• 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.

stopped by off duty deputy at Wal-Mart

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
For those of you who want "The Rest of the Story" about badge-flashing:

As a SP4 (many, many years ago), I drew CQ (Charge of Quarters for you civilians) at my unit. My Company Commander emphasized to me that no one was to enter the barracks except assigned personnel.

My shift had just started when this individual in civilian clothing walked into the orderly room, flashed a badge at me, and announced, "I'm Whateverinellhisnamewas and I'm CID. I'm going to go in the barracks to talk to Pvt. Snuffy."

"Sir, I'm sorry, but you are not, by order of my commander, going in the barracks."

Flash of badge again and same statement.

I had taken a part-time job several days before with a firm called Southern Security and they had issued me the most impressive badge I've ever seen. I yanked the thing out of my pocket, threw it on the desk, and announced, "And I'm SFCRetired of Southern Security and you're not going in my barracks!!"

Now, with all due apologies to Paul Harvey, you know the rest of the story. And, no, he didn't go in the barracks.
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
One additional badge-flashing comment: I've had "bounty hunters" flash official-looking badges at me while they were dressed "tacti-cool" and trying to make you think they were law enforcement. We all know about the "concealed carry" badges and I think there are far more out there.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that in a situation such as OP encountered, I would want to see some other form of identification. Without it, I would be dialing the non-emergency number and requesting the presence of a uniformed officer.

Also, second the notion of contacting the Wal Mart district manager (they seem to be more responsive than corporate) and letting him/her know of this encounter. Same with contacting the LEA to which the "deputy" is assigned.
 

ncwabbit

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
670
Location
rural religious usa
thanks for sharing SFCRetired, my OSI encounter occurred while i was in the AF stationed on a small turkish base outside Ankara and the turkish NCOIC came running up rattling quickly in turkish stating this gentleman in civilian clothes was at the gate flashing a badge demanding to enter the compound.

i walked over in my best blue jeans, said hello to this OSI agent and another well dressed gentlemen in civilian dress who demanded entrance to our secure classified facility. I politely, w/o identifying myself, asked who everyone was and was told the other gentleman was a two star and the OSI agent and driver were his security detail and they insisted they were allowed on site. putting my best diplomatic NCO smile on, i said sorry, no they didn't have permission to enter this compound as it was a turkish facility.

the two star got out of the vehicle as did the agent and proceeded to attempt to walk through the gate at which time the turkish guards looked at me and i shook my head and the guards proceeded to point their automatic firearms at the men. at that time i told them in my best stern NCO voice to please get back in their vehicle and leave the area or my hands would be tied as the turkish military would be forced to act to this intrusion of their installation. begrudgingly they climbed back into their vehicle and left the area.

i went inside in time to receive the call from the local OSI commander, personal friend who i played racketball with every other day, asking me what was going on...told him and he said good job as the visiting two star was being a pain in the arse at all the local installations as was his security detail. my commander told me later while the US base commander in Ankara was miffed the two star couldn't see our facility he understood the general didn't follow appropriate protocal for access. my commander said he reminded the base commander he hadn't been invited to the site either. :p

again thanks for sharing

wabbit
 
Last edited:

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
A recent case in Indiana highlights the principle that talking to police cannot help you.

Those who watched the video on YouTube about not talking to police by Regent University Law School Prof. James Duane already know that exculpatory statements made to police will not be allowed at trial, prohibited by the hearsay rule.

But, below is an excerpt that highlights how talking to police during a detention isn't going to help much either. Although, it may eventually be part of the overall picture that satisfies the cop--and it might not if he's looking to harass a personal defense supporter--the cop is under no obligation whatsoever to accept anything you say as true.

...When Sergeant Cothran was speaking with McCaa for between thirty seconds and one minute, McCaa offered a seemingly plausible explanation for his erratic driving and exhibited no outward signs of impairment. A reasonable person, however, would have been entitled to doubt McCaa's story. First, although plausible, the story was undeniably self-serving and therefore suspect. We will not adopt the rule that reasonable suspicion vanishes as soon as a suspect offers a plausible, innocent explanation for his seemingly criminal behavior...

Full opinion here: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/01301201cjb.pdf

I found out about it by checking a great legal blog here: http://www.fourthamendment.com/blog/

the VASt majority of the time people talk to the police and it helps them, the case never GETS to trial

that's why selection bias based ideas like this are so tainted.

there are cases of friggin' serial killers who because they talked to cops were able to get away with committing crimes for years.

iow, they allayed suspicion, the cops moved on to different suspects, etc.


and that's GUILTY people

most innocents who talk to police , will never get arrested in the first place (note: most!!!. it is not unusual for innocent people to get arrested. no way around that. sometimes), so the issue of what is admissable at TRIAL is a moot point

i was stopped at gunpoint and talked to police. talking to them helped establish i was not the suspect and i was freed

there are other benefits besides TRIAL benefits

MOST of the time people are at trial and they talked ot police, are naturally going to be cases where it DID NOT help them

the vast majority of people cops talk to never go to trial, and are never even arrested. so, again, this takes a select group (see: selection bias) that naturally were almost certainly HARMED and extrapolates an across the board conclusion

very shoddy reasoning
 
Last edited:

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
the VASt majority of the time people talk to the police and it helps them, the case never GETS to trial

that's why selection bias based ideas like this are so tainted.

there are cases of friggin' serial killers who because they talked to cops were able to get away with committing crimes for years.

iow, they allayed suspicion, the cops moved on to different suspects, etc.


and that's GUILTY people

most innocents who talk to police , will never get arrested in the first place (note: most!!!. it is not unusual for innocent people to get arrested. no way around that. sometimes), so the issue of what is admissable at TRIAL is a moot point

i was stopped at gunpoint and talked to police. talking to them helped establish i was not the suspect and i was freed

there are other benefits besides TRIAL benefits

MOST of the time people are at trial and they talked ot police, are naturally going to be cases where it DID NOT help them

the vast majority of people cops talk to never go to trial, and are never even arrested. so, again, this takes a select group (see: selection bias) that naturally were almost certainly HARMED and extrapolates an across the board conclusion

very shoddy reasoning

If it is shoddy reasoning, then why does every lawyer worth his/her salt tell you not to talk to the police? FWIW, nothing you say to police can be used in court to help you, but it can, and will, be used against you.

Personally, I will only say enough to determine whether or not I am free to go. Other than that, I have nothing to say other than, "I want a lawyer."
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
the VASt majority of the time people talk to the police and it helps them, the case never GETS to trial

the vast majority of people cops talk to never go to trial, and are never even arrested. so, again, this takes a select group (see: selection bias) that naturally were almost certainly HARMED and extrapolates an across the board conclusion

Where do you find the data to indicate that your opinion on this matter is correct?
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
Where do you find the data to indicate that your opinion on this matter is correct?

Look up the definition of the word opinion, and you'll discover that an opinion needs no data (not even a single datum). That's what makes it an opinion! IOW, everybody has the right to be incorrect in the eyes of another - or a multitude of others - without them screaming, "WHERE'S YOUR PROOF?!?". :D Pax...
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Look up the definition of the word opinion, and you'll discover that an opinion needs no data (not even a single datum). That's what makes it an opinion! IOW, everybody has the right to be incorrect in the eyes of another - or a multitude of others - without them screaming, "WHERE'S YOUR PROOF?!?". :D Pax...
Are you answering for him? What do you think of his opinion?
So, his opinion is baseless. Okay.

It is more fruitful to forge opinions based upon facts, than to create them out of whole cloth.
 
Last edited:

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
Are you answering for him? What do you think of his opinion?
So, his opinion is baseless. Okay.

It is more fruitful to forge opinions based upon facts, than to create them out of whole cloth.

No, I am not answering for him, I am just supporting his right to have - and voice - his (perhaps unsubstantiated) opinion.

I think his opinion is probably based upon his personal experiences with LEO's, and they may have (at least for the most part) actually been positive. I do not know what his experiences may or may not have been, and I'm willing to say, "I don't know". If his opinion is not based upon anything other than what he thinks about his world, or it was a personal revelation directly to him from God, what you or I think about it is irrelevant - it's still HIS opinion (at least until somebody can show him that his belief is wrong). An opinion doesn't have to have any validity to anyone other than the person holding that opinion.

"Opinions" are why we have more than one religious belief in this world. A difference of opinion is what cost Copernicus his life. The lack of acceptance of differing opinions is what brought about the Spanish Inquisition. Columbus was in the minority when he held the opinion that the world was not flat. If I don't agree with somebody's opinion, I have a couple of options available to me:
a. I can ask for more detailed information about the expressed opinion, or
b. I can simply say, "My experiences seem to have been significantly different than yours", and then perhaps share my opinion, or
c. I can say, "We seem to be at a Mexican Standoff/Impasse" (and suffer being called a politically incorrect racist, or "word snob"), or
d. I can just walk away shaking my head, and muttering incoherently under my breath

One does not have to defend one's opinion (unless that opinion is the basis for their doctoral thesis, then - and only then - must it be proven).

Keep in mind that today's "fact" may very well become a non-fact tomorrow. (FACT: Pluto is NOT a planet, regardless of how it had been classified for over 70 years). A "fact" is simply the reguritation of somebody else's opinion (granted, it was "proven" by the means available in it's day, and has not yet been disproven), but facts show little in the way of individual creativity of thought. I would probably go absolutely insane from the boredom, if everybody thought the same way I do.

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you ever try to adjust the tin-foil hat of the the person with whom you disagree (it's the only thing that can mute THE VOICES)! ;) Pax...
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
No, I am not answering for him, I am just supporting his right to have - and voice - his (perhaps unsubstantiated) opinion.
Which is fine, the problem comes when someone comes along, and denies the opinion of someone else, with their own unsubstantiated opinion.
Gil223 said:
I think his opinion is probably based upon his personal experiences with LEO's, and they may have (at least for the most part) actually been positive. I do not know what his experiences may or may not have been, and I'm willing to say, "I don't know". If his opinion is not based upon anything other than what he thinks about his world, or it was a personal revelation directly to him from God, what you or I think about it is irrelevant - it's still HIS opinion (at least until somebody can show him that his belief is wrong). An opinion doesn't have to have any validity to anyone other than the person holding that opinion.
Like I mentioned, opinions based upon facts and data are much more relevant than irrelevant baseless opinions.
Gil223 said:
"Opinions" are why we have more than one religious belief in this world. A difference of opinion is what cost Copernicus his life. The lack of acceptance of differing opinions is what brought about the Spanish Inquisition. Columbus was in the minority when he held the opinion that the world was not flat. If I don't agree with somebody's opinion, I have a couple of options available to me:
a. I can ask for more detailed information about the expressed opinion, or
b. I can simply say, "My experiences seem to have been significantly different than yours", and then perhaps share my opinion, or
c. I can say, "We seem to be at a Mexican Standoff/Impasse" (and suffer being called a politically incorrect racist, or "word snob"), or
d. I can just walk away shaking my head, and muttering incoherently under my breath
So, do you see that I picked option 'a'?

Gil223 said:
One does not have to defend one's opinion (unless that opinion is the basis for their doctoral thesis, then - and only then - must it be proven).
Correct, and when someone doesn't, then I typically dismiss that opinion as 'baseless.' :rolleyes:
Gil223 said:
Keep in mind that today's "fact" may very well become a non-fact tomorrow. (FACT: Pluto is NOT a planet, regardless of how it had been classified for over 70 years). A "fact" is simply the reguritation of somebody else's opinion (granted, it was "proven" by the means available in it's day, and has not yet been disproven), but facts show little in the way of individual creativity of thought. I would probably go absolutely insane from the boredom, if everybody thought the same way I do.

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you ever try to adjust the tin-foil hat of the the person with whom you disagree (it's the only thing that can mute THE VOICES)! ;) Pax...
Why not? You never attempt to disabuse someone of their opinion, based upon YOUR opinion? This seems to be exactly what you have done now on multiple issues. Remember this one?

My opinion may be wrong in your eyes, and perhaps the eyes of many others, but it is nonetheless MY opinion. My other opinion is that your opinion of my opinion is wrong, and that your example is conditional as stated. To wit: "When properly stated..." and even the laws of thermodynamics are subject to known variables/I]. Change one condition and the result becomes different. Inject a previously unknown condition, and you get an unexpected result. Unless, of course, all possible conditions are known to man. But, that's just an opinion on my part. (It raises the question, if there can be nothing new in thermodynamics because of the three "laws" (ignoring Zeroths Law), why were the first bombs gunpowder based, and not thermonuclear?) We only "know" that which we have learned by a given point in time, and we have not yet learned all there is to know. And an opinion - by definition - can never be wrong. It is a "personal view", and does not have any basis in fact. Pax... ;)


Seems you like to attempt to force others to accept your opinion. And, why did you bother to come in here and 'opinionate' about the term 'opinion' anyway, and add nothing to the discussion except distraction?

He gave an opinion, and I asked what data he used to formulate that opinion. He either has some, or he doesn't. Your interjection of 'definition of opinion' is simply a waste of forum dataspace.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
...
Like I mentioned, opinions based upon facts and data are much more relevant than irrelevant baseless opinions.
So, do you see that I picked option 'a'?
...

Dictionary.com
Opinion - a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

If you know something based upon facts and data then it wouldn't be an opinion, it would be knowledge of facts and data. However, you're wasting your time, the one you are arguing with thinks opinions are always valid and relevant; even those that can be easily dis-proven.
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
Dictionary.com
Opinion - a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

If you know something based upon facts and data then it wouldn't be an opinion, it would be knowledge of facts and data. However, you're wasting your time, the one you are arguing with thinks opinions are always valid and relevant; even those that can be easily dis-proven.

Thanks for the definition of the word "opinion", and I agree with your explanation of "facts and data" as opposed to opinion. I never said they were "relevant", just valid as a personal expression of belief. I wasn't aware we were "arguing", although there was a "heated discussion" in progress prior to that. I was of the opinion we were discussing. In my mind, "arguing" implies a certain low-medium level of anger and hostility. I have neither, but my patience tends to wear a bit thin when issues get "wrapped around the axle". :) Pax...
 
Last edited:

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
Which is fine, the problem comes when someone comes along, and denies the opinion of someone else, with their own unsubstantiated opinion.
Like I mentioned, opinions based upon facts and data are much more relevant than irrelevant baseless opinions.
So, do you see that I picked option 'a'? I see that in your opinion you chose "option a", but instead of simply asking "Why do you think this is so?", or "On what do you base your opinion?" you demanded "data".

Correct, and when someone doesn't, then I typically dismiss that opinion as 'baseless.' :rolleyes: And you are certainly entitled to do so.
Why not? You never attempt to disabuse someone of their opinion, based upon YOUR opinion? "Why not?" I'm sorry you couldn't see that remark was meant to be humorous. This seems to be exactly what you have done now on multiple issues. Remember this one?

I do remember that one, and I stand by it. Apparently, you put much more importance on my posts than I put upon yours. It has never crossed my mind to remember - or even track down - a single post of yours from another thread. Thank you!



Seems you like to attempt to force others to accept your opinion. And, why did you bother to come in here and 'opinionate' about the term 'opinion' anyway, and add nothing to the discussion except distraction? I lack the power to "force" anything upon anybody, and, unlike some, I understand that fact. What I do try to do, is motivate people to think for themselves, rather than simply puke somebody else's "data" at others. As for the rest, I was not the one to bring the word "opinion" into the thread - you were. However, if something is going to be discussed we should ALL know the meaning of the terms in use. My "opinion" was based upon the dictionary definition of the word opinion. But... that's just another of my opinions.

He gave an opinion, and I asked what data he used to formulate that opinion. He either has some, or he doesn't. Your interjection of 'definition of opinion' is simply a waste of forum dataspace.
And, again, that is your opinion. To paraphrase a well-known pedantic, "Where is your data to support that opinion?" :p Pax, nonetheless...
 

Gil223

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2012
Messages
1,392
Location
Weber County Utah
Each time you post about it, the data keeps piling deeper and deeper. :p

As does your BS. I accede to your hopelessness, and concede that you are absolutely correct about everything (thus ending this exchange). :banghead: <-- it feels SO GOOD when I stop. Pax...
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
As does your BS. I accede to your hopelessness, and concede that you are absolutely correct about everything
I am not 'hopeless,' but hopeful.
Gil223 said:
(thus ending this exchange). :banghead: <-- it feels SO GOOD when I stop. Pax...
Yep, the hope I had did pay off. :cool:


NOW, 'hopefully,' this and other topics you 'opine' about can get back on-topic.
 

dman

New member
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
8
Location
Hereford Az
Can I share my opinion?

The Off-duty cop only stopped our OCer because he was an OCer. As a CC/OCer, I am generally mindful of other people around me and often very polite. Most Cops know this is true among most OCer's. That is why he confronted our OCer with his (the Cops) kid around. He knew that the confrontation would have never escalated beyond a simple questioning. Bottom-line, The OCer was being bullied by a Rogue Cop in front of his child, whether to show off in front of his kid or just to vent off some frustration.

I'll tell you what I would have done in this particular order:
1. I would have asked him if I was being detained, if not then I would inform him that I am leaving
2. asked his immediate supervisor name, and number, ask for the COP's badge number
3. exercised my 5th and 4th amendment right if there was no clear justification for the stop
4. called 911 and explain you request a on-duty Police officer present for the "Stop"
5. inform the COP that he is being recorded (assuming you have a recorder, but if you are calling 911, stay on the line)
6. if you can call your lawyer (three calling works) or call your spouse/friend to call your lawyer
7. wait for the on-duty cops
8. REMAIN CALM...don't raise your voice, don't argue, don't explain the law to the off-duty cop. use your 5th amendment rights.


If he is an honest COP, then he'll back down right after you do steps 1-3...if he's a little pushy, then step 4 and 5 will cause him to back down...if he won't relent, you'll see 6 and 7 assured. always exercise step 8 at all times.

If the guy is going to lie about the encounter, step 8 always tells the impartial judge (the On-duty Cop/supervisor) what really happened.

Always use your better judgment, if you feel it best to comply, then do so; but know your rights.
 
Last edited:
Top