Semi-Negative LEO Encounter

[NewZealandAmerican]

Somewhat off topic, but in reply to the pictures posted by NewZealandAmerican...
The one with the cruisers lacking wheels? Priceless.

A friend of mine is a local (city) officer, & some of the cars for his station are parked on a public street within less than a block from the station, on an overpass, with street lights, no cover for at least 50 yards in any direction (unless you count jumping off the bridge, which would be quite painful).

They got tagged.
I don't condone the crime, but I admire the spunk. Someone got points for that.
Now if they'd only use their powers for good...

And even with the various bad encounters I've had or read about or watched videos of, I can't bring myself to issue a blanket "I hate cops" or even "I don't trust cops", because I know this one guy who happens to be a cop, & he's one of the really good guys, & I can't believe he's the only one out there.

(Actually, I know he's not. It's just that the bad ones usually get more attention.)

I'm with you for the most part MKEGal, I don't hate all cops, but i do hate most cops. Just not sure exactly where that falls between 51 and 99 percent. I know there are a few good cops, but of course most cops are just revenue collecters and "policy enforcers" for the municipal corporations rather than being oathkeepers and defending the rights of the people. I think I am willing to adjust my "I hate most cops" setting to 51 % I think that is generous. Some of you may think even that is very un-reasonable of me that 51 percent of cops are not good.

 

[Grapeshot]

I'm with you MKEGal, I don't hate all cops, but i do hate most cops. Just not sure exactly where that falls between 51 and 99 percent. I know there are a few good cops, but of course most cops are just revenue collecters and "policy enforcers" for the municipal corporations rather than being oathkeepers and defending the rights of the people. I think I am willing to adjust my "I hate most cops" setting to 51 % I think that is generous. Some of you may think even that is very un-reasonable of me that 51 percent of cops are not good.

• (6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc). NOTE THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO PMs AS WELL AS FORUM POSTS!!!

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

 

[Citizen]

• (6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc). NOTE THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO PMs AS WELL AS FORUM POSTS!!!

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

No bad moderating, neither, please.

He did not generally bash a group. He expressly said he understood there are good cops. Nor did he bash a group for their choice of occupation. He said most cops are policy enforcers or revenue collectors for municipal corporations. This is not bashing them for choosing to be cops. This is explaining why he dislikes them--explaining his opinion. Or, explaining their function as he sees it. But, it is clearly not bashing for choosing to be cops or for that matter being cops.

And, there is plenty of evidence to show truth of the statement about revenue collectors and policy enforcers. In fact, the term policy enforcers is something against which only libertarians can object. It is literally another term for law enforcer. So, what's the objection, if there is one?

As to the revenue collector comment, well, does that really need more explaining?

He may be wrong about the percentage of police who are just revenue collectors, or he may be wrong about the percentage of their time those cops spend on revenue collecting; but that does not make it cop bashing.

Please provide thoughtful moderation.

 

[Grapeshot]

• (6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc). NOTE THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO PMs AS WELL AS FORUM POSTS!!!

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

No bad moderating, neither, please.

He did not generally bash a group. He expressly said he understood there are good cops. Nor did he bash a group for their choice of occupation. He said most cops are policy enforcers or revenue collectors for municipal corporations. This is not bashing them for choosing to be cops. This is explaining why he dislikes them--explaining his opinion. Or, explaining their function as he sees it. But, it is clearly not bashing for choosing to be cops or for that matter being cops.

And, there is plenty of evidence to show truth of the statement about revenue collectors and policy enforcers. In fact, the term policy enforcers is something against which only libertarians can object. It is literally another term for law enforcer. So, what's the objection, if there is one?

As to the revenue collector comment, well, does that really need more explaining?

He may be wrong about the percentage of police who are just revenue collectors, or he may be wrong about the percentage of their time those cops spend on revenue collecting; but that does not make it cop bashing.

Please provide thoughtful moderation.

Opinions become position statements ("I do hate most cops) reflecting on OCDO as viewed by our representatives, the public and the media. OCDO desires that posters take the high road and work to improve conditions, not caste disparaging remarks.

Our Administrator has previously made quite clear that where an individual officer egregiously crosses the line or where a LEA needs to be reeducated or even sued for not following the law regarding OC specifically or RKBA generally that was acceptable and understandable.

My two hat persona is not lightly worn - moderation is not accomplished from my personal prospective, but by design reflects the wishes of the site owners by both interaction and directive.

Also to the point, a better way to raise a question about moderation would be either through PM or by direct contact with the Administrator - not as you chose to do in your opening statement. Frankly, that surprises me - we do not hang our wash in the front yard.

 

[ManInBlack]

• (6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc). NOTE THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO PMs AS WELL AS FORUM POSTS!!!

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

I guess the truth is no defense?

 

[Grapeshot]

I guess the truth is no defense?

What is truth for the gander isn't necessarily so for the goose - it's a matter of perspective frequently.

Haven't said it in a while, but will dare to one more time - opinions are like orifices - everybody has at least one of each, myself included.

What is sometimes overlooked in our zeal to set all things right and accept no less, is that this site is not our personal domain and we do not make the rules or establish policy here - John and Mike do, OCDO is their private property. They can be most gracious and forgiving, but there are limits.

Different locales will experience unique problems w/o any doubt, and those should be addressed in the legislatures and/or in the courts. I firmly believe that the tide has turned and that we are indeed winning. Can we relax and not remain vigilant? Most assuredly not!

 

[Citizen]

Opinions become position statements ("I do hate most cops) reflecting on OCDO as viewed by our representatives, the public and the media. OCDO desires that posters take the high road and work to improve conditions, not caste disparaging remarks.

Our Administrator has previously made quite clear that where an individual officer egregiously crosses the line or where a LEA needs to be reeducated or even sued for not following the law regarding OC specifically or RKBA generally that was acceptable and understandable.

My two hat persona is not lightly worn - moderation is not accomplished from my personal prospective, but by design reflects the wishes of the site owners by both interaction and directive.

Also to the point, a better way to raise a question about moderation would be either through PM or by direct contact with the Administrator - not as you chose to do in your opening statement. Frankly, that surprises me - we do not hang our wash in the front yard.

Generally speaking it is dangerous to spar with an Admin. He holds all the power. But, I'll risk it.

You comment above about an opinion ("I do hate most cops") becoming a position, but in swinging Rule 6 at NZA, you highlighted an entirely different part of his post. Please make up your mind what part or parts of his post you want to take issue with/violate Rule 6. Clarity about the rules requires it.

I say again that his post was not generalized cop bashing. That is my point. Deeper, it seems the rules have changed yet again. Formerly, cop bashing was generalized anti-cop comments, rabid in tone. Then later, less rabid, but still general, anti-cop commentary was prohibited. Today, even mild commentary, unflattering or unkind toward cops, which isn't even generalized to all cops, seems to be the situation. Nevermind that Rule 6 includes "choice of occupation" as an element of the offense, something not even mentioned in NZA's post.

As to dirty laundry publicly aired, I wouldn't say I was the one airing dirty laundry. You publicly called NZA, a moderator publicly applying discipline. I strongly disagree in what I am publicly characterizing as misapplication of Rule 6. The dirty laundry was already hung on the line by the misapplication of Rule 6.

If we can't know what the rules really mean, or how they are interpreted, we cannot observe them, nor respect them.

What exactly does Rule 6 mean regarding cops? And, what exactly are we not allowed to write with respect to Rule 6 and cops?

 

[Grapeshot]

Generally speaking it is dangerous to spar with an Admin. He holds all the power. But, I'll risk it.

You comment above about an opinion ("I do hate most cops") becoming a position, but in swinging Rule 6 at NZA, you highlighted an entirely different part of his post. Please make up your mind what part or parts of his post you want to take issue with/violate Rule 6. Clarity about the rules requires it.

I say again that his post was not generalized cop bashing. That is my point. Deeper, it seems the rules have changed yet again. Formerly, cop bashing was generalized anti-cop comments, rabid in tone. Then later, less rabid, but still general, anti-cop commentary was prohibited. Today, even mild commentary, unflattering or unkind toward cops, which isn't even generalized to all cops, seems to be the situation. Nevermind that Rule 6 includes "choice of occupation" as an element of the offense, something not even mentioned in NZA's post.

As to dirty laundry publicly aired, I wouldn't say I was the one airing dirty laundry. You publicly called NZA, a moderator publicly applying discipline. I strongly disagree in what I am publicly characterizing as misapplication of Rule 6. The dirty laundry was already hung on the line by the misapplication of Rule 6.

If we can't know what the rules really mean, or how they are interpreted, we cannot observe them, nor respect them.

What exactly does Rule 6 mean regarding cops? And, what exactly are we not allowed to write with respect to Rule 6 and cops?

Citizen, I respect you and and your abilities a lot - maybe that shouldn't have anything to do with it , but it does. There said that. To, if I remember correctly, you have "opinions" that you might promote more, but you are circumspect in the application/promotion of them - probably with not a little blood dripping from biting your tongue.

Perhaps some of the fault is mine - there have been a lot of near misses and some direct attacks from established posters in and about the forum lately - tempers flair particularly when certain videos of LEO bad conduct go viral. Then there are the hot beds of activism that bring out the best in some and the worst in some. Overall - I will therefore admit to being "sensitized" as to when opinions and anti LEO generalizations are made.

Remember when the death of a family member LEO was fresh in everyone's mind? Ways were considered then out of respect to direct negative general opinions on LEOs elsewhere and we all benefited, I think. Too I see such reference as beyond necessary in many instances and more political in nature than productive for OCDO. Yes OCDO is political, but hopefully in a positive way, promoting the good that we can accomplish for OC and RKBA.

My original intent was to only caution posters here as to not pushing so far with negative "opinions" or generalizations regarding the state of LEOs and LEAs which they may hold. I will stand by that - excepting as I said before where individual officers or agencies/departments are blatantly out of control. We are embattled in a public relations war and do not need to add fuel to the flames of negativism that rise on either side of the fence.

Had I not quoted that particular poster, I think the objection might have been less. I apologize if he feels singled out for censor, but also hope he will consider that he did not add to the positive direction desired.

As to the state of flux on rule interpretation and as to how detailed a rule need be - there is no length to which we could go trying to be definitive and someone will always try to find a way around it or argue that "He didn't break the rule as written." Let's try to stick to the intent behind the rule(s) and be more self-moderating.

Generally, the moderation here is much more tolerant than on a number of other sites - that is partially by design and the personalities involved. So much so that there occasionally is a knee jerk reaction to any suggestion of moderation.

Apparently I have not convinced all that rule #6 applies, so I'll show the Ace in the Hole:
"We reserve the right to edit or remove posts for any reason, at any time, at our sole discretion." Candidly, that is not my normal style, but the hammer has been known to fall.

Can we leave it that the desire is to be fair, but keep things on a positive vein where ever and whenever possible? Don't want this to be a contest of wills. Frankly, I think this has grown out of proportion and will leave it at that for now as I do not see the reason to dig in my heels.

I post moderation notes/comment publicly to reach a larger audience. Open/public dissension with the administration or a Moderator is fraught with problems and I wouldn't bet against the administration.

'Nuff said on the subject and don't expect such a lengthy response each time a question comes up as there isn't enough time in a day or a week. Thanks for your input.

 

[NewZealandAmerican]

I would like to say that my previous post is my personal opinion and is not the opinion of OCDO. Yes there is a lot of passion contained within that post and i do not have any tolerenace for law enforcement who exceed their constitutional authority, violate anyone's un-alienable rights and or harms, injures or murders any innocent. There is a number of good cops who do the right thing for the right reason. I am a supporter of http://www.OathKeepers.org http://www.SheriffMack.com and http://www.saveoursheriff.com/ I believe that we can turn things around and weedout the bad apples and un-program them from the militirisation and propaganda they receive from the "powers that shouldn't be" at Homeland Insecurity and the dangling carrots of federal money. I realise that my stand maybe harsh. I thank those who came to my defense, I was not expecting that. I do also agree with you Grapeshot, that for the greater cause and purpose of this forum, I should be a little more restrained in expressing my opinion about law enforcement. yes the rule may not specify more directly, but i understand the spirit or intent. OCDO is an awesome forum that I love and respect very much! I am also grateful to OCDO and all of it's members for the vast wealth of experience, elightenment, knowledge and wisdom that is shared among all. Sometimes I get a good laugh too. All of you are very real and I am glad to be here side by side with you all of my brothers and sisters in LIBERTY! It's so hard for me to realise oftentimes that it's easier to attract people with honey than it is vinegar. I just don't want to see those who are evil to be taken lightly and for them to get away with it.

Dion Wood

 

[Grapeshot]

Peace brother NewZealandAmerican - I appreciate both your candor and your understanding.

 

[NewZealandAmerican]

Peace brother NewZealandAmerican - I appreciate both your candor and your understanding.

Thankyou too my brother for all that you do for Liberty and Freedom!

 

[Sandcut]

UPDATE:

i received a phone call today from the chief today, who informed me that his department will be reviewing the open carry portion of the MPOTEC memo, and apologized for his officer's behavior. i thanked him for calling me and keeping me updated, but i wondered if the officer would be looking at any disciplinary actions. the chief replied that those details were kept, but to rest assured the situation would be resolved to my satisfaction. what that meant, i don't know.

Back on topic, boys.

@ Jah, I'd say that you made an impression considering that they chief called YOU back. If he was going to blow you off, as it sounded like was happening in your earlier post, that would have most likely been the last you heard of the event. Even if the end result is that the chief told his staff "Guys, knock it the hell off before someone posts you on Youtube." and is NOT because it is unacceptable behavior, the end result is the same. That result being civility during the next encounter.

And that, I believe, is all that Jah was asking for in the first place. So, well done, amigo. Even if the result was small, over geologic time, you'll move mountains.

 

[bmward64]

Well, that's certainly one way to handle a situation like that.

No disrespect to you is meant by what I am about to share, but I would have attempted to handle this situation in a manner as to not insult and infuriate those who are sworn to protect and serve me.

It has worked for me for the 65 years of my life. I've never been disrespected by any LEO, never been arrested, and have, therefore, never seen the inside of a jail cell.

I intend to keep it that way.

I hate to profile you, but I will. I'm assuming, just assuming, that bassed on your screen name you have served? If so, you are most likely an in shape, respectable looking guy... in which case you would not be profiled buy the cops as this gentleman has....

 

[Dreamer]

In defense of "NewZealandAmerican", according to NYC Detective Frank Serpico during his testimony before the Knapp Commission:

10% of police are completely honest, 10% are unscrupulously corrupt, and the other 80% wish they were honest.

Just sayin...

 

[Grapeshot]

In defense of "NewZealandAmerican", according to NYC Detective Frank Serpico during his testimony before the Knapp Commission:

Just sayin...

I remember hearing that - Serpico was unique,

BTW - applied for your MD permit yet with the new ruling?

 

[tyc]

i live in Dickson City.

yeah, THAT Dickson City. i don't plan on writing anything, i plan on going in personally sometime today to schedule an appointment with the chief of police here. i guess they forgot the ongoing litigation for the Old Country Buffet nonsense; i guess they need a little reminder.

You and everyone else in Dickson City would be better off if you were to put it writing and send it CERTIFIED to the head of the local police department there, unless of course what you just relayed did not in fact happen.

If what you relayed to us did in fact occure, both of those men were way out of line and at a minimum a good dressing down by their commanding officer(s) is due.

Assuming what you've relayed is true you might keep in mind something my father taught me long ago (he was a federal prosecutor for 30 years) ... the most dangerous thing in America is a small town cop with a gun.

For what it's worth.

tyc

 

[MilProGuy]

I hate to profile you, but I will. I'm assuming, just assuming, that bassed on your screen name you have served? If so, you are most likely an in shape, respectable looking guy... in which case you would not be profiled buy the cops as this gentleman has....

The screen name "MilProGuy" has nothing to do with my military service. I chose it when I became a member of the TaurusArmed.net forum because I was so infatuated with my first semiautomatic pistol, a Taurus Millennium Pro PT138...hence the name "MilProGuy".

Yes, I served both in the Army and Army Reserve, and recently was honorably retired from the Mississippi State Guard due to a debilitating stroke I suffered last summer. Until then, I was an "...in shape, respectable looking guy..."

Perhaps, it was this gentleman's lack of respect for authority figures and lack of common courtesy that really were the factors that fueled this tense situation.

Everybody has a different perspective on matters like these, and I respect yours.

 

[Grapeshot]

--snip--

Perhaps, it was this gentleman's lack of respect for authority figures and lack of common courtesy that really were the factors that fueled this tense situation.

Everybody has a different perspective on matters like these, and I respect yours.

Using supposition does not excuse insulting another, nor make such less of a rule violation here.

 

[MilProGuy]

Using supposition does not excuse insulting another, nor make such less of a rule violation here.

I didn't insult anyone.

 

[jahwarrior]

The screen name "MilProGuy" has nothing to do with my military service. I chose it when I became a member of the TaurusArmed.net forum because I was so infatuated with my first semiautomatic pistol, a Taurus Millennium Pro PT138...hence the name "MilProGuy".

Yes, I served both in the Army and Army Reserve, and recently was honorably retired from the Mississippi State Guard due to a debilitating stroke I suffered last summer. Until then, I was an "...in shape, respectable looking guy..."

[/I]Perhaps, it was this gentleman's lack of respect for authority figures and lack of common courtesy that really were the factors that fueled this tense situation.

Everybody has a different perspective on matters like these, and I respect yours.

What? I think I was pretty mellow, and not to snotty, with both officers, until they started giving me $h!t Actually, it was only the one giving me $h!t. The other failed to keep him in line, but was at least courteous. Maybe you need to read it again. Here, I'll help. My parts are in bold, the @$$hole cop's are in italics, and the enabler cop's parts are underlined.

I took a walk to Carvel yesterday with my son. When I say walk, I mean I walked, while he slept in his stroller. Four blocks and a lot of sweat later, I walked up to the window, ordered an orange vanilla swirl, and walked over to the bench off to the side. There were two local PD patrolmen there. One of them approached me, holding his hand up. His partner walked off nonchalantly to my right side, keeping my gun in view.

Cop #1: "Hey, buddy, what's up with that?"

Me: "What's up with what?"

Cop #1: "What's up with that gun? You need to conceal that."

Me: "No, I don't. You know I don't. You know it's legal in Pennsylvania, everyone in your department received the updated memo on the legality of open carry."

Cop #1: "What do you know about it our training?"

Me: "I know about it. That should be enough. Did you get it?"

Cop #1: "Sure, we got it, but I still think it's stupid to be doing that."

Cop #2: "Wow, he's a cutie. What's his name?"

Me, to my 2 month old son: "Don't say a word without a lawyer, son." I thought that might get a laugh out of them, but it didn't. Oh well. < being a little smart assed, but still respectful

Cop #1: "What do you do for a living, anyway? Are you in security or some crap?"

Me: "My job is none of your business, officer."

Cop #2: "We're just curious, is all."

Me: "That's fine. I just don't talk about my work with people I don't know."

Cop #2: "But, we're cops. You have no reason not to trust us."

Me: "Did you really just use the 'Trust us we're the police' line on me? After your partner tried to lie to me and tell me I had to conceal?"

Cop #1: "Smart guy, huh? Yeah, you look REAL smart, with your pot belly, and baby stroller, eating ice cream with a big old gun strapped to your hip. You wanna carry a gun? Try losing weight and becoming a cop, smart guy."

Me: "Oh, so your department put a freeze on hiring Neandertals?" < Now being a real smartass.

Cop #2: "There's no reason for the attitude, mister."

Me: "Tell your pet caveman that." < Warranted disrespect, after being lied to and then insulted by Cop #1. He earned it.

Cop #1: "You're real f*ckin' funny, you know that? You keep on being funny, you f*ckin' idiot. Next time you need to call 911, make sure you tell the operator something real funny. Maybe your jokes will help save your life, you fuckin' jerkoff. Have a nice fuckin' day."

I sat there as they stomped off. My ice cream was starting to melt, but I was glad my son slept through it. This kid could sleep on top of a jackhammer, but if I crack my knuckles, he wakes up angry. I ate the melted parts as fast as I could. A lady there with 4 kids walked up to me, and asked me if it was legal to carry a gun. It turnds out, she just moved here from NJ a few weeks ago. She thought about buying a gun, but didn't want to go through the hassle she went through in NJ trying to get a license. I told hr the short version of PA law: anyone not criminally or mentally prohibited from owning a gun can buy one, no waiting period, and can get a license to carry one, concealed, and that it was legal to carry openly. She thanked me, and walked back to her kids.

So, not a totally negative 10 minutes of my life. I love ice cream.

So, no, it wasn't my "attitude" that fueled this situation. It was an @$$hole in uniform who lied to my face, then insulted me and my intelligence while using foul language, while his partner proved himself ineffectual at keeping his partner in line, that fueled this situation. I was trying to have some f***ing ice cream, with my baby boy. I think that after being called a f***ing idiot, repeatedly, and having my weight used against me as an insult, pretty much negated the necessity for me to continue to be respectful to men who never earned my respect in the first place.

Are used to having people go out of their way to bend over backwards for you, just because you wore a uniform at some point in time? That might explain your attitude. Here's the thing: your uniform, their uniform, and anyone else's uniform, means absolutely dick to me. You want respect? Earn it. And so far, you have not earned mine.

I may not be the smoothest person in the world; in fact, I'm pretty ***damned abrasive most of the time. But if you think I'm going to let you sit there, in judgement of me, when I actually was in the right, and treid to maintain a semblence of civility when faced with two ****buckets in uniform.....well, sir, OFF is the general direction I would like you to f***.

You and everyone else in Dickson City would be better off if you were to put it writing and send it CERTIFIED to the head of the local police department there, unless of course what you just relayed did not in fact happen.

If what you relayed to us did in fact occure, both of those men were way out of line and at a minimum a good dressing down by their commanding officer(s) is due.

Assuming what you've relayed is true you might keep in mind something my father taught me long ago (he was a federal prosecutor for 30 years) ... the most dangerous thing in America is a small town cop with a gun.

For what it's worth.

tyc

Tyc, I'm pretty sure they got a dressing down of some sort. As was noted earlier, the chief called me back to talk about the situation. I've run into the @$$hole cop a few times since then, and he's either pretended not to notice me, or been polite....begrudgingly. I've also had one or two DCPD officers engage me in casual conversation, without issue.