• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Interesting: Conversation Between Cops :)

stephgrinage23

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
89
Location
Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
imported post

http://forums.officer.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-6229.html


and another (older) archive from a different LEO forum... hey, if they're going to spy on our little discussions, lets check theirs out at least ;)

on a less sarcastic note; these are actually kind of interesting to read if you have the time.


Here's what one LEO said in this thread that blows my mind:

"I don't think there is any valid reason for a civilian to carry a concealed weapon. It should be an offence to do so, punishable by serious jail time. As a Police officer I don't like the idea of any offenders, I have the misfortune to deal with, to be carrying a firearm. Guns are out of control in the US. Allowing the general public to be "tooled up" is one retrograde step."

I'm happy to see his/hers is not the prevalent opinion at least in this particular thread/discussion.
 

T Vance

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
2,482
Location
Not on this website, USA
imported post

How about this comment from one individual in the first thread...



"Just so that yoiu can alll be clear on this, the Second Amendment doesn't give you the right to bare arms to defend yourself againist other American Citizens. It gives you the right to bares arms in the event that our goverment ever does become a tyrant goverment or body. That isn't saying that i believe you shouldn't be able to defend yourself againist others if your life is in danger, because you should be able to. I'm merely saying that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to situations regarding self-defense againist a forst that is hostile to yourself or you properties."
 

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
imported post

I've been watching and reading a couple cop forums for the last couple years. I've noticed in the past year or so that their attitude toward the citizenry in general, and gun carriers (more OC than CC, but both) specifically, has become increasingly hostile.

Things are getting bad folks.The police don't even realized how much they've been turned on the citizenry.

Some of them are noticing it, but it's the "new breed".
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
imported post

ghostrider wrote:
Things are getting bad folks.The police don't even realized how much they've been turned on the citizenry.

Some of them are noticing it, but it's the "new breed".
It is a pretty big responsibility we have, to curb that attitude among police. Especially in this state since we're so active, and that police attitude seems to be so prevalent in certain areas and certain departments.

I really wish there was a good, easy way to improve relations with police officers. The problem is that many simply don't like us. The reasons for this are as plentiful as they are debatable. But the fact remains that none of us want to be arrested, none of us want to be hassled, none of us want to have to sue some jackass cop who puts our life in danger by drawing down on us. We just want to get along!

It's something I think about almost daily, especially when I'm carrying my multiple recording devices, just how badly we need to improve relations with police. But it's a difficult thing to go about doing. Ideas come to mind, like maybe we should arrange meetings with law enforcement officials and explain our points of view, and why we want to get along with police. But if this is done improperly, we could come across as soft idiots who can easily be hassled.

Its a tough thing to go about doing properly, especially all across the state, but there MUST be a better way than having to expect bad police encounters. :?
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
imported post

adam40cal wrote:
Unless your in the military your still a civilian correct? Whats the deal with some of those officers saying their not civilians?
Yep, correct.

Some cops forget their place in society and develop the "us against them" mentality.
 

springerdave

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2008
Messages
665
Location
Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
imported post

Is it just me or is there a connection between the dress of officers and their attitude? What I see is the militarization oftheirappearance. The uniform with tie has been replaced in some departments, with military togs, wannabe stormtroopers if you will.springerdave.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

springerdave wrote:
Is it just me or is there a connection between the dress of officers and their attitude? What I see is the militarization oftheirappearance. The uniform with tie has been replaced in some departments, with military togs, wannabe stormtroopers if you will.springerdave.

It's not you. They are definitely more militarized than in previous years. But one could argue though that policeuniforms have always copied the military. The MSP dress uniforms are from the 1940's (and older) military officer's uniform. DI hats, shoulder strap gun belts, jacket cut, many departments dress in this way.

But the every day uniform is becoming more battle dress types, and that is a change.
 

jmlefler

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
287
Location
Southwest, Michigan, USA
imported post

adam40cal wrote:
Unless your in the military your still a civilian correct? Whats the deal with some of those officers saying their not civilians?

+1

This is our 'new breed' of officer.

We are all covered under the same firearms laws, just different sections.

So I now dub us "THE SECTONS" because there is no 'I' in team! Rah! Rah!

Carry on.
 

Veritas

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
662
Location
Oakland County, Michigan, USA
imported post

This is a sore spot with me... the militarization of the civilian police. I understand the need for certain specialized units (i.e. SWAT)... but it seems, more and more lately, that even your local ticket-writers are geared up in battle dress.

It pisses me off that we have police departments in this country that are better funded than some National Guard units. WTF do local police need with tanks and grenade launchers? State police SWAT units, sure... but not local PD's. I don't care how big your city is. Leave that up to the State... not the cities. Some of these big-city PD's are tactically superior to their local NG. That's way too much power in the hands of some of these jackass city council members. Take Detroit, for instance. The power those clowns have frightens me. Detroit has enough firepower to take over every one of their neighboring cities. Compound this with the fact that Congress allows the sending of NG troops OVERSEAS to fight in undeclared wars, and that leaves the States squarely in the hands of the POLICE to provide security. Police should not be used as a fourth-string military (behind regular Army, Reserve, and National Guard). States are to be sovereign... individual or collective cities are not to be superior to the resources of the State.

The image transformation of police across the nation, in my opinion, is merely the personification of the overall disposition. They don't consider themselves civilians anymore. Last I checked, the military already has MP's. Give it time... the days of standard issue patrol CARS may eventually give way to patrol HUMMERS. But I guess when you spread your active, reserve, and NG military resources so thin. by ending them all across the globe as mercenaries, then politicians begin to press civilian police into homeland military service. What further irritates me is that civilians are not privvy to equip themselves similarly as the local PD's. For instance, owning a bullet resistant vest is illegal? WTF? Why? The way I see it, if local PD's are dressed for war, then citizens might have something to worry about and might want to adopt similar measures "just in case".

I say no more than this.
 

Veritas

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
662
Location
Oakland County, Michigan, USA
imported post

zigziggityzoo wrote:
Veritas wrote:
For instance, owning a bullet resistant vest is illegal? WTF? Why?

Not entirely true. They're only illegal to own if you're a felon.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-227g
In the real world, it's illegal. I haven't met a police chief yet that would issue written permission for Joe Sixpack to purchase body armor... nor have I met a retailer that will sell it to anyone who is not LEO or military. The fact that we need illusive permission to buy it means it's out of our hands.

It's not like I plan to cruise around town with an M14 in hand, wearing body armor, and covered in a ghillie suit... but it would be comforting to be able to add the option of protective armor to my home defense quiver. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

I believe citizens should be empowered to organize their militias in a paramilitary manner... complete with all the tools of the trade that our government possess; including body armor. Of course, where there's a will there's a way. There are ways to get your hands on things if you really want them... and there's also methods for homemade devices. But none of which are as easy as just going out and buying standard issue stuff legally.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

Veritas wrote:
zigziggityzoo wrote:
Veritas wrote:
For instance, owning a bullet resistant vest is illegal? WTF? Why?

Not entirely true. They're only illegal to own if you're a felon.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-227g
In the real world, it's illegal. I haven't met a police chief yet that would issue written permission for Joe Sixpack to purchase body armor... nor have I met a retailer that will sell it to anyone who is not LEO or military. The fact that we need illusive permission to buy it means it's out of our hands.

It's not like I plan to cruise around town with an M14 in hand, wearing body armor, and covered in a ghillie suit... but it would be comforting to be able to add the option of protective armor to my home defense quiver. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

I believe citizens should be empowered to organize their militias in a paramilitary manner... complete with all the tools of the trade that our government possess; including body armor. Of course, where there's a will there's a way. There are ways to get your hands on things if you really want them... and there's also methods for homemade devices. But none of which are as easy as just going out and buying standard issue stuff legally.

You can buy body armor on line. Body armor is defiantly legal in Michigan except by felons. There are additional penalties/charges for using one during a crime.

I believe the statute that Zig posted is for a person that was convicted of a felony and now needs to have body armor for a job, etc. It doesn't have to do with non-felons buying armor.
 

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
imported post

Venator wrote:
You can buy body armor on line.  Body armor is defiantly legal in Michigan except by felons.  There are additional penalties/charges for using one during a crime.

I believe the statute that Zig posted is for a person that was convicted of a felony and now needs to have body armor for a job, etc.  It doesn't have to do with non-felons buying armor.

You're correct. The statute I quoted states that FELONS cannot possess without written permission from the police chief.

The average citizen without a record can go ahead and wear their 30-pound flak jacket all they want.
 

zigziggityzoo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,543
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
imported post

T Vance wrote:
zigziggityzoo wrote:
The average citizen without a record can go ahead and wear their 30-pound flak jacket all they want.
Without a felony? Or misdemeanor? Or both?

Read the law I posted above.

"1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who has been convicted of a violent felony shall not purchase, own, possess, or use body armor..."
 
Top