff cops there to eat the dude... That equates to every cop in the sector pilin' on.OK... so that leaves your patrol sector 'policeless' while you're grandstandin' an unnecessaryback-up. I worked a solo unit most of the time... and effected arrests unassisted. Sometimes they'd wanna fight. Tasershadn't been invented yet... so ya did it the hard way with the night stick (baton) war club. Or... just announce to the perp that you WILL shoot them if they break bad. I ain't Superman... or bulletproof either. BUT... I'm not gonna pound on somebody w/o justification. I see much 'timidity'... on 'Cops'... 'n those chase scenarios. I see much aggressivenss as well. Yeah... you can get hurt. You could get killed... But that's what they pay you for. Some of these guys are nuthin' more than report writers with a couple 'humbles' a month to make it look like they're doin' somethin'. 'See a LOT of 5A, 6A violations on 'Cops' 'n such too. I reckon the arrestee's lawyers did too. I also see thesecops make some grevious tactical mistakes. Particularly in traffic stops.

Hawkflyer · Mar 10, 2009

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

...SNIP

"Curbstone Justice... Contempt of Cop... You can do anything on the street... 'only the judge will decide... " These attitudes are endemic to some departments. 'Lotta sadist types in LE... lotta cops with 'issues' as the saying goes. I was a cop too... and resigned for the same reasons. I loved the fact I could carry a pistol off-duty. Not for the citizenry... just for my own self-defense (particularly in downtown Baltimore at night). A CC permit in Maryland is virtually non-existant otherwise. 'Had a perp I'd arrested who was being led from the courtroom by the bailiff... Passed me on his way to the lock-up. 'Saidd: "You didn't lie on me man... you didn't lie on me.." Offhand compliment of respect from a criminal who'd been 'lied on' by some cop (or cops) under oath previously. 'Never forgot that. If you do the investigation correctly... and presnt evidence correctly... you don't have to embellish it with fabrications. This is what so 'n so did... this is how they did it... It's all in the details. Many cops are lazy... 'Saw that too. Many cops are just vicious... the JBT types. There is an 'Us vs Them' mentality. Sometimes I'll watch 'Cops'... and maybe it's different now... but most of these arrests involve 3 or more cops pilin' all over the perp to effect the arrest. Sometimes there's enuff cops there to eat the dude... That equates to every cop in the sector pilin' on.OK... so that leaves your patrol sector 'policeless' while you're grandstandin' an unnecessaryback-up. I worked a solo unit most of the time... and effected arrests unassisted. Sometimes they'd wanna fight. Tasershadn't been invented yet... so ya did it the hard way with the night stick (baton) war club. Or... just announce to the perp that you WILL shoot them if they break bad. I ain't Superman... or bulletproof either. BUT... I'm not gonna pound on somebody w/o justification. I see much 'timidity'... on 'Cops'... 'n those chase scenarios. I see much aggressivenss as well. Yeah... you can get hurt. You could get killed... But that's what they pay you for. Some of these guys are nuthin' more than report writers with a couple 'humbles' a month to make it look like they're doin' somethin'. 'See a LOT of 5A, 6A violations on 'Cops' 'n such too. I reckon the arrestee's lawyers did too. I also see thesecops make some grevious tactical mistakes. Particularly in traffic stops.

I like the cut of you sails Sir.

suntzu · Mar 10, 2009

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote

Suntzu... The above observation is prob'ly the best you've ever posted.

Brilliant analysis!

Well thank you Sonora Rebel, I do try to make all of my posts in an intelligent fashion, it is just that sometimes I can get on a high horse...but who of us does not from time to time on issues that are important?

Prompted response to LEO's

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member