CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
grumpycoconut wrote:
grumpycoconut wrote:
LOL
-
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.
Out for cop blood?
- Thread starter john_1284
- Start date
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
CA_Libertarian wrote:
CA_Libertarian wrote:
Like most signs, it wouldn't have been written if someone hadn't shown the need for it...
KBCraig
Regular Member
imported post
john_1284 wrote:
Let me join the chorus of those welcoming you to OCDO, John.
In Demnogis' incident, the problem was not how much law the officer knows, nor how much he's required to know. The problem was what he knew, that wasn't so.
There's no shame in not knowing every jot and tittle of the law, but being flat-out wrong, and making up laws to suit the situation, is unacceptable.
Police don't need to be malicious in order to violate someone's rights. Police have the power to detain, arrest, search, jail, and proffer charges against John Q., and with that power comes great responsibility: namely, to not screw up and charge someone falsely, to arrest them without solid legal justification, or to enforce personal opinions as if they're statutes.
I'm glad you're here. You write well, and you seem to have a good grasp on things. Remember Grumpycoconut's advice, and please continue to participate on OCDO.
Kevin
john_1284 wrote:
Let me join the chorus of those welcoming you to OCDO, John.
In Demnogis' incident, the problem was not how much law the officer knows, nor how much he's required to know. The problem was what he knew, that wasn't so.
There's no shame in not knowing every jot and tittle of the law, but being flat-out wrong, and making up laws to suit the situation, is unacceptable.
Police don't need to be malicious in order to violate someone's rights. Police have the power to detain, arrest, search, jail, and proffer charges against John Q., and with that power comes great responsibility: namely, to not screw up and charge someone falsely, to arrest them without solid legal justification, or to enforce personal opinions as if they're statutes.
I'm glad you're here. You write well, and you seem to have a good grasp on things. Remember Grumpycoconut's advice, and please continue to participate on OCDO.
Kevin
Sons of Liberty
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
john_1284 wrote:
Welcome John!
I am a little shocked at the title to this thread, since I don't think anyone here is out for the blood of LEO's.Enough LEO blood is spilt through the action of BG. You may not believe it, but I appreciate and respect your willingness to put your life on the line daily!
I am not an advocate of suing someone or some organization for honest mistakes resulting inno damage. I am an advocate of forgiving, on the spot, when the offending party sees the error that they made and immediately corrects it and puts controls in place to ensure it does not happen in the future.
However,a well-intentioned citizen making an honest mistake resulting in no damage does not seem to have that same reciprocity of on-the-spot forgiveness from an LEO. I'm sure the legal system that you are sworn to uphold does not allow for that.
Be that as it may, our system of justice has a system of checks and balances, which IMHO is tared to favor an LEO caught up in an honest mistake as opposed to a citizen caught up in an honest mistake. There is no "qualified immunity" for a citizen that I am aware of.
But the law allows a citizen to sue in certain situations. Outside of this legal procedure, where is the check...what is the motivation for LEO's to not go beyond the law...what is economic advantage for a department to put more funds towards training their workforce?
Lawsuits have their place and purpose in our system of justice. I am not in favor of removing them without a suitable check with which to replace them.
john_1284 wrote:
Welcome John!
I am a little shocked at the title to this thread, since I don't think anyone here is out for the blood of LEO's.Enough LEO blood is spilt through the action of BG. You may not believe it, but I appreciate and respect your willingness to put your life on the line daily!
I am not an advocate of suing someone or some organization for honest mistakes resulting inno damage. I am an advocate of forgiving, on the spot, when the offending party sees the error that they made and immediately corrects it and puts controls in place to ensure it does not happen in the future.
However,a well-intentioned citizen making an honest mistake resulting in no damage does not seem to have that same reciprocity of on-the-spot forgiveness from an LEO. I'm sure the legal system that you are sworn to uphold does not allow for that.
Be that as it may, our system of justice has a system of checks and balances, which IMHO is tared to favor an LEO caught up in an honest mistake as opposed to a citizen caught up in an honest mistake. There is no "qualified immunity" for a citizen that I am aware of.
But the law allows a citizen to sue in certain situations. Outside of this legal procedure, where is the check...what is the motivation for LEO's to not go beyond the law...what is economic advantage for a department to put more funds towards training their workforce?
Lawsuits have their place and purpose in our system of justice. I am not in favor of removing them without a suitable check with which to replace them.
N6ATF
Banned
imported post
Sons of Liberty wrote:
I favor a system where the commanding officers punch their subordinates in the face in front of the citizen they violated six ways 'til Sunday. The citizen gets to appeal to the higher command ranks if supporting paperwork (relevant constitutional amendments, case law, penal code) is present, but the sergeant claims it doesn't support the citizen.
"The beatings will continue until morality improves!"
Sons of Liberty wrote:
I favor a system where the commanding officers punch their subordinates in the face in front of the citizen they violated six ways 'til Sunday. The citizen gets to appeal to the higher command ranks if supporting paperwork (relevant constitutional amendments, case law, penal code) is present, but the sergeant claims it doesn't support the citizen.
"The beatings will continue until morality improves!"
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
N6ATF wrote:
N6ATF wrote:
Nice.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
john_1284 wrote:
Welcome to the forum.
I take issue, and not a small issue, with the parts I've selected out.
An LEO doesn't have to know anythingabout gun laws or OC to avoid violating someone's 4th Amendment rights. All he needs to know is that he doesn't know it is illegal.
Its very simple. If the LEO can't say to himself that he knows for a fact that OCing is illegal, he can't possibly know he has authority for a Terry stop.
Illegal detentions of OCers are not 2nd Amendment violations. They are 4th Amendment violations. And they highlight the fact that some cops are making it up as they go along, Terry stopping people when they can't even point to the law that might be violated.
I have little patience for such LEOs. If they are violating OCers by violating their 4A rights, I havesmall doubt they are also violating other people. Are we to suddenly countenance 4A violations just because we are gun guys? Or should we be saying, "Too bad for certain police if they've been practicing 4A violations and happen to run into and try to practice it somebody who knows their 4A." Lets not overlook that genuinely professional police 1) don't practice 4A violations, and 2) don't want the ill-repute brought on by those who do. We are actually doing a favor to all good cops by reporting the violations of those who practice violating 4A.
When certain police decide to operate within the restrictions of the 4th Amendment, rather than thinking they own thestreets, or whatever other idea the use in place of the 4th Amendment, we'll all be better off. Certain police need to understand that a seizure of the personis not a light matter.
Belowis a quote from Terry vs Ohio, the verylaw police are using todetain someone. The court is quoting an ealiercase. Its language is unequivocal:
No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.
No right. More sacred. More carefully guarded. Free from all restraint or interference. Clear and unquestionable authority of law.
There are probably numerous quotes from which the court could have selected. They could have evenwritten a watered down version, or omitted to mention it at all. But they didn't. They selectedthat quote.
john_1284 wrote:
John,
Welcome to the forum.
I take issue, and not a small issue, with the parts I've selected out.
An LEO doesn't have to know anythingabout gun laws or OC to avoid violating someone's 4th Amendment rights. All he needs to know is that he doesn't know it is illegal.
Its very simple. If the LEO can't say to himself that he knows for a fact that OCing is illegal, he can't possibly know he has authority for a Terry stop.
Illegal detentions of OCers are not 2nd Amendment violations. They are 4th Amendment violations. And they highlight the fact that some cops are making it up as they go along, Terry stopping people when they can't even point to the law that might be violated.
I have little patience for such LEOs. If they are violating OCers by violating their 4A rights, I havesmall doubt they are also violating other people. Are we to suddenly countenance 4A violations just because we are gun guys? Or should we be saying, "Too bad for certain police if they've been practicing 4A violations and happen to run into and try to practice it somebody who knows their 4A." Lets not overlook that genuinely professional police 1) don't practice 4A violations, and 2) don't want the ill-repute brought on by those who do. We are actually doing a favor to all good cops by reporting the violations of those who practice violating 4A.
When certain police decide to operate within the restrictions of the 4th Amendment, rather than thinking they own thestreets, or whatever other idea the use in place of the 4th Amendment, we'll all be better off. Certain police need to understand that a seizure of the personis not a light matter.
Belowis a quote from Terry vs Ohio, the verylaw police are using todetain someone. The court is quoting an ealiercase. Its language is unequivocal:
No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.
No right. More sacred. More carefully guarded. Free from all restraint or interference. Clear and unquestionable authority of law.
There are probably numerous quotes from which the court could have selected. They could have evenwritten a watered down version, or omitted to mention it at all. But they didn't. They selectedthat quote.
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
+1 to what Citizen wrote.
I think both sides often underestimate the value of our 4A rights. Our culture has simply grown to accept fascism.
We're simply upsetting the vicious cycle that led to the erosion of the right. We experience harrumphing from both sides.
I didn't really think about it at first, but now that I have, I've decided the title of this thread is downright offensive. Especially considering not a single lawsuit has yet been filed (to my knowledge), despite there being a score or more instances that are legally actionable.
If anything, we need to stop taking it lying down. I hate the "out for blood" metaphor, so I'll just say we need to get a lot more aggressive in our response to tyranny.
FFS, why aren't we more angry?
+1 to what Citizen wrote.
I think both sides often underestimate the value of our 4A rights. Our culture has simply grown to accept fascism.
We're simply upsetting the vicious cycle that led to the erosion of the right. We experience harrumphing from both sides.
I didn't really think about it at first, but now that I have, I've decided the title of this thread is downright offensive. Especially considering not a single lawsuit has yet been filed (to my knowledge), despite there being a score or more instances that are legally actionable.
If anything, we need to stop taking it lying down. I hate the "out for blood" metaphor, so I'll just say we need to get a lot more aggressive in our response to tyranny.
FFS, why aren't we more angry?
stuckinchico
Regular Member
imported post
First off,welcome !! Second, just because it is out of the " Norm" is not grounds for probable cause. If that were the case, you would be detaining people that look like they have not showered in days
First off,welcome !! Second, just because it is out of the " Norm" is not grounds for probable cause. If that were the case, you would be detaining people that look like they have not showered in days
All American Nightmare
Regular Member
imported post
While some on this forum have had horribleencounters with LEOS myself included. It is possible to get a bad taste for officers of the law in general and some of those feelings might showin there post. When was the last time a LEO has been stopped detained, handcuffedand called stupid because he or she was carrying a firearm ? Unfortunately while most LEOS are probably decent human beings and make honest mistakes everyday as in all walks of life. It seems people only remember the one mistake that was made and forget the other 99 things that LEOS get right in a day. However police are charged withenforcing the law and to be reasonable its no way they are going to get it right every time.Perhaps if both sides would try to see things from the other persons shoes it might change things for both sides.
While some on this forum have had horribleencounters with LEOS myself included. It is possible to get a bad taste for officers of the law in general and some of those feelings might showin there post. When was the last time a LEO has been stopped detained, handcuffedand called stupid because he or she was carrying a firearm ? Unfortunately while most LEOS are probably decent human beings and make honest mistakes everyday as in all walks of life. It seems people only remember the one mistake that was made and forget the other 99 things that LEOS get right in a day. However police are charged withenforcing the law and to be reasonable its no way they are going to get it right every time.Perhaps if both sides would try to see things from the other persons shoes it might change things for both sides.
SOneThreeCoupe
Regular Member
imported post
john_1284 wrote:
You were blunt with us. Let me be blunt with you.
Breaking the law has nothing to do with justice. 1 out of those 10 is following the law, but another 5 or 6 are protecting themselves because they cannot get a concealed carry license. In fact, the full 10 are behaving in a just manner until they initiate force. The greater good or the fact that one of them might use their firearm unjustly are wholly inadequate reasons to jail those breaking the law.
You are a law enforcement officer. Your superiors expect you to enforce laws. You enforce drug laws, you enforce firearm laws, you enforce vehicle laws.
You enforce unjust laws as well as just laws. You bring closure to some families and tear some apart. You waste the time of those acting in a just manner, you cost them money, you put them in jail, you put them in prison.
Therefore, some of us don't like you. I won't say "don't take it personally," because I dislike every police officer on a personal level, just because they are a police officer.
I dislike the police and I dislike the CHP. I dislike sheriffs, I dislike DAs, I dislike judges.
I am the exception to the norm here. I am an extremely small-government guy. I think the legal system is all that exists, for the justice system died hundreds of years ago (around 1803, although I waver and sometimes say 1787). This is not the view held by the vast majority of open carriers, so hold none of it against them.
john_1284 wrote:
John,
You were blunt with us. Let me be blunt with you.
Breaking the law has nothing to do with justice. 1 out of those 10 is following the law, but another 5 or 6 are protecting themselves because they cannot get a concealed carry license. In fact, the full 10 are behaving in a just manner until they initiate force. The greater good or the fact that one of them might use their firearm unjustly are wholly inadequate reasons to jail those breaking the law.
You are a law enforcement officer. Your superiors expect you to enforce laws. You enforce drug laws, you enforce firearm laws, you enforce vehicle laws.
You enforce unjust laws as well as just laws. You bring closure to some families and tear some apart. You waste the time of those acting in a just manner, you cost them money, you put them in jail, you put them in prison.
Therefore, some of us don't like you. I won't say "don't take it personally," because I dislike every police officer on a personal level, just because they are a police officer.
I dislike the police and I dislike the CHP. I dislike sheriffs, I dislike DAs, I dislike judges.
I am the exception to the norm here. I am an extremely small-government guy. I think the legal system is all that exists, for the justice system died hundreds of years ago (around 1803, although I waver and sometimes say 1787). This is not the view held by the vast majority of open carriers, so hold none of it against them.
deforcer
Regular Member
imported post
SOneThreeCoupe wrote:
To begin with, there is a real danger that you will fall into a self-fulfilling prophecy: if you go into encounterse with LE with the attitude that they are bad/unjust then you will almost certainly test their professionalism. That's because cops are human beings like you and I. Training in law enforcement doesn't change that.
Which brings us to a second problem that a lot of us fall into: worshiping a golden age and comparing modern life unfavorably to it. While it's certainly true that gun control has gotten worse over the decades, police behaviour in general has certainly improved.
Now I think it's probably fair to say that LE attracts individuals who value law and order and, for the most part, that's a good thing. So while you and I might wish that LEOs would refuse to enforce unjust and unconstitutional laws, it's an unrealistic expectation for the most part and we need to target those pushing gun control (or blocking reform).
Take it upon yourself to do what you can to change LE attitudes towards civilian keeping and bearing of arms. If for that sake along, you should try your best to set aside your hostility to the LE community.
SOneThreeCoupe wrote:
I hope you'll pardon me for trying to change your mind. You and I probably agree on 99% of the issues but you are taking yourself far too seriously.
To begin with, there is a real danger that you will fall into a self-fulfilling prophecy: if you go into encounterse with LE with the attitude that they are bad/unjust then you will almost certainly test their professionalism. That's because cops are human beings like you and I. Training in law enforcement doesn't change that.
Which brings us to a second problem that a lot of us fall into: worshiping a golden age and comparing modern life unfavorably to it. While it's certainly true that gun control has gotten worse over the decades, police behaviour in general has certainly improved.
Now I think it's probably fair to say that LE attracts individuals who value law and order and, for the most part, that's a good thing. So while you and I might wish that LEOs would refuse to enforce unjust and unconstitutional laws, it's an unrealistic expectation for the most part and we need to target those pushing gun control (or blocking reform).
Take it upon yourself to do what you can to change LE attitudes towards civilian keeping and bearing of arms. If for that sake along, you should try your best to set aside your hostility to the LE community.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
Does anyone else find it odd that the new poster joined, posted a message in a thread with a VERY provocative title, then hasn't re-appeared?
Does anyone else find it odd that the new poster joined, posted a message in a thread with a VERY provocative title, then hasn't re-appeared?
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
deforcer wrote:
I presume every person (LE or not) is good, until they give me a reason to believe otherwise. On this forum, I only criticize the actions of individuals.
deforcer wrote:
My hostility is not toward any profession, nor any community. My hostility is toward fascism. My hostility is toward ANYBODY that initiates force against me. (If you're not familiar with the Zero Agression Principle, read up on it on Wikipedia.)
I presume every person (LE or not) is good, until they give me a reason to believe otherwise. On this forum, I only criticize the actions of individuals.
Decoligny
Regular Member
imported post
Five days and only 1 post by the OP.
It would on the surface appear that the OP was just trolling, or maybe just an LEO who wanted to whine.
Five days and only 1 post by the OP.
It would on the surface appear that the OP was just trolling, or maybe just an LEO who wanted to whine.
MudCamper
Founder's Club Member
imported post
No. It's not that odd. There are a lot of forum lurkers that don't normally post. Give him time.
Again, give him some time. Most people do not visit the forums on a daily/hourly basis.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
MudCamper wrote:
MudCamper wrote:
..or got his but reamed by his superiors for posting here....
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
sudden valley gunner wrote:
Probably more like this reaming. Sadly this poster is not alone on here but has a sizable following.
sudden valley gunner wrote:
Probably more like this reaming. Sadly this poster is not alone on here but has a sizable following.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
CA_Libertarian wrote:
Because they just do not know their 4th Amendment (search and seizure) law.
Not knowing the 4A court opinions, they don't even recognize violations.
Lets just talk about data for a moment. In order to evaluate a datum, one must have another datum to evaluate it against, to compare it to.
If the OCer does not have 4A court opinion datums (data) to compare their encounter to, they have no way of evaluating the legality of the encounter.
If the only data they have is that the officer is supposed to be nice and professional, that is the data that will be used to evaluate the stop. If the cop is nice and professional, they will come up with the answer that the stop went more or less acceptably.
Also, lacking knowledge of 4A court opinions, OCers can only compare the officer's stop to the legality of what the OCer wasdoing. The answer they come up with is that the officer made a mistake, [the officer did not know OC is legal]. Since everybody makes mistakes, the "mistake" the OCer perceives seems forgiveable. Of course, this is also affected by social training and the police PR image of "dedicated public servants who put their lives on the line for us every day."
Its the lack of 4A data (court opinions) to which theOCercan compare the stop. As soon as you compare the stops to 4A court opinions, you get a whole different answer. As soon as you compare some of the cop apologist info liketo 4A court opinions, the explanations fall apart.
This is why I spend so much time quoting opinions, citing cases, and so forth--to get the information into the OCershands.
I invite others to join me. Lets become screaming experts on the 4A at the level of foot encounters, traffic encounters, and road blocks (euphemistically called "check-points" by the government spinmeisters.)
CA_Libertarian wrote:
Because they just do not know their 4th Amendment (search and seizure) law.
Not knowing the 4A court opinions, they don't even recognize violations.
Lets just talk about data for a moment. In order to evaluate a datum, one must have another datum to evaluate it against, to compare it to.
If the OCer does not have 4A court opinion datums (data) to compare their encounter to, they have no way of evaluating the legality of the encounter.
If the only data they have is that the officer is supposed to be nice and professional, that is the data that will be used to evaluate the stop. If the cop is nice and professional, they will come up with the answer that the stop went more or less acceptably.
Also, lacking knowledge of 4A court opinions, OCers can only compare the officer's stop to the legality of what the OCer wasdoing. The answer they come up with is that the officer made a mistake, [the officer did not know OC is legal]. Since everybody makes mistakes, the "mistake" the OCer perceives seems forgiveable. Of course, this is also affected by social training and the police PR image of "dedicated public servants who put their lives on the line for us every day."
Its the lack of 4A data (court opinions) to which theOCercan compare the stop. As soon as you compare the stops to 4A court opinions, you get a whole different answer. As soon as you compare some of the cop apologist info liketo 4A court opinions, the explanations fall apart.
This is why I spend so much time quoting opinions, citing cases, and so forth--to get the information into the OCershands.
I invite others to join me. Lets become screaming experts on the 4A at the level of foot encounters, traffic encounters, and road blocks (euphemistically called "check-points" by the government spinmeisters.)
SOneThreeCoupe
Regular Member
imported post
deforcer wrote:
Because I dislike someone, I need not be entirely uncivil. You understand, of course, that the modern man needs some civility lest he be entirely ignored. I don't spit on cops; I don't do anything that could be regarded as uncivil. I am just cold and unwavering. I need not defer to a false authority. A badge, a gun, and threat of violence or injustice do not scare me.
I do not worship a golden age; I live to recreate it. I will not compromise. I seek not the 1800s or 1780s, I seek my ability to live justly. I seek the ability to not harm anyone and not be arrested for it. It is a small question to ask, yet entirely untenable in this day and age.
I've taken a few criminal justice classes and met many want-to-be police officers. They are indeed law-and-order types, as was I at one point in time. I learned that justice has nothing to do with the legal system and no longer have a use for law-and-order types.
I will not set aside my hostility. I do not compromise in my job, I expect them not to compromise in theirs. Any police officer has no choice but to compromise his beliefs.
Again, I must say that my views in no way espouse those of this forum. These views are my own and only my own. Any law enforcement officers, government agents, or journalists cannot and should not construe this post in any way to be the feelings or agenda of anyone other than me, Steve, SOneThreeCoupe. The rest of the posts in this thread should give you the warm fuzzies, so ignore me.
deforcer wrote:
Deforcer, if I refused to pardon you, I'd be rather closed-minded. Please speak your mind with no deference to my opinion, as I require no middle-of-the-road gestures.
Because I dislike someone, I need not be entirely uncivil. You understand, of course, that the modern man needs some civility lest he be entirely ignored. I don't spit on cops; I don't do anything that could be regarded as uncivil. I am just cold and unwavering. I need not defer to a false authority. A badge, a gun, and threat of violence or injustice do not scare me.
I do not worship a golden age; I live to recreate it. I will not compromise. I seek not the 1800s or 1780s, I seek my ability to live justly. I seek the ability to not harm anyone and not be arrested for it. It is a small question to ask, yet entirely untenable in this day and age.
I've taken a few criminal justice classes and met many want-to-be police officers. They are indeed law-and-order types, as was I at one point in time. I learned that justice has nothing to do with the legal system and no longer have a use for law-and-order types.
I will not set aside my hostility. I do not compromise in my job, I expect them not to compromise in theirs. Any police officer has no choice but to compromise his beliefs.
Again, I must say that my views in no way espouse those of this forum. These views are my own and only my own. Any law enforcement officers, government agents, or journalists cannot and should not construe this post in any way to be the feelings or agenda of anyone other than me, Steve, SOneThreeCoupe. The rest of the posts in this thread should give you the warm fuzzies, so ignore me.