Harassed By St. Joe PD

[Motofixxer]

Wow. Why am I not surprised. I really don't know what they teach police officers anymore in the academy.

They are taught, exactly what they want taught. The precise knowledge, or lack of, is intentional and orchestrated. The techniques of fear and intimidation, shock and awe are intentionally taught to make the general population fear them. If that doesn't work, then use aggressive brute physical force to control.

 

[Grapeshot]

They are taught, exactly what they want taught. The precise knowledge, or lack of, is intentional and orchestrated. The techniques of fear and intimidation, shock and awe are intentionally taught to make the general population fear them. If that doesn't work, then use aggressive brute physical force to control.

That is an major exaggeration and amounts to LEO bashing.

 

[Motofixxer]

Well maybe you believe it to be bashing, but I know it to be fact. I have very detailed knowledge of some of their training. I have heard statements from officer's mouths. I have had to deal with officer's personally. I'm not saying they are all evil. I speak of the way they are trained. I have heard more times than I can remember...resort back to your training, or I just remembered my training.

 

[Bobarino]

That is an major exaggeration and amounts to LEO bashing.

Absolutely false. Motofixxer is 100% accurate. Force tactics are the norm for police training. Admitted by two LEA's here in WA in this article:

http://ballard.komonews.com/news/crime/new-training-spd-kcso-focus-communication/637259

There's a new training program for all Seattle police officers and King County deputies.

The Washington state justice-based policing initiative puts the emphasis on communication.

The departments designed the new training program to gain back public trust and improve officer safety. The first-of-its kind program was introduced on Monday afternoon.

Local law enforcement leaders say police training has focused on physical control tactics with less emphasis on verbal commands.

"It used to be the teaching was get in right away, get the weapon or the person under control before you talk to them," said King County Sheriff Sue Rahr.

But that training will now change with a new curriculum to focus on better communication with the public.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Im at a toss up with the ID thing.

Consider this scenario and you might change your mind.

Let's assume you OC all the time (I do) and you are going out for a day of shopping. You get to the 1st store and a LEO sees you and asks for ID. No biggy, only take a minute, you produce your ID, he calls it in, verifies you aren't a felon and you are on your way. Time wasted, 5 minutes. You go to the next store and a different cop does the same. By the end of the day, 10 different cops have stopped you and asked for your ID. Total time wasted, close to an hour.

How fun would that be?

There are 2 reasons to refuse ID. 1. It isn't required in most states unless the officer has RAS (reasonable articulatable suspicion). In WI, for example, even if he does, I do not have to identify myself, individual states may vary. 2. Doing it emboldens the officers to abuse their power.

A cop can 'ask' you anything he wants, you should answer 'am I free to go?' If the cop answers 'no', he believes he has RAS and therefore can detain you. If he answers 'yes', it is a courtesy call. Walk away.

 

[MKEgal]

A cop can 'ask' you anything he wants, you should answer 'am I free to go?' If the cop answers 'no', he believes he has RAS and therefore can detain you. If he answers 'yes', it is a courtesy call. Walk away.

Alternatively, jump right to "why am I being detained?"
It puts the onus on them, since you've clearly interpreted their 'request' as an official act demanding compliance & restricting your freedom to leave.
If they blurt out "you're not being detained" smile & walk away.
If they give a reason, SHUT UP. Eventually they might get tired of playing with you, or you might get to call a lawyer.

All of this, of course, is if you suspect there's some sort of investigation.
At a picnic or in friendly conversation, talk all you want.

As for the official non-response from the supposed supervisor, being in all caps, I'd guess he was ex-military.
Given the lack of satisfactory response, I'd also be very tempted to take the matter up with IA, or the Chief, or the fire & police commission (or whatever the governing board is), or the mayor, or the city attorney...

And if there ever comes a time when we're getting stopped over & over & over, do an ORR.
Document, document, document.
Then contact your elected representatives & complain.

 

[Grapeshot]

They are taught, exactly what they want taught. The precise knowledge, or lack of, is intentional and orchestrated. The techniques of fear and intimidation, shock and awe are intentionally taught to make the general population fear them. If that doesn't work, then use aggressive brute physical force to control.

That is an major exaggeration and amounts to LEO bashing.

Absolutely false. Motofixxer is 100% accurate. Force tactics are the norm for police training. Admitted by two LEA's here in WA in this article:

http://ballard.komonews.com/news/crime/new-training-spd-kcso-focus-communication/637259

My perception is quite different.
"The techniques of fear and intimidation, shock and awe are intentionally taught to make the general population fear them." No programed effort to cause either fear or intimidation in routine or non-violent encounters. To suggest that is normal and the go to method is the why of the LEO bashing opinion.

Sure LEOs are taught use of force and command authority - no it isn't always the first out of the gate.

Did I miss something?

 

[cshoff]

No, I am not ashamed of myself................<major snippage of nonsensical ramblings>

Doesn't surprise me at all. You sound like a real classy guy........

 

[peterarthur]

Im at a toss up with the ID thing.

Missouri 84.710 The law is clear. No ID unless there is RAS. Open Carry is not RAS. This is not Nazi germany (yet) so demanding your papers is illegal unless they claim you have broken a law. Just like a cop cannot pull you over just to see if you have a license. Know your rights... while you still have them

Granted 84.710 applies to KC and STL but I would still to refuse to ID in any state or city, regardless of the law. Sure I might risk arrest. But I prefer arrest to caving in to submit to an unjust ID law... but that's me. Someone has refuse to go to the back of the bus...

 

[Festus_Hagen]

This is not Nazi germany

Why are alot of people on this sight always saying "Nazi Germany " ? :question: I don't recall anyone EVER saying it was, but people have to reference it over and over, like they are mesmerized or fascinated by it .

It gets pretty old and it makes no point except It makes you sound like you have no other words so throw out the Nazi card .

 

[LMTD]

Because in Nazi Germany you had to carry ID and show it on demand like so many police seem to think it is here.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Because in Nazi Germany you had to carry ID and show it on demand like so many police seem to think it is here.

It is inflammatory, however. A lot of our allies have stop and ID laws today. For example, Great Britain today, a LEO can stop and ID just for the heck of it. They can also frisk.

Why don't we just say 'This is a free country'.

 

[Grapeshot]

Why are alot of people on this sight always saying "Nazi Germany " ? :question: I don't recall anyone EVER saying it was, but people have to reference it over and over, like they are mesmerized or fascinated by it .

It gets pretty old and it makes no point except It makes you sound like you have no other words so throw out the Nazi card .

I would think that would be obvious even to the most casual observer - that the Nazi regime was/is the most highly profiled source of laws and actions against gun owners. Even when not directly referenced, such often comes to minds of readers. Indeed some of our gun laws/restrictions are taken almost verbatim from their playbook. The fact that this was started much earlier by the Weimar regime in 1928 is lost to most. The later player just continued and expanded the policies of the Weimar and became more publicly known as a result.

However, do very much agree it is far better to just take the stance that this is "A Free Country!"

 

[xc9subcompact]

It is inflammatory,......................

It is supposed to be inflammatory. A response that provides the proper comparison that leaves no doubt as to how you feel about the question.

 

[Festus_Hagen]

It is supposed to be inflammatory. A response that provides the proper comparison that leaves no doubt as to how you feel about the question.

So the antis that troll these boards will think we are some kind of nazi worshipers or something ? I don't get it.

I would think that would be obvious even to the most casual observer - that the Nazi regime was/is the most highly profiled source of laws and actions against gun owners.

Um... wrong. I don't associate nazis with gun control at all. Why would you assume everyone would ?

However, do very much agree it is far better to just take the stance that this is "A Free Country!"

I agree 100% .

I don't want people thinking we're a bunch of nazis or anything remotely similar. I just don't get the fascination .

 

[cshoff]

So the antis that troll these boards will think we are some kind of nazi worshipers or something ? I don't get it.

No, just the opposite. Hitler's "nazi" party was VERY anti-gun and very anti-freedom. They set about implementing the most restrictive gun laws the modern world has ever seen. There goal was to disarm everyone so that only the gestapo and Hitler's other "strong men" would possess weapons. They were, essentially, the forefathers of the Brady Campaign types.

Um... wrong. I don't associate nazis with gun control at all. Why would you assume everyone would ?

It's an easy assumption to make. The pro-2nd Amendment groups in this country have been comparing restrictive gun laws in the United States to the restrictive gun laws of Weimar Germany for the past 70 years, and with good reason. Anyone who has done much study on history, and indeed, anti-2nd Amendment groups in this country, should be familiar with the general attitude towards guns in the hands of citizens by the nazi party.

I agree 100% .

I don't want people thinking we're a bunch of nazis or anything remotely similar. I just don't get the fascination .

No fascination. It's more along the lines of, "those who forget history, are destined to repeat it". When we see government agencies at any level trying to enact laws that trample on Constitutionally protected rights, we have a duty as statesmen to call them out on it. A law that allows the government to "demand papers" without cause is most certainly a violation of our 4th Amendment protections. In fact, depending on the circumstances, it could be a violation of 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendment protections all at the same time.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

This isn't Arizona or Nazi Germany. I don't have to show you my "papers" just because you ask.

I hate to derail this thread further, but I wonder if the Reverend is aware that Arizona law is almost a mirror copy of the current United States law on the matter? To associate Arizona with Nazi Germany is to lump the United States in with the same.

Further, legal immigrants to these United States of America are required by Federal Law to be registered with the government and for the last 100 years or so have been required by Federal Law to to carry and present their documentation.

So how does Arizona mirroring current Federal United States law equate to being Nazi Germany again?

 

[Festus_Hagen]

cshoff, I know with you what YOUR intent is for it to mean, and I understand and agree with everything you said.

IMO the antis that read the boards would read as follows :

No, just the opposite. Hitler's "nazi" party was VERY anti-gun and very anti-freedom. They set about imple bla bla blahh blah bla , they are nazis, blah blah blah blah and infatuated with nazis bla blah bla nazis kill bla blahh blabla .

So I don't really disagree with you, I just think it gets old and others may read into it differently than you do. People have the right to use whatever phrases they choose too though, so if it's your cup of tea, so be it.

 

[cshoff]

I hate to derail this thread further, but I wonder if the Reverend is aware that Arizona law is almost a mirror copy of the current United States law on the matter? To associate Arizona with Nazi Germany is to lump the United States in with the same.

Further, legal immigrants to these United States of America are required by Federal Law to be registered with the government and for the last 100 years or so have been required by Federal Law to to carry and present their documentation.

So how does Arizona mirroring current Federal United States law equate to being Nazi Germany again?

My guess is he was talking about the state taking authority to demand papers without cause, based on nothing more than the way somebody looks. Does an illegal immigrant really look any different than a native born American?

 

[cshoff]

cshoff, I know with you what YOUR intent is for it to mean, and I understand and agree with everything you said.

IMO the antis that read the boards would read as follows :



So I don't really disagree with you, I just think it gets old and others may read into it differently than you do. People have the right to use whatever phrases they choose too though, so if it's your cup of tea, so be it.

Well, I don't really disagree with you either. People "see what they want to see" when they read something. When people take things out of context, it doesn't really matter how much care you took in writing it. Nobody can take into account how an irrational person might later try to distort his/her words, when they place their thoughts in print.