My recent encounter with LEO's

[Publius]

I would disagree and so do the dictionaries.......
serv·ant
   /ˈsɜr

vənt/ Show Spelled[sur-vuh

nt] Show IPA
–noun 1. a person employed by another, esp. to perform domestic duties.

2. a person in the service of another.

3. a person employed by the government: a public servant.

Yes, but "servant" is used most commonly today to denote someone doing work either out of the kindness of their hearts or by compulsion. While you could call LEO's "public servants" and be technically accurate, they collect a pay check for what they do and so I believe it to be a more accurate statement to call them "public employees".

 

[eye95]

"Serve" and "work for" do not mean the same thing.

"Work for" implies the power to hire, fire, set wages, take personnel actions, etc.--which "we" do not have. Therefore, public servants "serve" "us," they do not "work for" "us."

If one interacts with a LEO, I strongly recommend that he not say something stupid like, "You work for me."

 

[sudden valley gunner]

"Serve" and "work for" do not mean the same thing.

"Work for" implies the power to hire, fire, set wages, take personnel actions, etc.--which "we" do not have. Therefore, public servants "serve" "us," they do not "work for" "us."

If one interacts with a LEO, I strongly recommend that he not say something stupid like, "You work for me."

Eye no offense but it does mean they work for us they are performing work for who??????
That would be us. It does not matter whether or not we have the direct ability individually to hire or fire them. See Ruby's post above she makes good points.

Again because you say it is stupid does not make it so...." I have told officers this...." and the Deputy Chief of one department made the statement himself to me. The good officers realize who they are "working" or performing duties for. And I see no one was advocating saying that anyway they were just pointing out who public servants "serve".
If they do not serve us than they shouldn't be living off our tax money.

This does not mean I am not polite and cordial in my interreactions with them...as I am with any other civilian.

 

[Ruby]

Yes, but "servant" is used most commonly today to denote someone doing work either out of the kindness of their hearts or by compulsion. While you could call LEO's "public servants" and be technically accurate, they collect a pay check for what they do and so I believe it to be a more accurate statement to call them "public employees".

A servant is not a slave. A servant serves others for a wage or salary. Household servants do get paid for the work they do. A servant to me is someone who serves in some capacity, a public servant obviously serves the public in some way. Just because it has over time taken a negative connotation does not mean it is negative or lowly. There are people who take great pride in the public service they perform. They get paid for it of course; we all need to earn a living, but they do serve the public. While we may not DIRECTLY hire and fire LEO's, we do "hire" and "fire" their bosses come election time and make our pleasure or displeasure known. There is much that a person can do at the local level if one desires to become involved.

 

[Ruby]

"Serve" and "work for" do not mean the same thing.

"Work for" implies the power to hire, fire, set wages, take personnel actions, etc.--which "we" do not have. Therefore, public servants "serve" "us," they do not "work for" "us."

If one interacts with a LEO, I strongly recommend that he not say something stupid like, "You work for me."

Eye, I do wish for once you could quit with the semantics. You get so wrapped up in the meanings of words that the original point gets buried in verbiage. While I do appreciate your efforts to be precise, it does get irritating when you will not allow others their own interpretations, whether you agree with them or not. The rest of the world doesn't always give a rats patooty about the precise definition of a particular word. It would be nice if you could do that from time to time and give us a break!:banghead:

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Eye, I do wish for once you could quit with the semantics. You get so wrapped up in the meanings of words that the original point gets buried in verbiage. While I do appreciate your efforts to be precise, it does get irritating when you will not allow others their own interpretations, whether you agree with them or not. The rest of the world doesn't always give a rats patooty about the precise definition of a particular word. It would be nice if you could do that from time to time and give us a break!:banghead:

Plus his definition was wrong.

Work is performing a job or duty etc. it can be with or without money, he is installing his own implications and defination of what it implies. Public servant describes the person and his vocation...works for us.. is they are doing a job for us, it does not imply we directly hire or fire them. Although we can, like you and myself have brought out, affect their employment.

 

[JJ]

Excellent

I am not on this forum nearly as much as I should be, but I thought I would share my recent encounter with Law Enforcement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyA_Z69G5E0

If anyone has productive criticism, I would be glad to take it.

Great Job! I don't think you could have done too much better. I especially like how, after the e check, you didn't waste any time throwing out the all important "am I free to go?"
I also like to announce ( before the e check, of which I've only had one) "I don't consent to any search or seizures of my person or property, but I won't resist if you insist on proceeding with an e check." This way when 12031e is ruled unconstitutional you have a record of your objection before they violate your 4th amendment rights.

 

[25sierraman]

back on topic here. I'm pretty new with LEO encounters as (thankfully) most of mine have been extremely professional and positive so far. What is the next course of action he can take since they seem to be ignoring him?

 

[eye95]

Eye no offense but it does mean they work for us they are performing work for who??????
That would be us. It does not matter whether or not we have the direct ability individually to hire or fire them. See Ruby's post above she makes good points.

Again because you say it is stupid does not make it so...." I have told officers this...." and the Deputy Chief of one department made the statement himself to me. The good officers realize who they are "working" or performing duties for. And I see no one was advocating saying that anyway they were just pointing out who public servants "serve".
If they do not serve us than they shouldn't be living off our tax money.

This does not mean I am not polite and cordial in my interreactions with them...as I am with any other civilian.

No. The idiom "work for" carries with it the connotation of hire, fire, set pay, take personnel action, etc. "Work for" implies an employee-boss relationship.

Saying to an officer that he works for you is incredibly stupid because one is making an arrogant statement to another most likely because he is being arrogant. The problem is that the person to whom the statement is being made, lawfully or unlawfully, has tremendous power in the situation. The fact that you have done it and it worked out does not mean it would be stupid to attempt it again.

It reminds me of standing your ground in a crosswalk, shaking your fist as a truck approaches, and shouting that you have a right to stand in that crosswalk and make the truck stop. It would be a stupid thing to do. A truck stopping for you would not prove that you were right--just that you did something stupid AND got lucky.

It would be wiser, when dealing with a LEO, to not make contentious statements like, "You work for me." Stick to the tried-and-true. "Am I free to go?" "Am I being detained?" "What reason do you have to detain me?" "What crime are you investigating?" Be respectful of the LEO, even if he is not being respectful of you. He'll sound pretty bad on the recording if he is disrespectful. If he isn't, you will likely resolve the situation pretty quickly and favorably.

Saying, falsely, "You work for me," will just likely get you hit by a truck--and is a stupid and false thing to say.

 

[eye95]

Eye, I do wish for once you could quit with the semantics. You get so wrapped up in the meanings of words that the original point gets buried in verbiage. While I do appreciate your efforts to be precise, it does get irritating when you will not allow others their own interpretations, whether you agree with them or not. The rest of the world doesn't always give a rats patooty about the precise definition of a particular word. It would be nice if you could do that from time to time and give us a break!:banghead:

Trying to encourage others not to say something stupid like, "You work for me," to an officer who has rightly or wrongly stopped one IS the point of this subdiscussion. I know that I will not convince you or SVG of the stupidity and falseness of that phrase. I am hoping that others who read this thread will see the folly in making that statement and not make it. I don't want folks to get the impression that making this false claim might be the thing to do, do it, and then have a bad day as a result.

If someone is determined to make such a stupid and false statement to a cop, he should have at it. I just want folks to realize that there are more rational and truer options.

So, every time someone says that LEOs work for them, I will respond as I have here.

Every time.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Eye95 you are very opinionated.

We have explained to you over and over again how they do work for us, you just don't want to accept it that's fine that is your opinion it is not fact.

You are not intellectually superior to others on here so the condescending lecturing tone, and vieled insults are very unneccessary and show that you are not as "civil" as you insist on others being.

Fact-they are public servants, performing public works
Fact-We are the public they serve and perform these works for

And no, saying it to an officer wasn't the point of this sub discussion the point was made that officers should provide you with info you asked because they work for us. I go through the proper channels of officers superiors or my elected officials after the encounter. When that fails...lawsuit.

Again your huge lecture on saying that...is ridiculous since I never encouraged saying that in a stop. And a week attempt at trying to paint me as someone I am not.

If you want to continue to beleive in a hierarchal society, where civilians are on the bottom of the rung and gov. and public servants are above them go ahead, I will continue to encourage people to feel other wise, since too me this is one of the main problems in our society, that type of subserviant to the government mentality.

I don't care if public officials are arrogant or not if they can't control themselves/or behave properly to the people they serve. They shouldn't be public officials.

 

[Publius]

Great Job! I don't think you could have done too much better. I especially like how, after the e check, you didn't waste any time throwing out the all important "am I free to go?"
I also like to announce ( before the e check, of which I've only had one) "I don't consent to any search or seizures of my person or property, but I won't resist if you insist on proceeding with an e check." This way when 12031e is ruled unconstitutional you have a record of your objection before they violate your 4th amendment rights.

I agree and next time I will be stating "I don't consent to any search or seizures of my person or property, but I won't resist if you insist on proceeding with an e check."

 

[Publius]

back on topic here. I'm pretty new with LEO encounters as (thankfully) most of mine have been extremely professional and positive so far. What is the next course of action he can take since they seem to be ignoring him?

Most of my encounters with LEO's have been positive.

In an update and an answer to your question, on Monday I will be getting any and all documents, recordings, et cetera after filing a California Public Records Act request for the info. When I arrive to pick it up I will try once more to file my "grievance" and will video this process. If I am ignored once again, I have waiting and ready to go, a short open letter to be sent out to

The Chief of the Marysville Police
The County Sheriff
Two County Supervisors I know and know I Open Carry
The Mayor Marysville
and two reporters for the local news paper who know about Open Carry

I don't know what else I can do other than to make this a more public issue.

 

[eye95]

Eye95 you are very opinionated.

And you are very opinionated, too. Dose that mean you have to get personal with the insults? I don't think so.

And I have repeatedly explained how you are misusing the common phrase, "You work for me," in a way that LEOs will RIGHTLY find arrogant.

As I said, every time someone posts that LEOs "work for them," I will post how that statement is false on its surface. It is a hyperbolic and antagonistic way of trying to dominate the LEO, when he actually serves us, but does not work FOR us.

"Work for" connotes an employee-boss relationship. It refers to one persons ability to hire, fire, set pay for, and take personnel actions on another person. That relationship does not exist between members of the public and LEOs. LEOs do not "work for" us.

 

[eye95]

I agree and next time I will be stating "I don't consent to any search or seizures of my person or property, but I won't resist if you insist on proceeding with an e check."

Those are good words to have on your recording.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

And you are very opinionated, too. Dose that mean you have to get personal with the insults? I don't think so.

And I have repeatedly explained how you are misusing the common phrase, "You work for me," in a way that LEOs will RIGHTLY find arrogant.

What personal insult?
Again I never encouraged using this phrase with LEO encounters. No one here has. So why you keep harping on that is confusing. 2nd I am not afraid of hurting any public official's hubris when they are not acting with respect toward the public they serve.

Fact-they do work, for who, the public- hence they work for the public.

In no way does the fact we don't directly hire or fire them have any bearing on it.

And yes I am opinionated and getting more so as I get older but I don't make a habit of belittling others opinions as seems to be the case with some of your posts.

So I will "move on" now.

 

[eye95]

Again I never encouraged using this phrase with LEO encounters. No one here has.

Check out posts number 4 and 11.

You may move on, but any time some says that LEOs "work for us" I will be there to point out that they do not.

"Work for us" implies an employee-boss relationship. We are not their bosses. We cannot hire or fire them. We make no personnel decisions. We do not set their pay.

Every time you say that they "work for us," you encourage some poor schlub you don't even know to say it to a cop. I will try to stop that piece of idiocy before it happens.

 

[NRAMARINE]

Eye95 you are very opinionated.

We have explained to you over and over again how they do work for us, you just don't want to accept it that's fine that is your opinion it is not fact.

You are not intellectually superior to others on here so the condescending lecturing tone, and vieled insults are very unneccessary and show that you are not as "civil" as you insist on others being.

Fact-they are public servants, performing public works
Fact-We are the public they serve and perform these works for

And no, saying it to an officer wasn't the point of this sub discussion the point was made that officers should provide you with info you asked because they work for us. I go through the proper channels of officers superiors or my elected officials after the encounter. When that fails...lawsuit.

Again your huge lecture on saying that...is ridiculous since I never encouraged saying that in a stop. And a week attempt at trying to paint me as someone I am not.

If you want to continue to beleive in a hierarchal society, where civilians are on the bottom of the rung and gov. and public servants are above them go ahead, I will continue to encourage people to feel other wise, since too me this is one of the main problems in our society, that type of subserviant to the government mentality.

I don't care if public officials are arrogant or not if they can't control themselves/or behave properly to the people they serve. They shouldn't be public officials.

+1

 

[NRAMARINE]

Two things,

#1
Those who work for the Government are not "public servants", because they get a paycheck which makes them "public employees".

#2


Their is a substantive difference. When they ask my name, I am not legally required to do so and they want my name so that they can hopefully find a reason to put me in a cage. When I ask them for their names it is so they can be held accountable to the Law, as they are REQUIRED to ID themselves while in uniform and on duty.

Not giving away my rights is taking the high road, by being consistent, my view is never obscured.

I completely agree as far as the letter of the law. Nothing the op did was improper. I merely meant to adress the human nature angle of the encounter as I understood it. From a purely human nature perspective, asking a PERSON to do something you just refused to do tends to rub people the wrong way and they react accordingly. From what I heard, he was not detained, or disarmed so the argument COULD ( not should) be made that the encounter wasn't entirely official. ( I don't agree with that argument personally, however it could be made.)

 

[NRAMARINE]

It's why I carry sterile. If they have no RAS, they have no business detaining me.

Sterile? Apologies, however I am not familiar with this term, please elaborate.