Neenah PD take on OC.

[IcrewUH60]

Whoa. Trip20 must have hit a nerve, but he has every right to his opinion. While I might not act the same as he does in a given situation, I will not pick apart his post for voicing his opinion. If a person wants to clam up and exercise that right, have a nut, but don't rip on a guy because they act different than someone else might.

Seeing the way people are ripped on by some members for voicing their opinions keep me, and I'm sure others, from posting on this site.

I was concerned that replying to Trip20's thread in manner may be taken as picking it apart. I assure you, and Trip20 that no personal attack or nitpicking/ripping was intended.

Trip20 brought up some very valid reasonable/arguments to act/react that way. I wanted to also express my opinions - point-for-point on why I won't/don't act in the same manner. Just also expressing my opinion here without the intention to nitpick or rip on other posters.

I learn something here everyday while reading posts and it seems that I have an opportunity to learn more when I become active in the discussion.

My questions are directed at the OP, while my comments/opinions are generally directed to all. If you find something offenive in my post, please be assured it not intentional. We're all on the same team here and I appreciate the opportunity to be involved.

 

[Trip20]

duckdog -- thanks for your remarks. I see where you're coming from... there's a lot of negative bantering on gun/carry forums. I don't get easily offended. I post my opinions in written form and usually I make multiple points. When someone responds to me point-by-point I don't necessarily take that as picking me apart. They just have to respond in kind, point-by-point.

I'm hard-pressed to find a more passionate topic for most folks like us. When we have an opinion... by God... we believe in it hardcore! I don't mistake the temperament in IcrewUH60's post as ripping on me. I also believe had this conversation happened in person, with body language, immediate question/answer potential, we'd find more common ground than not as we can clarify on-the-fly. But I digress...

IcrewUH60 -- You'd probably be surprised that for the most part I agree with you wholeheartedly. The one thing that keeps me flexible and constantly evaluating the situation so I can gauge my reaction (rather than immediately acting in a preconceived way), is that I remind myself I'm dealing with human. Not an automaton.

Their understanding of the law(s) may be lacking... their interpretation of their part to enforce the law may differ from mine... but at the end of the day, where I'll choose to fight my battle is not on the sidewalk with a uniformed officer.

I'll be polite. I'll typically comply with requests (again I defer to my original statement that my cooperation depends on how I'm treated). When push comes to shove and I have a real beef, I'm taking the discussion to the court of law. I know I'll always lose on the side of the road with a cop. Been there. Didn't like it.

Those are some of the reasons why I stay a bit more subdued than, say, you may in the same situation. Another is that I'd be a hypocrite if I expected every officer to give this gun nut the benefit of the doubt, while I walked in to every confrontation with an officer of the law immediately assuming they're a d!ckhead. That's a two way street, and I'm not compromising my principles.

No harm fellas... I'm here to get along and get informed.

 

[IcrewUH60]

[...] The one thing that keeps me flexible and constantly evaluating the situation so I can gauge my reaction (rather than immediately acting in a preconceived way), is that I remind myself I'm dealing with human. Not an automaton.

great point!

[...] Their understanding of the law(s) may be lacking... their interpretation of their part to enforce the law may differ from mine... but at the end of the day, where I'll choose to fight my battle is not on the sidewalk with a uniformed officer.

agreed, so think of this. Why is there a battle on the sidewalk with a law abiding citizen in the first place? This thought process of mine is the main reason why I do not trust most LEOs. There is no need for a ******* match with a citizen. Oh, wait, we're subjects... (I know it's the system, more on that later)

[...] I know I'll always lose on the side of the road with a cop. Been there. Didn't like it.

ditto here, but again, why (general question) is this always the case? What gives the LEOs the mentality that they must and/or will win all the time? Nobody is infallible, and no one should be above the law, they can't be right all the time, correct? Where do they get this from?

[...] Those are some of the reasons why I stay a bit more subdued than, say, you may in the same situation.

I'm always subdued...until the cuffs go on :cuss:

[...] Another is that I'd be a hypocrite if I expected every officer to give this gun nut the benefit of the doubt, while I walked in to every confrontation with an officer of the law immediately assuming they're a d!ckhead. That's a two way street, and I'm not compromising my principles.

not always asking for the benifit of the doubt, just asking them to do their jobs, and be held responsible for their actions. When they see no recourse/punishment of their actions in the immediate future, their actions tend to continue. Like you said, we are dealing with humans after all. So to be more clear, I guess I don't trust the system, it's just that the LEO is an agent of the system, and that has become clear. When the LEOs become agents of liberty again, to protect and serve, then maybe our trust in the system will be restored? The only positive change I see in this area is comming from OathKeepers.org. Any LEOs on here not members of OathKeepers?

[...] No harm fellas... I'm here to get along and get informed.

thanks for disussing with me

 

[Trip20]

agreed, so think of this. Why is there a battle on the sidewalk with a law abiding citizen in the first place? This thought process of mine is the main reason why I do not trust most LEOs. There is no need for a ******* match with a citizen. Oh, wait, we're subjects... (I know it's the system, more on that later)

I guess if an uninformed citizen places a call, that puts the cop in my path. The officer now has to check me out. It's a shame that a "man with a gun" is cause for alarm when I'm just milling about minding my own business. But I do understand why the officer is speaking with me at that moment.

Whether or not it becomes a pi$$ing match depends on two things: 1) my demeanor and respect given towards the officer, and 2) the officer's demeanor and respect given towards me.

If I'm treated with respect and the officer is not aggressive or accusatory, this will be a virtually painless encounter. I'd have no problem producing an ID, and chatting with the officer. As someone else mentioned (I think it was this thread), I have an opportunity to be an ambassador. I can show this officer that the next time he deals with a similar situation, his expectations can be a bit more positive. I might even have an opportunity to educate him a bit as to what we as carriers expect from our boys/girls in blue.

If I'm insulted, treated rudely,...etc, well now we'll probably get in to a pi$$ing match because my ID is no longer forthcoming, I'm not answering questions without an attorney present...etc.

ditto here, but again, why (general question) is this always the case? What gives the LEOs the mentality that they must and/or will win all the time? Nobody is infallible, and no one should be above the law, they can't be right all the time, correct? Where do they get this from?

I have no good answer to your question. All I can tell you is what you and I already know, which is... that is how it works. I don't like it either. But again back to my point above, it does not necessarily need to get to this point and I try to do what I can to avoid it.

not always asking for the benifit of the doubt, just asking them to do their jobs, and be held responsible for their actions. When they see no recourse/punishment of their actions in the immediate future, their actions tend to continue. Like you said, we are dealing with humans after all. So to be more clear, I guess I don't trust the system, it's just that the LEO is an agent of the system, and that has become clear. When the LEOs become agents of liberty again, to protect and serve, then maybe our trust in the system will be restored? The only positive change I see in this area is comming from OathKeepers.org. Any LEOs on here not members of OathKeepers?

I don't know any person who likes the system as a whole. We're on the same page.

Protect and Serve is a term I see brought up often.

Protect: cops die in the line of duty daily while interacting with the scum that preys upon the general public. It's obvious to me they try to protect and leap in to danger with no thought for their own life/limb.

Serve: this is the cloudy one. It's a circle of logic like a dog chasing it's own tail. I think they do serve. In my opinion police serve The People by enforcing the laws implemented by the legislature under the authority granted by a constituency (The People) to act as its representative.

 

[IcrewUH60]

I guess if an uninformed citizen places a call, that puts the cop in my path. The officer now has to check me out. It's a shame that a "man with a gun" is cause for alarm when I'm just milling about minding my own business. But I do understand why the officer is speaking with me at that moment.

Whether or not it becomes a pi$$ing match depends on two things: 1) my demeanor and respect given towards the officer, and 2) the officer's demeanor and respect given towards me.

If I'm treated with respect and the officer is not aggressive or accusatory, this will be a virtually painless encounter. I'd have no problem producing an ID, and chatting with the officer. As someone else mentioned (I think it was this thread), I have an opportunity to be an ambassador. I can show this officer that the next time he deals with a similar situation, his expectations can be a bit more positive. I might even have an opportunity to educate him a bit as to what we as carriers expect from our boys/girls in blue.

If I'm insulted, treated rudely,...etc, well now we'll probably get in to a pi$$ing match because my ID is no longer forthcoming, I'm not answering questions without an attorney present...etc.



I have no good answer to your question. All I can tell you is what you and I already know, which is... that is how it works. I don't like it either. But again back to my point above, it does not necessarily need to get to this point and I try to do what I can to avoid it.



I don't know any person who likes the system as a whole. We're on the same page.

Protect and Serve is a term I see brought up often.

Protect: cops die in the line of duty daily while interacting with the scum that preys upon the general public. It's obvious to me they try to protect and leap in to danger with no thought for their own life/limb.

Serve: this is the cloudy one. It's a circle of logic like a dog chasing it's own tail. I think they do serve. In my opinion police serve The People by enforcing the laws implemented by the legislature under the authority granted by a constituency (The People) to act as its representative.

so what your saying is that your response/actions are based on "the totality of the circumstances".... :banana: sorry, had to, just had to.

great discussion Trip20, thanks again for your input.

 

[protias]

I guess if an uninformed citizen places a call, that puts the cop in my path. The officer now has to check me out. It's a shame that a "man with a gun" is cause for alarm when I'm just milling about minding my own business. But I do understand why the officer is speaking with me at that moment.

Police have no duty to protect or check things out: Warren vs DC.

 

[Trip20]

Police have no duty to protect or check things out: Warren vs DC.

No duty to protect I've heard, which is why I refrained from using that language in my post. But "check things out", as in "investigate"... does Warren vs DC speak in those terms exactly? I'm not familiar with Warren vs DC to that degree, so I'm just asking honestly.

 

[Grapeshot]

No duty to protect I've heard, which is why I refrained from using that language in my post. But "check things out", as in "investigate"... does Warren vs DC speak in those terms exactly? I'm not familiar with Warren vs DC to that degree, so I'm just asking honestly.

W/O RAS or probable cause, the investigation should be in passing and from a distance - no reason to detain even with consensual conversation.

 

[protias]

No duty to protect I've heard, which is why I refrained from using that language in my post. But "check things out", as in "investigate"... does Warren vs DC speak in those terms exactly? I'm not familiar with Warren vs DC to that degree, so I'm just asking honestly.

In Warren vs DC, the police never responded to phone calls. So they never investigated the calls. Not only that but while at one of the Delavan Starbucks get togethers, someone called the police asking to check us out. The 911 dispatcher only called the Starbucks to verify nothing bad was happen (he knew we were there already), and an officer never showed up.

[video=youtube;LQ8795iZk-0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ8795iZk-0[/video]

 

[Grapeshot]

In Warren vs DC, the police never responded to phone calls. So they never investigated the calls. Not only that but while at one of the Delavan Starbucks get togethers, someone called the police asking to check us out. The 911 dispatcher only called the Starbucks to verify nothing bad was happen (he knew we were there already), and an officer never showed up.

Excellent video - makes the difference crystal clear. Good job!

 

[protias]

Excellent video - makes the difference crystal clear. Good job!

I'm not sure who exactly made that video, but it is on WCI's Youtube page.

 

[Zeus]

The lady just sounded like a nice concerned citizen. The dumb ass dispatcher definitely escalated the situation without cause. WTF doesn't even begin to describe that. Great video and a great tool for the uninformed. Thanks for posting.

 

[Trip20]

What's the general consensus when a dispatcher or officer decides not to report or investigate a man with a gun, and that man ends up killing 6 people in public?

When public outcry puts pressure on the department questioning why nothing was done, brass is going to look for a scapegoat to barbecue right quick. I guarantee you most dispatchers are putting a unit on the call, and most officers are going to sniff a little closer.

Should we recognize the obvious quandary that law enforcement faces? Show some congeniality and at least the some cooperation as long as we are being treated with respect and civility?

Alternatively, should we be purposely unsympathetic to officer’s dilemma causing as much trouble as we can?

I think most of us want to be the activists in this situation – we want to further our causes. But one way of behaving is with an ambassador flavor, and the other is the war protest variety.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

What's the general consensus when a dispatcher or officer decides not to report or investigate a man with a gun, and that man ends up killing 6 people in public?

When public outcry puts pressure on the department questioning why nothing was done, brass is going to look for a scapegoat to barbecue right quick. I guarantee you most dispatchers are putting a unit on the call, and most officers are going to sniff a little closer.

Should we recognize the obvious quandary that law enforcement faces? Show some congeniality and at least the some cooperation as long as we are being treated with respect and civility?

Alternatively, should we be purposely unsympathetic to officer’s dilemma causing as much trouble as we can?

I think most of us want to be the activists in this situation – we want to further our causes. But one way of behaving is with an ambassador flavor, and the other is the war protest variety.

Well, I would assume they would use common sense. I have no problem with an officer being dispatched on a MWAG call. What they do when they get there is where they need more sense.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

"... We can gripe all we want about giving ID, but the bottom line is, put yourself in their shoes with their job. We have a chance to be educational ambassadors. Let's use it. On the other hand if they want to be bullies (as in some cities), let them pay (SSSS) for the "privilege".

my $.02 worth

Phred, why do you suppose that the right to be secure in one's papers was thought to be so important to this nation's founders that it was written into the Constitution? What possibly harm could come from the King's Men wanting to know to whom they were speaking?


They were just enforcing, keeping the peace, maintaining order in a chaotic time. What did it matter that a few had, ... shall we say anti-Government ideas? If the King's Men could ask, nay, Demand identification, couldn't those traitorous rebels be rounded up in rapid order?

 

[Trip20]

Well, I would assume they would use common sense. I have no problem with an officer being dispatched on a MWAG call. What they do when they get there is where they need more sense.

Yeah I agree and I think what they do when they get there is the whole discussion we're having.

Some feel they should be observed from afar, period. The officer can call back to dispatch advising, "...the gentleman appears to be shopping; nothing going on here out of the ordinary."

Is that your guys point? Unless you're doing anything threatening there's really no need for a discussion or contact with the officer whatsoever? No loaded questions, just trying to understand the premise here is all.

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

Yeah I agree and I think what they do when they get there is the whole discussion we're having.

Some feel they should be observed from afar, period. The officer can call back to dispatch advising, "...the gentleman appears to be shopping; nothing going on here out of the ordinary."

Is that your guys point? Unless you're doing anything threatening there's really no need for a discussion or contact with the officer whatsoever? No loaded questions, just trying to understand the premise here is all.

That is preferable, however, even a consensual contact would be OK, as long as it stays consensual.

 

[Trip20]

That is preferable, however, even a consensual contact would be OK, as long as it stays consensual.

Yep I can't say that's unreasonable at all.

 

[AaronS]

That is preferable, however, even a consensual contact would be OK, as long as it stays consensual.

I have to agree. I have no problem at all with anyone asking how my day is going. Hell, that's how I end up making new friends most of the time. I don't see the cop any different. It's up to the cop, as to what direction any conversation will take. If he/she comes across as a friend, I am sure I would me more then happy to stop for a moment and talk. (Hey it could happen.)
Same time again, if the cop wants to act like a farm animal, I guess thats his/her choice, I just won't have much to say to them... After all, why would one try to talk to a pig?

I think the real important thing to remember is that what ever YOU say, or show, is YOUR choice.
Will I make fun of you for showing your paper to the cop? Yea, I might... But it's not the end of the world. Who am I to say what is right for you in the first place?

 

[phred]

Quote Originally Posted by phred View Post
"... We can gripe all we want about giving ID, but the bottom line is, put yourself in their shoes with their job. We have a chance to be educational ambassadors. Let's use it. On the other hand if they want to be bullies (as in some cities), let them pay (SSSS) for the "privilege".

my $.02 worth

Phred, why do you suppose that the right to be secure in one's papers was thought to be so important to this nation's founders that it was written into the Constitution? What possibly harm could come from the King's Men wanting to know to whom they were speaking?


They were just enforcing, keeping the peace, maintaining order in a chaotic time. What did it matter that a few had, ... shall we say anti-Government ideas? If the King's Men could ask, nay, Demand identification, couldn't those traitorous rebels be rounded up in rapid order?

I am not saying that we need to give them ID. What I am saying is that in order for them to do their job properly, they may feel the need to request your ID. That is up to them and the "totality of the circumstances".
Somewhere way back in my posts I mentioned that I may or may not give my ID depending upon how I view the "totality of the circumstances". If I am walking down the street (or having a shake at Culver's), they probably will not get my driver's license - at least willingly. I might ask them why they need it and what I was "doing wrong". I will tell them that I have a 4th Amendment right to not give it to them. What they decide to do after that is up to them.

Maybe I could give them a card that says my my name, with the WCI logo and info, along with a membership application to WCI and say "wanna join? It's only 15 bucks a year. And, if you do, I will donate to the Police Benevolent fund."

As Trip20 has already mentioned, a lot has to do with how LE handle their side of the situation. I want to retain the decision how to handle my replies and reactions.
There is nothing wrong with trying to make the best out of each situation. I prefer to "enlighten" them, if they need it.

The thought also comes to mind about states that have permitted carry. How many times are carriers asked by LE "ya got a permit for that thing?" I would assume that you have to "show your papers." I don't know, just a thought.