Video of Norfolk PD Officer Unlawfully Detaining Gun Owners and Interfering in Videotaping

[Tomahawk]

imported post

cccook wrote:

Please don't misconstrue this as anti LEO. I'm in the 99% good, 1% bad camp.

Like I said:

A police force in which 99% of the cops are good guys is like a pit bull watchdog that's loyal to you 99% of the time. All it takes is to find that 1% and you suddenly regret ever letting that dog have the run of your house. Worse, you aren't even allowed to fight back against the dog, if you do, dog lovers will gang up on you and if you're lucky you will only wind up in jail.

[/quote]

 

[Sheriff]

imported post

cccook wrote:

What gives a LEO's need to record an encounter more validity than Joe the citizen's need?

Interesting question. I think the answer is the fact that their credibility is questioned a lot more nowadays.Just because they wear a badge and gun and are sworn to tell the truth, nothing but the truth, so help them God.... doesn't mean they speak the truth nowadays. And they have nobody to blame for this except themselves. I will never forget back in 1997 in my city here, when a judge toldseveral cops, in open court,that their testimony was so diametrically exposed to thatof several other cops that he didn't know who to believe. This is when a video magically appearing would have been nice, half the cops would have gone to jail for perjury.

 

[cccook]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Like I said:

A police force in which 99% of the cops are good guys is like a pit bull watchdog that's loyal to you 99% of the time. All it takes is to find that 1% and you suddenly regret ever letting that dog have the run of your house. Worse, you aren't even allowed to fight back against the dog, if you do, dog lovers will gang up on you and if you're lucky you will only wind up in jail.

[/quote]Perhaps I used the wrong example. However, I agree that the 1% do a HUGE disservice to both the 99% and the one receiving the "pitbull" treatment.

I'm all for exposing and winnowing out the unruly pitbull so that the 99 may be more effective in their service and LAC friendly. With respect to Norfolk P.D. I question the applied percentages. There may be a few more pitbulls.

In part due to recent events in Danville, I just upgraded my cell phone to include video capability. Many thanks to all on OCDO who have lead me to see its value. Hope I never need it, just like my defense weapon, seatbelt, first aid kit and fire extinguisher.

Oh yeah, good luck Dan.

 

[Sheriff]

imported post

cccook wrote:

....I just upgraded my cell phone to include video capability. Many thanks to all on OCDO who have lead me to see its value. Hope I never need it....

Unfortunately, pulling a cell phone out to activate it at the time you become aware it might be beneficial is a pretty dangerous to do. People have been shot and killed by police who claim they thought a cell phone was a weapon. And the killings are always ruled justifiable. Just be careful out there.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

TexasNative wrote:

I look forward to it.

SNIPPED
It seems to me that a lot of people here bash LEO229 when he tries to tell us about the reality of the situation, jumping to the conclusion that he thinks it's a good thing.

If you somehow (unfathomably) ended up in some sort of situation with LEO229 and were recording audio or video of the incident, I'm pretty sure he would be unfazed, and wouldn't object. That notwithstanding, many LEOs are not so enlightened, because they are untrained in the issue. They're not trying to quash your civil rights, they're just unfortunately quashing your civil rights incidentally, because they're exhibiting a natural reaction, since they haven't been trained.

I guess this is my point: LEO229 understands that police training is deficient in many of these areas, and laments that fact. But it seems to me that he's trying to point out that these situations don't arise from malice toward the people's rights, but rather from their (LEOs) ignorance.

Please, folks, don't confuse LEO's explanation of reality with what he wishes were true. He doesn't support police suppression of civil rights, he just tries to help us understand why some LEOs we may encounter may be misguided. (This is not intended to address the dispute many here have with LEO229's position on Terry Stops and so forth. Those are different issues.)

Judging from our conversations, both online and the one time I was fortunate enough to meet him in person, I speculate LEO229 tries to educate his fellow LEOs when they go astray, just as he tries to help us understand how LEOs may approach a given situation.

Trust me when I say, he ain't the bad guy. In fact, he's one of the few trying to bridge the gaps between LEOs and citizens. Give him the credit he deserves for his efforts.

TexasNative,

First, I'm not trying to convince you.I'm literallyofferingthisfrom the viewpoint ofinviting your attention towhat I've seen, and letting you look and see for yourself as time goes on.

You see, we have extensive experience with LEO229. For me to convince you, I'd have to pull and quote dozens and dozens of his posts over the last...12/3years.

Some of the ideas you mention in your posthave been said by LEO229. One of the first things that strikes me is that he only says them after he comes under heat for something he's posted.Too often it is just that little bit out of step with what he actually wrote.

As for just telling it like itis, watchclosely. He does more than that. He often supports it, too.Arguingfor the police position. This one will be a little tricky because some of what he argues is legitimate.

As for building bridges,from his long-term performance I'd say that he isn't trying to build a bridge to us so much as he is trying to get us to build a bridge to him.

In no particular order:

Evasiveness, straw man arguments, going off on tangents. These are the hallmarks of LEO229. Veteran members picked up on this ages ago. Some refuse to argue with him or even comment on his posts because of it. But here is the main point: If his argumentsare so valid, why does he evade/strawman/tangent? Ifany given pointis so valid, why not just argue that point?

Just before he quit the forum afew months ago he posted a "bridging" thread. It was about Us-vs-Them attitude. It was a long-ishessaydesigned to show that copsweren'tnecessarily opposed and we shouldn't have an us-vs-them attitude. It was quite well written, but like other poststhere was some skewed information,the biggest of which was that he had the fundamental premise exactly backwards. I felt compelled to respond with a separate thread,showing thatthe us-vs-them attitude did in fact start with the police.

In our most recent thread duel he went for pages going in circles, evading the point, going off on tangents. Part of that was my fault; I didn't use the correct tactic of asking a question. But, once I did, he finally came back full circle to almost the exact point. Why? What did all the evasion accomplish except give me targets to shoot at and highlight his evasiveness? I have to assume the point he was trying to evade was worth more to himthan the rest of the forum seeing him dodging around. There was something he very much didn't want solidly looked at or exposed, for that much evasion. When I finally posted extensively in one post on it, he just made light of it and said nobody was interested anymore. Why not just highlight the error in my logic? Rather than use a rhetorical device to minimize the information without directly confronting it?

False-front, pose. He recently had a campaign about "its just opinion, its just an internet forum, jeez lighten up Citizen." It was a pose. He finally blew a gasket when I hammered enough. Yet, somehow whenI get hammered, I don't blow a gasket. I don't quit theforum. And I don't post, "theboard is a lost cause."

Some months ago I requested a cite from him for acourt opinion allowing police to just automatically seize a firearm during a detention (realizeTerry requires two elements--armedness and dangerousness.)The request went unanswered. Twice or three times. More recently the subject came up again. Finally, he came up with a case in the (4th Circuit?). Not a Supreme Court case, which would cover the entire country, just the local--VA, MD,etc.So, why not go and get that case back whenthe discussionfirst came up? Its a ten-year old case.

Pot calling the kettle black. He's fussed that he was just posting his opinion. OK, so was I. Apparently he is allowed to post his opinion; but we're not allowed to post our opinion about his. He recently fussed that I should let the forum make their own decisions about his posts. That would work both ways--he should, under that doctrine, let the forum make their own decision about my posts. Doesn't seem to work that way with him. Of course, not. He doesn't really believe it when he says it. He's just arguing without really thinking about the implication of his words.

Childish/immature. This one isn't too frequent, thank heavens. Occasionally I'll QFT one of his posts. A while back, I did it on several posts in a brief period of time. He went childish and QFT'd asmall number of mine just as a tit-for-tatactivity.

I'm not asking you to accept or believe what I've written. I'm inviting you to keep anunbiased eye open. One that neither supports nor defends police. Seeif you don't noticesimilar things yourself.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

TexasNative wrote:

SNIP Okay,...

Fair enough.

 

[TexasNative]

imported post

Okay, Citizen, I can't dispute your own experience. All I can say is that I've met the man, had these conversations in person, and it's extremely obvious he's trying to help those of us who may not be familiar with the daily grind of law enforcement.

All I can say is that he'd be the first to jump on the case of an officer who's trying to deprive us of our rights. When he tries to illuminate the reality of situations, he's not arguing from a position of "LEOs are always right." He's merely trying to offer another perspective.

No, he's not right all the time. But if you're trying to portray LEO229 as someone who is interested in denying someone their rights under the US Constitution, all I can say is, you're dead wrong.

You're right, you'll never convince me, because I've had this conversation with LEO229 in person. I daresay I'll never convince you, either, but if you think written discussions in a forum come within a million miles of face-to-face conversation, then there's nothing more to be said.

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

TexasNative wrote:

I look forward to it.

SNIPPED
It seems to me that a lot of people here bash LEO229 when he tries to tell us about the reality of the situation, jumping to the conclusion that he thinks it's a good thing.

If you somehow (unfathomably) ended up in some sort of situation with LEO229 and were recording audio or video of the incident, I'm pretty sure he would be unfazed, and wouldn't object. That notwithstanding, many LEOs are not so enlightened, because they are untrained in the issue. They're not trying to quash your civil rights, they're just unfortunately quashing your civil rights incidentally, because they're exhibiting a natural reaction, since they haven't been trained.

I guess this is my point: LEO229 understands that police training is deficient in many of these areas, and laments that fact. But it seems to me that he's trying to point out that these situations don't arise from malice toward the people's rights, but rather from their (LEOs) ignorance.

Please, folks, don't confuse LEO's explanation of reality with what he wishes were true. He doesn't support police suppression of civil rights, he just tries to help us understand why some LEOs we may encounter may be misguided. (This is not intended to address the dispute many here have with LEO229's position on Terry Stops and so forth. Those are different issues.)

Judging from our conversations, both online and the one time I was fortunate enough to meet him in person, I speculate LEO229 tries to educate his fellow LEOs when they go astray, just as he tries to help us understand how LEOs may approach a given situation.

Trust me when I say, he ain't the bad guy. In fact, he's one of the few trying to bridge the gaps between LEOs and citizens. Give him the credit he deserves for his efforts.

TexasNative,

First, I'm not trying to convince you.I'm literallyofferingthisfrom the viewpoint ofinviting your attention towhat I've seen, and letting you look and see for yourself as time goes on.

You see, we have extensive experience with LEO229. For me to convince you, I'd have to pull and quote dozens and dozens of his posts over the last...12/3years.

Some of the ideas you mention in your posthave been said by LEO229. One of the first things that strikes me is that he only says them after he comes under heat for something he's posted.Too often it is just that little bit out of step with what he actually wrote.

As for just telling it like itis, watchclosely. He does more than that. He often supports it, too.Arguingfor the police position. This one will be a little tricky because some of what he argues is legitimate.

As for building bridges,from his long-term performance I'd say that he isn't trying to build a bridge to us so much as he is trying to get us to build a bridge to him.

In no particular order:

Evasiveness, straw man arguments, going off on tangents. These are the hallmarks of LEO229. Veteran members picked up on this ages ago. Some refuse to argue with him or even comment on his posts because of it. But here is the main point: If his argumentsare so valid, why does he evade/strawman/tangent? Ifany given pointis so valid, why not just argue that point?

Just before he quit the forum afew months ago he posted a "bridging" thread. It was about Us-vs-Them attitude. It was a long-ishessaydesigned to show that copsweren'tnecessarily opposed and we shouldn't have an us-vs-them attitude. It was quite well written, but like other poststhere was some skewed information,the biggest of which was that he had the fundamental premise exactly backwards. I felt compelled to respond with a separate thread,showing thatthe us-vs-them attitude did in fact start with the police.

In our most recent thread duel he went for pages going in circles, evading the point, going off on tangents. Part of that was my fault; I didn't use the correct tactic of asking a question. But, once I did, he finally came back full circle to almost the exact point. Why? What did all the evasion accomplish except give me targets to shoot at and highlight his evasiveness? I have to assume the point he was trying to evade was worth more to himthan the rest of the forum seeing him dodging around. There was something he very much didn't want solidly looked at or exposed, for that much evasion. When I finally posted extensively in one post on it, he just made light of it and said nobody was interested anymore. Why not just highlight the error in my logic? Rather than use a rhetorical device to minimize the information without directly confronting it?

False-front, pose. He recently had a campaign about "its just opinion, its just an internet forum, jeez lighten up Citizen." It was a pose. He finally blew a gasket when I hammered enough. Yet, somehow whenI get hammered, I don't blow a gasket. I don't quit theforum. And I don't post, "theboard is a lost cause."

Some months ago I requested a cite from him for acourt opinion allowing police to just automatically seize a firearm during a detention (realizeTerry requires two elements--armedness and dangerousness.)The request went unanswered. Twice or three times. More recently the subject came up again. Finally, he came up with a case in the (4th Circuit?). Not a Supreme Court case, which would cover the entire country, just the local--VA, MD,etc.So, why not go and get that case back whenthe discussionfirst came up? Its a ten-year old case.

Pot calling the kettle black. He's fussed that he was just posting his opinion. OK, so was I. Apparently he is allowed to post his opinion; but we're not allowed to post our opinion about his. He recently fussed that I should let the forum make their own decisions about his posts. That would work both ways--he should, under that doctrine, let the forum make their own decision about my posts. Doesn't seem to work that way with him. Of course, not. He doesn't really believe it when he says it. He's just arguing without really thinking about the implication of his words.

Childish/immature. This one isn't too frequent, thank heavens. Occasionally I'll QFT one of his posts. A while back, I did it on several posts in a brief period of time. He went childish and QFT'd asmall number of mine just as a tit-for-tatactivity.

I'm not asking you to accept or believe what I've written. I'm inviting you to keep anunbiased eye open. One that neither supports nor defends police. Seeif you don't noticesimilar things yourself.

I couldn't agree more. I've been doing this first in FidoNet, then in usenet, since the '80s.

There's nothing about LEO229's tactics that I haven't seen dozens of times before. I just do with him, what I do with anyone like that. I hold his own statements up before him. He doesn't like it either. That's when the "just opinion" excuses start. Strange isn't it that when he says something someone else doesn't like, it's "just opinion", but when you say something he doesn't like, it's "cop bashing"?

I don't recall ever joking about cops getting shot. He however thought the murder of Michael Pleasance by Officer [now Detective] Alvin Weems was a real knee slapper. He then went on to "explain" that since he didn't KNOW Pleasance, he couldn't get really concerned about it. Strangely, I doubt that he'd think I should feel the same way about cops killed in the line of duty, NONE of whom I've ever met. Strangely, if they're actually killed in the line of duty, I'm OFFENDED by their murderers and want them DEAD. But then I guess that flies in the face of the two tier society which some people want. It's pretty obvious that to him "some animals are more equal than others"...

 

[Sheriff]

imported post

You guys are forgetting the paranoia factor too.

I've never seen anybody asparanoid as him in my entire life.

 

[AbNo]

imported post

So, how do we get "Bitch about LEO 229" out of "Norfolk PD"?

Seriously, some of you need to grow the :cuss:up, and learn to get over it. It's the internet, for gossakes.

If he's so damn unimportant, why do several of you keep turning threads into a discussion about him? :quirky

I can assure you he's laughing whole-heartily at these sand-in-my-(kitty) comments.

 

[Deanimator]

imported post

AbNo wrote:

So, how do we get "Bitch about LEO 229" out of "Norfolk PD"?

Seriously, some of you need to grow the :cuss:up, and learn to get over it. It's the internet, for gossakes.

If he's so damn unimportant, why do several of you keep turning threads into a discussion about him? :quirky

I can assure you he's laughing whole-heartily at these sand-in-my-(kitty) comments.

I didn't say he was unimportant. I said he was intellectually dishonest. Those are different things. Look it up.

 

[Sheriff]

imported post

AbNo does have an interesting point.

Without reading back 6 pages, how did this turn into a discussion about Reno229?

 

[AbNo]

imported post

I'd kinda like to know that, actually.

Though he DOES seem to enjoy the ego stroking. :lol:

 

[Citizen]

imported post

I called attention to a line in one of Weasel229's posts where he attempted to excuse or mitigate the anti-video LEO. He took exception, trying to minimize what he said. I started to argue the point further, then realized it wasn't really worth it.

TexasNative and another chimed in. I came back and discussed it further with TexasNative.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

How will our ranks thin, further, after the election? How many other statist trolls will take their balls(!) and pout?

 

[peter nap]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

How will our ranks thin, further, after the election? How many other statist trolls will take their balls(!) and pout?

Uh....Hmmmm.......
Good point Doug:uhoh:
and might I add

The participant's perspectives are clouded while the bystander's views are clear.:shock:

 

[ProShooter]

imported post

peter nap wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

How will our ranks thin, further, after the election? How many other statist trolls will take their balls(!) and pout?

Uh....Hmmmm.......
Good point Doug:uhoh:
and might I add

The participant's perspectives are clouded while the bystander's views are clear.:shock:

Doug gets double points for using the words "trolls" and "balls" in the same sentence!