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 (realize
Terry 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.