-
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.
Good example of LEO's respecting 4A rights
- Thread starter since9
- Start date
I disagree completely
It has nothing to do with respecting 4A rights.
It has everything to do with proper police practices. No need to try to add bogus charges, or try to railroad someone with criminal charges where there is no evidence of a crime.
Amazingly, not every time the cops are called is it required that the cops put somebody in handcuffs and take them downtown to be booked for something just to justify the cops having been there.
And you are correct, as well as being right*, that the damages to the store are a civil matter. Hopefully the driver carried sufficient insurance to cover the damages, or at least the minimum to be carried required by law. Let folks who are not taxpayers pay to resolve this.
stay safe.
*
It has nothing to do with respecting 4A rights.
It has everything to do with proper police practices. No need to try to add bogus charges, or try to railroad someone with criminal charges where there is no evidence of a crime.
Amazingly, not every time the cops are called is it required that the cops put somebody in handcuffs and take them downtown to be booked for something just to justify the cops having been there.
And you are correct, as well as being right*, that the damages to the store are a civil matter. Hopefully the driver carried sufficient insurance to cover the damages, or at least the minimum to be carried required by law. Let folks who are not taxpayers pay to resolve this.
stay safe.
*
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
Heres some good examples of LEO's respecting 4A rights......
ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........
ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........
thebigsd
Founder's Club Member
ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........
Hey, they get snack time, lunch time, recess time, quiet time and nap time too...be nice
since9
Campaign Veteran
Ahem, skid, you're usually on target. Not this time. "Proper police practices" do respect 4A rights.
It's all on where our focus is focused. You want to make it a 4A issue. I want to make it a "good policing" issue. All samee-same, boss.
stay safe.
eye95
Well-known member
Another post that serves zero purpose in furthering the thread topic, instead merely designed to bash LEOs. I wonder how long these photos have been held, waiting any excuse to post them.
To the OP: PC = "probable cause."
I don't see this as officers respecting the 4A. I see it as officers following procedure, hesitant to act for fear of violating procedure.
If they had any indication (the accident itself could be considered such) that the driver was impaired, a field sobriety test would be in order.
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
Correct!
Au contraire, it was merely designed for a good laugh. Like it was some kind of conspiracy against cops...
Step 1. I googled "sleeping cop" and clicked on "images".
Step 2. I embedded them in the post.
Step 3. I laughed.
Of course, you could have right-clicked on the photos and then selected "properties" to know that they are from all over and not "held" for this purpose.
I wonder; if I posted pictures of other government employee's doing things they shouldn't be, would you accuse me of bashing them too or do you only have a "thing" for cops?
eye95
Well-known member
I specifically accuse you of cop bashing. Is that clearer for you?
"Held" does not necessarily mean that you put them in some storage bin and linked them from there, just that you were saving the idea to post once an only tangentially related topic was posted. I get it; you deny doing this; nobody saw you do it; and no one can prove anything.
The elephantine question still hangs: What does the OP have to do with sleeping cops? Which, in turn, leads us to: Why would that prompt you to googling "sleeping cops"?
No reply is necessary (but is, nonetheless, surely in the offing). Further denial of LEO-bashing will not draw another reply from me. I have highlighted some obvious LEO-bashing and will simply move on.
"Held" does not necessarily mean that you put them in some storage bin and linked them from there, just that you were saving the idea to post once an only tangentially related topic was posted. I get it; you deny doing this; nobody saw you do it; and no one can prove anything.
The elephantine question still hangs: What does the OP have to do with sleeping cops? Which, in turn, leads us to: Why would that prompt you to googling "sleeping cops"?
No reply is necessary (but is, nonetheless, surely in the offing). Further denial of LEO-bashing will not draw another reply from me. I have highlighted some obvious LEO-bashing and will simply move on.
Last edited:
DocWalker
Regular Member
I'm most defiantly Pro LEO but can see the link to this thread as a sleeping LEO is one that is not trashing the 4A since they are sleeping. I can also see his attempt at humor by posting the pictures as "a sleeping LEO is one not violating any of my rights". Not defending him for posting the pictures I just see where he was going with the pictures. My bigger concern would be for the safety of the lady LEO's firearm as it is sticking out for anyone to grab....WOW
My humble opinion is he was just trying to lighten up the thread with a laugh and did not intentionally do it to bash LEO's.
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
It's possible in a couple of those photos the officers are dead. I'm sure some LEO's die of unnatural as well as natural causes when at work. Wouldn't be the first time the caption doesn't accurately represent the photo.
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
I hope they are just sleeping!
Gunslinger
Regular Member
ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........
See, that's why we don't really need guns. The police are constantly on guard for our safety.
since9
Campaign Veteran
Uh, no. There's absolutely no signs of morbidity in any of the photos. There are, however, unmistakable signs of slumber.
Badger Johnson
Regular Member
What, exactly, is cop bashing? IMO, it's a post with comments like 'all cops are bad' without a 'here's why'. If you have a 'why' and examples and it relates to OC-ing or it's your opinion how is it bashing?
We all relate negative LEO encounters and many relish reading them (esp. if 'we' win the encounter).
My tack is to look at the psychology and the overall effect, thus my comments that I fear LEOs (and any organized thuggery) far more than any single perp or predator with a weapon. I'd much rather encounter a predator with a knife outside my car than a trigger-happy, gun untrained female LEO who is scared of me having a legal tool on my hip (or a male LEO with testosterone-poisoning).
If one tries to explain why LEO actions are ubiquitous, or what drives them, or talks in generalities to make another point, I don't see it as bashing.
To me, the thing we don't want is to single out a LEO and make claims or threats against him. As long as we don't make it personal, I don't understand the rule here.
We all relate negative LEO encounters and many relish reading them (esp. if 'we' win the encounter).
My tack is to look at the psychology and the overall effect, thus my comments that I fear LEOs (and any organized thuggery) far more than any single perp or predator with a weapon. I'd much rather encounter a predator with a knife outside my car than a trigger-happy, gun untrained female LEO who is scared of me having a legal tool on my hip (or a male LEO with testosterone-poisoning).
If one tries to explain why LEO actions are ubiquitous, or what drives them, or talks in generalities to make another point, I don't see it as bashing.
To me, the thing we don't want is to single out a LEO and make claims or threats against him. As long as we don't make it personal, I don't understand the rule here.
eye95
Well-known member
I'd say that going off-topic just to post photos that put LEOs in a bad light is cop-bashing to the max with equally high levels of "deniability."
The only real question remaining is the target of the denial? Others? Or self?
The only real question remaining is the target of the denial? Others? Or self?
Badger Johnson
Regular Member
Oh, I agree. Casting them in a bad light with no 'reason' has no educational value. However, I think some 'venting' should be allowed if it illustrates a point. It also irks me when people repeat such abuse by 'quoting' the whole post and pics again and again.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
I think it was funny. O/T, of course, but meant in a humerous way, as was my comment. That's not 'bashing' cops, but I wouldn't want to be one with a picture like this making the rounds. Or his boss. You could post the same thing about state workers, construction workers, etc.
eye95
Well-known member
See? Deniability.
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
See? Sophistry.
Last edited: