Dreamer
Regular Member
Actually, most of the REAL thugs in DC are carrying full-auto MP-5s, M-16s, and Glock handguns. And they all have "Property of the US Government" stamped on the receivers...
-
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.
WTOP Report: Virginia CHP-holder arrested in Frederick, Md
- Thread starter TFred
- Start date
Actually, most of the REAL thugs in DC are carrying full-auto MP-5s, M-16s, and Glock handguns. And they all have "Property of the US Government" stamped on the receivers...
Repeater
Regular Member
Anyone know Roscoe Bartlett? He has been a good friend of gun owners. He represents a good part of MD, the western part.
TFred
Regular Member
77zach
Regular Member
I'll just add the obvious points, though I don't encourage anyone to break the "law" lightly. It can also be unwise to break the "law" and counterproductive to what we're trying to accomplish.
If it is wrong for you or me to do, then it is wrong for the "law" to do it. Reasonable people can argue about when a violation of property rights occurs. Not here though. What this MD deputy did and what the prosecutors will do is nothing short of armed robbery and kidnapping. Morally speaking, if this man with the high point had pulled it out and shot the deputy in the head when he tried to arrest him, it would have been nothing more than a case of righteous self defense. I know we recoil at that, but wearing a uniform does not change the fact that this deputy is a vicious criminal. Ignorance of the natural law is no excuse.
Of course, we're a nation of coward and sheep. So, if this man had done that, it would have actually HURT gun rights in Maryland and for all of us. Fighting it in the rigged government courts is sadly still our best recourse to this tyranny.
If it is wrong for you or me to do, then it is wrong for the "law" to do it. Reasonable people can argue about when a violation of property rights occurs. Not here though. What this MD deputy did and what the prosecutors will do is nothing short of armed robbery and kidnapping. Morally speaking, if this man with the high point had pulled it out and shot the deputy in the head when he tried to arrest him, it would have been nothing more than a case of righteous self defense. I know we recoil at that, but wearing a uniform does not change the fact that this deputy is a vicious criminal. Ignorance of the natural law is no excuse.
Of course, we're a nation of coward and sheep. So, if this man had done that, it would have actually HURT gun rights in Maryland and for all of us. Fighting it in the rigged government courts is sadly still our best recourse to this tyranny.
ProShooter
Regular Member
Ok, so let me see if I understand this logic....
A man breaks a law....no matter if its carrying a gun illegally, littering, or spitting on the sidewalk - a law was broken nonetheless.
A law enforcement officer, charged with enforcing the laws and doing his job that the taxpayers pay him to do, arrests said individual for violating that law....and the Deputy is a "vicious criminal" ? And the deputy and prosecutor are at fault and are committing armed robbery and kidnapping? And if the man shot the deputy who was executing a lawful, custodial arrest, he can claim "righteous self defense"? REALLY?
Gosh, I can't wait to hear your thoughts on Area 51, the grassy knoll, and where Jimmy Hoffa really is buried.
Remind me not to drink the water in Marion County, Florida.
Last edited:
77zach
Regular Member
Ve ver jus follink orderz.
DontTreadOnMeVa
Regular Member
In the 1940 in Germany had a lot of laws that got enforced, that I would argue ranged from wrong, vicious to truly evil. Just because something is codified into law, does not make it right, does not make it something someone should follow and dang sure does not make it something it is right to 'enforce'.
Any officer or citizen that commits an act that is immoral and uses the justification of the law.....is no less immoral. An office is placed in a more difficult position because they are employed to enforce the law. That places them in a pickle, I get that! But, they chose that profession with that pitfall. If your job asks you to do something that is immoral....its time to say no, I wont do that. Take the consequences, be fired if need be....quit if need be......simply don't enforce it if need be. If you use the 'I am just following orders/I am just following the law' argument to do that which is wrong, your still just as wrong. In fact, if you use the color of law to assist an immoral law, you are nothing more than an accomplice to that immoral law.
The true judge of the true character of a LEO is what he does when he is faced with the decision of protecting an immoral law/rule/order or refusing to visit injustice on a citizen. An officer does not get a moral *pass* on this simple because of that a law says.
Last edited:
I think we all know how that line of defense turned out.
I'm going to give you a break and believe that you were being sarcastic. Even if you weren't.
But as for the argument that one's natural right to self defense trumps Maryland's laws prohibiting one from effective means of defending one's self - That is an issue that the citizens of Maryland need to address by and for themselves. I am willing to provide what I can in the way of emotional and financial support to those engaged in meaningful attempts to secure the right to carry, and will do the same for anyone who chooses to leave Maryland because of the onerous laws currently on the books.
(Folks wishing to abandon Maryland need to understand that it might require deciding to accept my offer of shared room and board. That takes a pretty strong committment. On both our parts.
)stay safe.
77zach
Regular Member
I think we all know how that line of defense turned out.
I'm going to give you a break and believe that you were being sarcastic. Even if you weren't.
But as for the argument that one's natural right to self defense trumps Maryland's laws prohibiting one from effective means of defending one's self - That is an issue that the citizens of Maryland need to address by and for themselves. I am willing to provide what I can in the way of emotional and financial support to those engaged in meaningful attempts to secure the right to carry, and will do the same for anyone who chooses to leave Maryland because of the onerous laws currently on the books.
(Folks wishing to abandon Maryland need to understand that it might require deciding to accept my offer of shared room and board. That takes a pretty strong committment. On both our parts.
stay safe.
Yes, I was attacking pro shooter's nonsense. I agree with you on the rest.
ProShooter
Regular Member
I'm not going to comment much more about the VB OC'er. I have some pretty good information about what he did, why he did it and my own opinion about what he should do now. It would NOT conform to board policy and I expect would raise Proshooter's blood pressure.:lol:
I do want to comment about Proshooter though. I know a little about his background as a LEO. He was a straight by the book and use commonsense while doing it, Cop!
He also did more to expose corrupt law enforcement officials than any of us have done. That's all I have to say about that phase of his life but I can say without any hesitation....he is not the enemy here.
Calling a Cop corrupt for enforcing a standing law doesn't make him a Nazi in my book. Wanna see some Nazi posts, cross back into Va and read some of our other LEO's opinions.
I do want to comment about Proshooter though. I know a little about his background as a LEO. He was a straight by the book and use commonsense while doing it, Cop!
He also did more to expose corrupt law enforcement officials than any of us have done. That's all I have to say about that phase of his life but I can say without any hesitation....he is not the enemy here.
Calling a Cop corrupt for enforcing a standing law doesn't make him a Nazi in my book. Wanna see some Nazi posts, cross back into Va and read some of our other LEO's opinions.
Last edited:
ProShooter
Regular Member
My blood pressure thanks you!
Thank you, Peter. I appreciate that very much. Guess they didn't call me "Robocop" for nothing.
DontTreadOnMeVa
Regular Member
Wile I disagree with ProShooter in this thread vehemently I do not see him as the enemy. I have had the pleasure of meeting him in person a couple times and like him. He seams very much a good and honorible guy as far as I can tell. I have suggested his classes to someone I know planning on getting a CHP. I would still make that suggestion. I see him as a friend in the cause....I simply disagree with him in this tread. Nothing in my post was meant to be an attack on ProShooter.
I can only hope if he had ever been faced with the moral choice of enforcing an immoral law or not that he would have made the right choice. I for one don't know if he ever found himself in that spot. My comments about the immoral nature of a cop that would choise the law over doing the right thing was general comments in nature.
I would say it depends on the law... I would say in some cases it dang sure can!
ProShooter
Regular Member
Thank you for the nice comments. I have no issue with differences of opinion in matters of spirited discourse.
You must understand something though. You want an officer to make the right decision if faced with "the moral choice of enforcing an immoral law". That is beyond their scope or authority. There are felonies, and there and misdemeanors. As I see it, there are no moral or immoral laws when doing your job. It is not up to an officer to decide if a law is stupid, immoral, or can be dismissed due to special circumstances....
Case in point - Many years ago, I was in JVDR Court and was asked to serve a Protective Order on a petitioner who alleged that her husband was physically abusive to her and her children. I served the order on her, and sent the copy out to be served on the respondent (husband). As part of the order, the wife was granted possession of a white, Ford Mustang convertible with a unique personalized plate, and the husband was ordered to have no contact with her or the children.
About a week later, I'm working an off duty job at TGI Fridays. While cruising the parking lot, I spot the Mustang. I made a mental note of it and a while later, I entered the restaurant to do a routine walk-through. I spotted the petitioner, a man, and another couple eating dinner. About 10 minutes later, I saw them exiting the restaurant and heading to the Mustang. I approached her and confirmed with her that she was in fact the same woman who I had served the P.O. on a week prior. The man she was with was walking side by side with her, and the other couple a few steps behind. I asked her if this man was her husband, the respondent. She indicated that he was in fact her husband. I asked for his id, confirmed that the order had in fact been served on him (he actually had a copy of it in his pocket) and verified that with dispatch. I asked them why they were together and she said that she called him and asked him out to dinner so that they could discuss the children.
Ok, so a law has been broken here - Violation of a Protective Order, a Class 1 misdemeanor. What's the moral thing to do? What's the legal thing to do?
Officer Morality says "Well that's great, you two are trying to work things out. Hope that it works out well for you and that you can patch up your relationship. Have a great evening!"
Officer Legal says "You sir are under a court order to refrain from contact with your wife while this order is in effect. Your wife cannot give you permission to violate the judge's order. You are under arrest."
Which officer do you think that I was that night? If you guessed Officer Legal, you win any of the large prizes from the top row. I locked him up and I didn't lose a bit of sleep over it.
Let's play devil's advocate for a moment. Officer Morality wishes them well, and sends them on their merry way. On the drive home, they get into an argument and he puts her head through the windshield. She's dead, and couple #2 says "Officer Morality stopped us in the parking lot and let them go, no problem." Officer Morality now needs to learn a new phrase, "Would you like fries with that?". Trust me when I say that I'm not going to piss my career away over good feelings, nice intentions, or what may be moral or immoral.
and I won't even tell you the part about how the guy's father showed up at the restaurant and asked me if there was some way we could "work this out" ($$$$$)
Jim, interesting example.... although I think it could fit quite nicely into the 'don't talk to the police' thread as well! :uhoh:
Just curious, what was your reasoning for approaching them? Was that 'voluntary contact' at that point, or did you have some reasonable suspicion that something was going on? (not a trick question... just playing through the senario in my own mind and trying to understand all of the factors...)
I think I understand what you mean by 'Officer Legal/Moral'. I think I would prefer an 'Officer Legal' over an Officer Moral. The reality is that not everyone has the same morals, and 'his' version of moral, may not be the same as what I think is moral... or even what the overall community thinks is moral. (thus why so many cops are getting arrested these days.... I can't imagine that they have the same morals that I do...:banghead: )
Just curious, what was your reasoning for approaching them? Was that 'voluntary contact' at that point, or did you have some reasonable suspicion that something was going on? (not a trick question... just playing through the senario in my own mind and trying to understand all of the factors...)
I think I understand what you mean by 'Officer Legal/Moral'. I think I would prefer an 'Officer Legal' over an Officer Moral. The reality is that not everyone has the same morals, and 'his' version of moral, may not be the same as what I think is moral... or even what the overall community thinks is moral. (thus why so many cops are getting arrested these days.... I can't imagine that they have the same morals that I do...:banghead: )
BigdoggyB
Regular Member
You make it seem like every PD and parking enforcement in MD is going to have this guy’s name and vehicle description so they can f**k with him. You’re an idiot.
What does it matter what the guys intentions are/were for carrying in MD? It does not sound like he has made a statement telling his side so speculating is a waste of time and only creates useless forum chatter.
Brian
Last edited:
ProShooter
Regular Member
My reasoning was that in observing them, I could tell that there was some type of established romantic relationship between the two; it wasn't like she was having dinner with her brother. Also, prior experience told me that a good number of allegedly abused women go back to their abusers quickly. Naturally, that led me to believe that this was her husband. The contact was voluntary.
DontTreadOnMeVa
Regular Member
I understand that is your stance. I could not disagree more. Just because something is codified in law does not make it moral or right. An officer that supports an immoral law does not get to wash his hands of his part in its tyranny simply because ' he was doing his job. One's occupation does not absolve oneself from all moral responsibilities. Let me put it to you another way....did you enforce every law at every chance as an officer? I have never known an officer that did or could, so judgement is used. I see the "doing ones job" argument as an often ingrained 'justification' to wash ones hands of the moral responsibility of truly difficult situation. Now to be fair, I expect the officer to have a high bar for deciding when bucking an immoral law is justified. I am talking about expecting the officer to do a difficult thing, in the most difficult of examples. I don't expect the officer to in a given situation to judge the law same way I do. I do expect the officer to at lest in the back of his mind be thinking....is this the right thing for me to be doing.
Not a good example at all. Wile the law in this case is pinching someone that did not intend anything wrong. Their is a difference between imperfect and immoral. In this case, I am sure the guy would not agree but I dont think you would have did anything wrong. I also would hope that the judge in the end would see this situation for what it was. In the end, you have to use some personal judgement as to when something rises above....dang that sucks to damn that is just wrong and I wont do something. You pitch a murky situation one loaded with moral pit falls to justify never using judgment.
Maybe maybe not...as I said, I dont see this as a good example. I would say you could make an argument why with such a case careful judgement should be used. With the implied risk of violence to wife and child I would have zero problems with the officer airing on the side of letter of the law as the safest choice. If the officer decided to let this one play out without him stepping in, I would also hope he considered the risks.
ok, given the domestic violence...I dont have a problem with that course of action.
The question is not if you lost any sleep over it...the question is did you for even a second review the morality of the situation. ...or do you go with the it is my job to arrest the guy. The question is would do so even in a much more questionable situation. You seam to paint a level of justification for an officer that they can do anything as long as it is the letter of the law. There is place for the use of thoughtful judgment of ones actions.
Not so fast...you take a weak bad example and use it to say you should not reject enforcing the law....EVER. Sorry, but you, officers, the public and I do not get off that easy in life. We have to use judgement and a responsibility to use it in our actions.
But lets play devils advocate:
Say you where a LEO when slavery was legal....would you even if you held as your personal belief that slavery was immoral...would you have abused, shot or turned escaped slaves as a LEO simply because it was the law?
Say we pass a law that anyone jumping the boarder is to be shot if they do not stop. You are to give one warning and then use lethal force if they continue to advance....that is the letter of the law. Later, you are faced with a fairly young child(7 yr. old) that making a run for it....do you say it is the law and use lethal force as a boarder agent following the letter of the law without moral judgement or responsiblity?
....or if you think those are too far fetched. Say the wife from your example has just been in an accident and the kid has suffered a mortal wound and will soon die. She called the father so he could be with his son in his last moments of life, but you ran into them on the elevator as she is ushering him to his room? Do you toss on the bracelets and drag him away? Maybe you do, maybe you dont......but I would hope that for a moment you consider that is the truly right thing to do. ....that you use a little judgement.
I am not talking about nice feelings....I am talking about when the most difficult of moral choices come to pass. When simply trying to "wash ones hands" of any moral responsibility just simply does not cut it.
Honestly, any officer that does not consider the moral or immoral nature of their actions should be flipping burgers instead.
William Fisher
Regular Member
If you had served the woman already, 'What legal reasonable assumption did you have that you felt permitted you to investigate whether or not the man with her was her hudsband'? What would you have done if she or he (the husband said "Sorry officer, I don't talk to the police. Are you detaining Me? Am I free to go"?
Legally though whether or not she gave him permisssion, the restraining order was still in force.