The Vast Majority of LEOs are...?

[eye95]

What folks seem to miss is that being prepared for a threat and believing a situation to be threatening are two very different things. When an officer approaches me while I am carrying, I am prepared to deal with the officer behaving inappropriately. I don't assume that he will. It would be stupid to do so, creating a possibly unnecessarily hostile atmosphere.

Likewise, an officer is more likely to turn a citizen into a threat by assuming that he is one. Professional officers (and most I have met are) are prepared for the citizen to be a threat, but will not assume that he is.

It would be useful if some here would lose that same attitude that causes some police to act in a way that we bemoan so much.

 

[Citizen]

What folks seem to miss is that being prepared for a threat and believing a situation to be threatening are two very different things. When an officer approaches me while I am carrying, I am prepared to deal with the officer behaving inappropriately. I don't assume that he will. It would be stupid to do so, creating a possibly unnecessarily hostile atmosphere.

(Geez, you know, sometimes, a response is just wrung from me.)

What you seem to miss, Eye95, is that any time a police officer approaches a citizen, the citizen is in legal jeopardy. If it is an investigative encounter, the jeopardy just climbed into adversarial. Those are the danger.

If you need to, watch again the video, Don't Talk to Police by Prof James Duane of Regent University Law School.

 

[Kivuli]

What you seem to miss, Eye95, is that any time a police officer approaches a citizen, the citizen is in legal jeopardy. If it is an investigative encounter, the jeopardy just climbed into adversarial. Those are the danger.

If you need to, watch again the video, Don't Talk to Police by Prof James Duane of Regent University Law School.

No one is suggesting that you not be on your highest guard when encountering an officer. No one is even suggesting that you not avoid them at all costs if that's what you prefer. What I am suggesting, and I suspect eye95 is of similar mind, is that just because there are totally reprehensible acts comitted by a few does not mean that ALL cops are just waiting to do the same to you, if you'd just give them that tiny opening they're looking for. Which is the impression that I'm getting from several members.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

No one is suggesting that you not be on your highest guard when encountering an officer. No one is even suggesting that you not avoid them at all costs if that's what you prefer. What I am suggesting, and I suspect eye95 is of similar mind, is that just because there are totally reprehensible acts comitted by a few does not mean that ALL cops are just waiting to do the same to you, if you'd just give them that tiny opening they're looking for. Which is the impression that I'm getting from several members.

Again no one said All are,we must assume they all are because of the actions allowed.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner

No you left out my little icon at the end to show I was using hyperbole to illustrate a point. But now that you mention it yes they act and are set up much in the same way. Think about it. Psuedo military title, encouraged to be "proactive", and "preventative" ...hmmm.

Kivuli Wrote:

I wasn't replying to the emoticon, I was replying to your statement. Even if you were using it sarcastically, my point remains. The SS were something FAR more sinister of intent and had FAR less restrictions than any police outfit in our country today. No matter the claim below which I will address as well.

But the point is missed, as tyranny grows in this country who acts as the "force" to enforce the unconstitutional rules? It matters not there are good guys in the departments. Yes I know a few good cops myself. Does not change my stance that we need to get rid of many and drastically reduce their powers and their involvement in our lives to the extent they are.

Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner

Yes most of them do, and the system is a closed loop system, the prosecutors protect the cops, I have personal experience with this. I noticed you left out the examples I included. Or the link I provided showing the national problems we are having with them committing the felony of perjury.

Kivuli Wrote:

You say you have personal experience with this. Do you have personal experience with the vast majority? If not, that is applying a blanket judgement based on the relatively few you personally know to the entire profession countrywide. That is what I have a problem with. I left out your examples because I did not address them individually and wanted to shave a few lines off the wall o' text I was posting.

It is not just one department I am dealing with. Plus I have done research this is not just an isolated incidents. There is a problem with LEA's in this country.

Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner

Wrong again, this is popular myth propagated by police and politicians to continually support and take more of our tax dollars for their "force". They spend the majority of their time as revenue collectors, and traffic enforcement.

Kivuli Wrote:

That is a very paranoid outlook in my opinion. It is also false, for which I have personal experience to back up. The State Troopers might do more traffic than most, as well as the specialized traffic units a department might have, but the generic beat cop does what I mentioned before more than anything.

Nothing paranoid about it. Your really think they spend the "majority" of their time dealing with the dregs of society? They don't they patrol (unconstitutional in my mind) and look for something to get somebody on. Have you ever just went in and sat on court days, the majority are traffic related. Both for the city and county and this is those who decided not just to pay. Certain specific police deal with the dregs the majority don't.

Posted by sudden valley gunner

I also will never think of it as a two way street and don't understand those who do. They are public employees hired by us to do a job, they should have no input into how we want to handle or feel about them, period. If they don't like that don't take the job bottom line.

Kivuli wrote:

I don't want you to suddenly "like" them. That's never going to happen. You can respect something, even begrudgingly, without liking it (even though I'm sure using the word respect is going to ignite another indignant firestorm). They are public employees hired by the city you live in to do a job, yes. So are the trash collectors, Water resources, Firefighters, planners, maintenance crews, etc. Are they deserving of your scorn as a group when they don't do their job to your liking? Water resources might have to tear up your entire front lawn against your will to fix or replace a water line. Does that mean all water resources guys are jerks? Again, I know this isn't a perfect analogy since "water resources guys don't shoot people, etc", but it'll have to do.

No there are individuals I do like. I have had some positive encounters with some LEO. It is their unconstitutional proactive policing I don't like. It is the protection they provide themselves over us, I don't like. It is that they get to break laws and get away with it I don't like. Plus I believe in liberty and being as unencumbered by "laws" and government agencies as possible. I don't use the provided garbage service I take care of my own trash. If allowed I wouldn't use the other provided "resources" as much as possible either I don't like being forced to do anything.

But for clarity sake lets take the quote in the actual context it was applied to....And it was that it is a "two way street" that somehow we have to earn their respect and we must cater to them.

Posted by sudden valley gunner

They are also guilty of being behind every law that unconstitutionally disarms it's citizenry, push for more and more "authority" to violate our 4th amendments, push for laws against citizenry scrutiny (like making it illegal to record them, hmmmm why). They break laws in enforcing laws, terrible.

Kivuli Wrote:

Cops have no control over the laws. Your local, state, and federal legislatures do. They enforce what has become law using the system this country set up to produce them. There are ways to change those laws. If you feel the law is unconstitutional (and there are many I feel are as well, you can bet. Why else would I be a member of OCDO?), work to get it changed. Does any of this excuse the behavior of the bad cops? No, but then again, I don't classify this as the same problem.

Ahhh so they are just following orders? Hmmmmmmm and we are not suppose to compare them to others in history who have had a bad reputation for this? We wouldn't have to work to get it changed if police would constitutionally check themselves before they acted. The law would simply go the way of silly laws like it being illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your pocket. But often they are on the side supporting and promoting these laws that increase "the need" for their services.

Posted by sudden valley gunner

I will also never trust anything a cop ever says to. SCOTUS has ruled that it is OK for them to lie to you in the course of their investigation, the very fact that made it to SCOTUS shows were "law enforcement" stands. But this has left us with the scary choice to assume every cop is lying to you because he is legally allowed to.

Kivuli Wrote:

Won't disagree here. You should take anything anyone says with a grain of salt unless it rings true in your own mind. Always be wary when dealing with a cop. Doesn't mean he's a bad apple just because he could be, however.

Correct! It doesn't mean he is a bad apple and I have had a few officers, respect my standing up for civil rights, the vast majority though dislike it when you "question" their authority. And the quotes you provided didn't show every cop as a thug, but OKBoomer pointed that out very well.

Enjoyed the discussion Kivuli, I think we are on the same page on many issues, I would encourage you to actively look at your local department. Try to ask for a complaint form and refuse to talk to an officer and refuse to give ID (all politely of course). Our local sheriff's department the lady has a box right there and gives them out no questions asked. The local PD's in our various towns in our county refuse to. What do they have to hide?

 

[Gunslinger]

Well, we're almost rid of that pesky 4th Amendment thing that keeps getting in the way of police.

And, we've gained SWAT teams and paramilitary raids on little old ladies, Maryland mayors, that sort of thing. I for one am glad those vicious criminals are under some degree of control, even if you aren't. Jeez, just the side-benefit of all the family-pet dogs eradicated in these raids is a boon to America.

What are you trying to do? Undermine the power of the government or something?

Clearly, we need to get rid of the 2A first, then the 4th will be irrelevant. The 1st and the 5th will quickly fall, as well. Why read someone his rights when you can torture a confession out of him? Then the useless 9th, 10th and 14th will wilt away and we will have the country we all look forward to: kind of a cross between Nazi Germany of the late '30s and White Russia during the Stalinist purges. Only the Federal Police won't be as friendly as the Gestapo and NKVD.

 

[Gunslinger]

What folks seem to miss is that being prepared for a threat and believing a situation to be threatening are two very different things. When an officer approaches me while I am carrying, I am prepared to deal with the officer behaving inappropriately. I don't assume that he will. It would be stupid to do so, creating a possibly unnecessarily hostile atmosphere.

Likewise, an officer is more likely to turn a citizen into a threat by assuming that he is one. Professional officers (and most I have met are) are prepared for the citizen to be a threat, but will not assume that he is.

It would be useful if some here would lose that same attitude that causes some police to act in a way that we bemoan so much.

On the rare occasions I've been involved with cops, I've never thought of them as threats whether I was OC or CCing. And with one exception have never had a problem with a cop. I know my rights; I know legal procedure; I'm not at all reticent to take action if necessary, simply never have had to. I've had some great talks with cops after a speeding stop and generally walk. In court, I've won 3 out of 5 and one was a draw. The problem is that others have had problems--some involving their being executed or seriously injured. These are anonymous cops I know nothing about, just like the victims. 'That' is what I speak out against and the simple fact that we must save 'all' of our freedoms now at any cost, or someday all of our freedoms will be lost.

 

[eye95]

No one is suggesting that you not be on your highest guard when encountering an officer. No one is even suggesting that you not avoid them at all costs if that's what you prefer. What I am suggesting, and I suspect eye95 is of similar mind, is that just because there are totally reprehensible acts comitted by a few does not mean that ALL cops are just waiting to do the same to you, if you'd just give them that tiny opening they're looking for. Which is the impression that I'm getting from several members.

Yes.

 

[Kivuli]

I've enjoyed it as well, and will respond later on when I have something other than an iPhone to post with.

 

[Kivuli]

But the point is missed, as tyranny grows in this country who acts as the "force" to enforce the unconstitutional rules? It matters not there are good guys in the departments. Yes I know a few good cops myself. Does not change my stance that we need to get rid of many and drastically reduce their powers and their involvement in our lives to the extent they are.

Get rid of the bad ones, I agree. Have greater accountability for agencies, yes. Reduce the number of truly inane laws in this country, ab-so-freaking-lutely. This is more a corollary than refutation of the point I'm arguing, however.

It is not just one department I am dealing with. Plus I have done research this is not just an isolated incidents. There is a problem with LEA's in this country.

I would like to see the results of some of that research, if you have it available. I'm not denying that there are problem-children and problem-families across the country regarding LEOs and LEAs. I just don't believe it is the majority, let alone the VAST majority.

Nothing paranoid about it. Your really think they spend the "majority" of their time dealing with the dregs of society? They don't they patrol (unconstitutional in my mind) and look for something to get somebody on. Have you ever just went in and sat on court days, the majority are traffic related. Both for the city and county and this is those who decided not just to pay. Certain specific police deal with the dregs the majority don't.

I have indeed sat in court, numerous times. The majority of cases on any individual district court day's docket might be traffic related, but it is misleading to say that it's representative of encounters. Officers (at least, in my state and county) are assigned court days each month they must attend. Most officers will schedule court dates for any citations they write on those days for simplicity's sake. Thus, the sum total of every citation they've written for a month will appear on that one day, leading to an inflated number of those cases. This assuming they even go to court at all instead of paying it off.

The other thing that obfuscates the numbers more is that most LEO encounters don't result in a citation or arrest. For example: an officer might deal with 20 domestic violence calls, 15 burglar alarms, 10 assaults, 25 traffic accidents, 10 drug-related calls, 20 larceny calls, 15 mental comitments, 10 assist individual calls, and a handful of the "major" crimes such as robbery in any given month. The same officer might stop 20-25 cars (unless they're a specialized unit or the highway patrol or something). Total of calls, including self-initiated is 155. Of which only 25 are traffic stops. Out of this you have 35-45 calls that will generate a written case report. Out of that, you may only have 10 that result in an arrest or citation. Say you cite each and every driver, that's 25 citations. More than twice the number of criminal arrests/citations. Given that, of course the numbers look skewed towards traffic enforcement based on a court docket.

No there are individuals I do like. I have had some positive encounters with some LEO. It is their unconstitutional proactive policing I don't like. It is the protection they provide themselves over us, I don't like. It is that they get to break laws and get away with it I don't like. Plus I believe in liberty and being as unencumbered by "laws" and government agencies as possible. I don't use the provided garbage service I take care of my own trash. If allowed I wouldn't use the other provided "resources" as much as possible either I don't like being forced to do anything.

Nor do I, being a libertarian.

But for clarity sake lets take the quote in the actual context it was applied to....And it was that it is a "two way street" that somehow we have to earn their respect and we must cater to them.

That's not what I'm saying at all. That makes it a one-way street again in the OTHER direction. Be wary, yes. Be firm on your rights (and genuinely know them when you do!), yes. But be courteous and professional while you do it and don't be antagonistic. That's all I'm saying.

Ahhh so they are just following orders? Hmmmmmmm and we are not suppose to compare them to others in history who have had a bad reputation for this? We wouldn't have to work to get it changed if police would constitutionally check themselves before they acted. The law would simply go the way of silly laws like it being illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your pocket. But often they are on the side supporting and promoting these laws that increase "the need" for their services.

Enforcing the laws society pays them to enforce and exterminating the jews is a VERY long stretch. I understand your slippery slope argument, and I am all for being wary of things like that. I'm not for blanket judgements on the constitutional morality, if you will, of the vast majority of LEOs based on that. The nice thing about stupid, petty laws, and even some of the mainstream ones, is that officers have discretion in such matters. That's why every time someone is stopped for having a taillight out, they aren't automatically given a ticket. That's why, when someone fails to come to a stop at an intersection and wave a red lantern to warn the horseriders that an automobile is coming, they aren't given a ticket. Granted, there are individuals out there who will write you in a heartbeat for the smallest thing, but that's their issue and not one of LEO/As in general.

Correct! It doesn't mean he is a bad apple and I have had a few officers, respect my standing up for civil rights, the vast majority though dislike it when you "question" their authority. And the quotes you provided didn't show every cop as a thug, but OKBoomer pointed that out very well.

They may not literally state it, but they sure do infer it.

Enjoyed the discussion Kivuli, I think we are on the same page on many issues, I would encourage you to actively look at your local department. Try to ask for a complaint form and refuse to talk to an officer and refuse to give ID (all politely of course). Our local sheriff's department the lady has a box right there and gives them out no questions asked. The local PD's in our various towns in our county refuse to. What do they have to hide?

Again, I have as well. It's rare that a civil discussion can be had between opposing viewpoints on such a passionate subject. As for actively looking at my local department... well... let's just say I have a very firm grasp on what their policies and procedures are.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I would like to see the results of some of that research, if you have it available. I'm not denying that there are problem-children and problem-families across the country regarding LEOs and LEAs. I just don't believe it is the majority, let alone the VAST majority.

I agree it may not be the VAST majority of individuals, but people are displeased with what the "few" get away with and how they are treated by the men in blue, and how from local to national departments they close rank and cover for their own. Hence my tag lines. I do believe we need limited and very limited "Law Enforcement". I believe the first order is to get rid of Unions for all public employees.

Read, Tyranny through good intentions, Who killed the Constitution, Innocent Man, Constitutional Chaos, etc.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/181312.txt

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/181241.pdf

Then we can get into SWAT abuse, undercover entrapment, prosecutors who invent crimes to try people etc.

Nor do I, being a libertarian.

I claim no party don't like them, but I do align myself with libertarians more than others.



That's not what I'm saying at all. That makes it a one-way street again in the OTHER direction. Be wary, yes. Be firm on your rights (and genuinely know them when you do!), yes. But be courteous and professional while you do it and don't be antagonistic. That's all I'm saying.

I say the same thing, but on the civilian side have seen way too many officers take offense and claim I am being "uncooperative, antagonistic, beligerant, (insert other boilerplate words here)" the second you try to civilly stand up for the 4th or 5th amendment rights. I must say it does get easier to say the "right" things the more encounters you have, but to newbies in the stressful encounter, it is very difficult to calmly and non nervously stand your ground against a seasoned officer, pushing every button to make you do something he can "get ya on" or report negatively about you.



Enforcing the laws society pays them to enforce and exterminating the jews is a VERY long stretch. I understand your slippery slope argument, and I am all for being wary of things like that. I'm not for blanket judgements on the constitutional morality, if you will, of the vast majority of LEOs based on that. The nice thing about stupid, petty laws, and even some of the mainstream ones, is that officers have discretion in such matters. That's why every time someone is stopped for having a taillight out, they aren't automatically given a ticket. That's why, when someone fails to come to a stop at an intersection and wave a red lantern to warn the horseriders that an automobile is coming, they aren't given a ticket. Granted, there are individuals out there who will write you in a heartbeat for the smallest thing, but that's their issue and not one of LEO/As in general.

Again, I have as well. It's rare that a civil discussion can be had between opposing viewpoints on such a passionate subject. As for actively looking at my local department... well... let's just say I have a very firm grasp on what their policies and procedures are.

Cool, I hope as a libertarian you have a positive influence on your local department...

Heading to work, my quick responses in Blue. I think we stand together on many points and glad you posted and look forward to future inter reactions.

The good cops that infringe your rights, just a little bit, because they are following "department policy" or are inadequately trained or under educated are far more a danger to the citizenry than the criminal who wears a badge. These good cops think they are doing the best they can in a tough job.

+1

And would like to ad that I feel it is their duty not enforce these laws when they are out patrolling. We shouldn't have to fight to change laws that are unconstitutional, they are simply null and void in my mind. Another example of why there is tyranny in democracy.

 

[S.Officer]

This is not true. Citizens who think this way do present a threat to law enforcement when they act on this belief.

AGREE...
You can not change the CORE of a person.
Whether they're dressed as a Circus Clown or as a P. Officer.

To put all enforcement personnel into one Big category

What if all unarmed citizens started marching against all armed citizens...
Calling us no good Vigilantes, "disruptors" of peace, who open carry simply
to show off and maintain their dominance over the rest of the unarmed society???

Would they be referring to all of us on here?

Once again ...you can not change the CORE of a person.

 

[Kivuli]

Well I rather hope that the next time we'll be on the same side of an argument, but I could hardly do worse for an opponent if not. Like you, I suspect we stand together on most issues. I will check out the links you provided.

 

[dukenukum]

poorly trained on what the law is. this is not their fault but that of government.

 

[SourKraut]

Dukenukem, this is The United States of America, We the People ARE the Government. It is your fault too if you don't choose to do something about it. I would say that blaming "the government" shows apathy.