# Question for those in Law Enforcement



## grakita

Well my husb and I were watching Cops on the TV last night. He had forgotten why we no longer watched the show, it took him all of 5 min to remember. He is retired LEO and gets to deal with my less than respectful comments regarding the show. To clarify I am not anti-cop, both my husband and son are LEO's, Fed. Now for my question. When did cops move from using the statement - failed to cooperate into failed to comply? While it may sound petty there is a world of difference between cooperation and complying. This is a real question so any opinions are welcomed. I just don't remember cops in general coming across as the Power Freaks in years past.

Thanks All


----------



## LincTex

Cooperate means "works with"
Comply means "submit to"

I don't like it either.


----------



## Geek999

That change seems part and parcel with militarization of police, disrespect for the Bill of Rights, and all the other negative trends in law enforcement.


----------



## rawhide2971

Your timing with this post coincides with some recent observations and concerns I have been having with the state of the LEO organizations though out the country. It seems we are seeing more and more militarization of the LEO system and a more aggressive approach with how citizens are being presumed guilty when encountered. Recent headlines of aggressive "home invasions" for what use to be petty crimes seem to be on the rise, and I mean home invasion by the LEO's not the thug type. When people are stopped and challenged by an LEO it use to be that a person was assumed to be innocent, now, at least if you watch the headlines and follow the news its the other way around. 
All I am saying is that it makes me distrust the government even more.


----------



## grakita

LincTex said:


> Cooperate means "works with"
> Comply means "submit to"
> 
> I don't like it either.


I have no problem cooperating with LE within reason. Should I be asked a question or pulled over and treated in a respectfull manner, I would respond in kind. Be an A-Hole and I will also respond in kind. Let me be clear, I haven't has so much as a parking ticket in more than 30years (I probably just jinxed myself) so it isn't like I have weekly run-ins with the police, but my observation and just listening to some of our friends talk has me greatly concerned.


----------



## Sentry18

Interesting a question for law enforcement and it seems like my will be the first actual law enforcement response.

The term failure to comply is a legal term, one adopted by law enforcement but one created by the legislation and the judicial. An LEO will change his or her vernacular and the wording used in his or her reports to match up exactly with what the law is called (and is trained to do so). This reduces the grand and often ridiculous definition battle LEO's when dealing with defense lawyers and the media, both of whom thrive on twisting reality and misrepresentation. Failure to comply must reach a standard when the person who did "fail to comply" because they did "fail to submit" to a lawful directive which was not optional. There are laws that are lesser and greater the fall in the same category. There is a law called "interfering with an LEO" that does not meet the standard of failure to comply and there are laws like "resisting arrest" that exceed it. For example if a mentally unstable person is standing in the middle of a busy intersection in his undies swinging a baseball bat around and an officer instructs him repeatedly to put the baseball bat down yet he refuses, he would subsequently be arrested for failure to comply. If he swings that bat at the officers while they try to take it away from him he would also be charged with resisting arrest. Which would then be an escalation from failure to comply. Again this is all appropriate legal terminology and is not part of any LEO conspiracy to destroy society. The militarization of police is all theory with very little substance and that horse has already been beaten to death in other threads.

On a sidenote, my agency is asked constantly to be on television shows such as COPS. We refused each and every time. In fact we have about 3-4 dozen episodes that we use in our field training program to demonstrate substantially poor law-enforcement skill and officer safety issues. While that is certainly not indicative of every officer who's appeared on the television program, you have to realize that all television programs are sensationalized and edited for your viewing pleasure and not to depict reality.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

Sentry18 said:


> ...On a sidenote, my agency is asked constantly to be on television shows such as COPS. We refused each and every time. In fact we have about 3-4 dozen episodes that we use in our field training program to demonstrate substantially poor law-enforcement skill and officer safety issues. While that is certainly not indicative of every officer who's appeared on the television program, you have to realize that all television programs are sensationalized and edited for your viewing pleasure and not to depict reality.


The thing to remember about reality television is that it isn't real. Its all about ratings.


----------



## Geek999

Sentry18 said:


> Interesting a question for law enforcement and it seems like my will be the first actual law enforcement response.
> 
> The term failure to comply is a legal term, one adopted by law enforcement but one created by the legislation and the judicial. An LEO will change his or her vernacular and the wording used in his or her reports to match up exactly with what the law is called (and is trained to do so). This reduces the grand and often ridiculous definition battle LEO's when dealing with defense lawyers and the media, both of whom thrive on twisting reality and misrepresentation. Failure to comply must reach a standard when the person who did "fail to comply" because they did "fail to submit" to a lawful directive which was not optional. There are laws that are lesser and greater the fall in the same category. There is a law called "interfering with an LEO" that does not meet the standard of failure to comply and there are laws like "resisting arrest" that exceed it. For example if a mentally unstable person is standing in the middle of a busy intersection in his undies swinging a baseball bat around and an officer instructs him repeatedly to put the baseball bat down yet he refuses, he would subsequently be arrested for failure to comply. If he swings that bat at the officers while they try to take it away from him he would also be charged with resisting arrest. Which would then be an escalation from failure to comply. Again this is all appropriate legal terminology and is not part of any LEO conspiracy to destroy society. The militarization of police is all theory with very little substance and that horse has already been beaten to death in other threads.
> 
> On a sidenote, my agency is asked constantly to be on television shows such as COPS. We refused each and every time. In fact we have about 3-4 dozen episodes that we use in our field training program to demonstrate substantially poor law-enforcement skill and officer safety issues. While that is certainly not indicative of every officer who's appeared on the television program, you have to realize that all television programs are sensationalized and edited for your viewing pleasure and not to depict reality.


Interesting side note, I don't regularly watch the show but happened to see a bit yesterday while flipping through channels. The cops had some poor schmuck on the ground with one guy pinning him down and the other screaming at him to roll over on his stomach. The guys says he can't roll over because the cop is on top of him, so the screaming cop starts bending the guy's arm backward to the point I thought they were going to break his arm. He still can't move because of the guy on top of him. All the while he is saying he will roll onto his stomach if they will let him do so.

Total morons.


----------



## Sentry18

The whole television and law-enforcement misinformation issue reminds me of Miranda warnings.

Miranda warnings came about because the US Supreme Court felt that the average American was uneducated and did not understand their basic constitutional rights. Officers were required to inform suspects of their constitutional rights but then "ignorance of law not being an excuse" expectations became common than the court system. In the last couple decades communication mediums and the internet has changed the former and information is available at the click of a mouse. The average American is no longer uneducated and even children who regularly watch television can recite Miranda warnings. Unfortunately the issue of education has now become an issue of misunderstanding and misinformation, often at the hands of police dramas and police reality shows. Just because it worked on Law & Order doesn't mean it works in the real world. And don't even get me started on the complete fiction that is NCIS or other make-believe police/crime scene investigation shows. Pretty soon instead of Miranda warnings we will have to provide "clarification warnings". 


Sentry18's Clarification Warnings: 

You have the right to remain silent (but you actually have to assert that right by staying completely quiet. Even if you don't answer my questions I will continue to ask you questions and if you decide to answer one of them you have waived your rights. Oh and you not answering questions can be used against you too. Juries tended not be fond of people who are given the opportunity to explain themselves and refused to.)

Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law (that includes on the phone, excited utterances, stuff you tell your cellmate, stuff you texted other people, emails and voicemail, etc., etc. And there's a really good chance whatever you say will be recorded.)

You have the right to an attorney (but not right this second, and definitely not before you identify yourself and comply with the law enforcement officers directives. And if the LEO has a warrant you must comply instantly then call your lawyer. And even if you have a lawyer on retainer he will not show up within 10 minutes of your phone call. Chances are he will tell you to go through the process of getting booked in and released and then you should come to his office the next day).

If your state requires (by law) a mandatory blood draw, a mandatory urine sample or something to that effect based on the crime you are accused of or believed to have committed, you have to submit immediately (you don't get to consult with a lawyer, you don't get to call your mom, you don't get to wait until you have a chance to look up the law on your smart phone.)

If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed for you (and you're still going to have to pay for it, and if you don't you'll end up in jail. And chances are you will not get the best lawyer available. Sometimes you will get the worst lawyer available.)

Furthermore Miranda warnings only apply if you are an actual physical custody and are being asked incriminating questions. (It does not apply during most investigations, it does not apply if you are free to leave at any time, it does not apply if you're being asked non incriminating questions, it does not apply if the person asking the questions is not an officer of the court or an agent thereof, the LEO does not have to ask you if you understand the rights and agree to them, the LEO does not need to make sure you understand them, the LEO does not need to give you your Miranda warnings the second you are arrested, etc. etc.).

No you don't have the right to make a phone call (not on your timeline anyway. You do have the right to outside communication so we don't lock you up and no one knows where you're at, but that is done on our schedule based on rules of reasonable timelines as determined by the judicial.)

Yes there are gray areas in every single one of the aforementioned rights. These gray areas of all been created by conflicting Supreme Court decisions and other legal precedents. Rest assured most experienced police officers know where the lines in the sand are, how far they can push, how long they can keep it up, etc.

Wow that got wordy. You have to love this voice to text software.


----------



## Geek999

We still have cops beating up an 84yo man for jaywalking. That is not an education issue.


----------



## rf197

Don't be a criminal and you won't have any problems, listen up liberals

Geek999 has been "on the job" for many years...he knows


----------



## FatTire

rf197 said:


> Don't be a criminal and you won't have any problems, listen up liberals
> 
> Geek999 has been "on the job" for many years...he knows


Yes! Dont be a criminal! If that ruthless 84 year old thug just hadnt been a dangerous criminal with his jaywalking, he wouldnt have gotten beaten!

what a freakin genius...


----------



## Sentry18

That's a perfect example Geek of the misinformation and rhetoric I was talking about. But I suppose when you beat the same drum, to the same rhythm, for so long you think that's the only song that exists. 

I had a very bad experience with a dentist when I was 13. But somehow someway I was able to overcome it and continue to seek out and utilize appropriate dental care. I was able to see past that one dentist's poor judgment and determined that he was not representative of every single dentist that lives in America today. Sure would've been much easier to just condemn all dentistry as a whole and demand sweeping changes based on the actions of one dentist, but just because it's the easy thing to do doesn't make it the right thing to do. I know that's wildly perceptive and uncommon yet it's true.


----------



## rf197

FatTire said:


> Yes! Dont be a criminal! If that ruthless 84 year old thug just hadnt been a dangerous criminal with his jaywalking, he wouldnt have gotten beaten!
> 
> what a freakin genius...


Another guy who relies on media for their information. You weren't there. and don't know the facts. Sells papers and air time I guess. Fat tire has worked the streets for years... he knows.


----------



## FatTire

So, since Ive never been a cop, I cant make an informed opinion on Law Enforcement? Do you really not see how that elitist attitude is part of the problem?


----------



## grakita

Sentry18: Thanks for your kind and articulate reply. While I understand and actually agree with your post, therin lies part of the problem. It has gotten impossible to determine "exactly" when you are under arrest. From what I have seen and been told - handcuffing is pretty normal these days regardless of arrest status. From my own perspective if I am handcuffed, I am no longer free to leave therefore under arrest by defination and the phrase "officer safety" doesn't cut it. 

Simply refusing to allow a search, to remain silent, etc instead of being looked at as a persons right, is now viewed as hiding something. Living with a cop and having cop friends I get to hear the conversation regarding "attitude" and the catch all - if you have nothing to hide... 

While it may come across I am anti police, I'm not. Most are good people and do a good job. Unfortunantly, it is the one's that aren't that make everything harder for the good ones's


----------



## mosquitomountainman

rf197 said:


> Another guy who relies on media for their information. You weren't there. and don't know the facts. Sells papers and air time I guess. Fat tire has worked the streets for years... he knows.


Not valid arguments for there's an equal possibility that the "facts" were correct. Plus, it's doubtful that anyone ever knows all of the "facts." We all see things from our own perspective which often Interprets" the "facts" for us.

For example: You walk by a parked car with a man and woman inside. The car is shaking so you edge closer. You hear the woman saying to her "attacker," "stop, stop." You immediately pull open the door , drag the guy out and beat him within an inch of his life. The woman, cowering in the back seat is obviously scared to death! The police arrive and the woman begins talking incoherently and pointing to you. Seems that they were playing some kind of quirky sex game and you attacked her husband.

I would imagine that every husband/wife/girl friend/boyfriend can relate times when what they heard from their significant other was not what the other was trying to say.

Even at a trial you're getting the "facts" that each side wants to present to make their case.

Finally, to say one has to "work the streets" to have a valid opinion is BS. Perhaps the people who "walk the streets" have an equally valid opinion that's based on experiences the person who has "worked the streets" doesn't comprehend.


----------



## rf197

FatTire said:


> So, since Ive never been a cop, I cant make an informed opinion on Law Enforcement? Do you really not see how that elitist attitude is part of the problem?


You are certainly entitled to your opinion. My opinion of you is that you are a liberal retard. (I'm just proving a point, I'm sure you are a stand up guy, this is for example only)

I don't know you so how would I form the liberal retard opinion? Obviously its just from your postings...what I've read. I've now formed my opinion of you.

Anyone get this?

Lets be clear, Debating FatTire...no beef man


----------



## Geek999

Sentry18 said:


> That's a perfect example Geek of the misinformation and rhetoric I was talking about. But I suppose when you beat the same drum, to the same rhythm, for so long you think that's the only song that exists.
> 
> I had a very bad experience with a dentist when I was 13. But somehow someway I was able to overcome it and continue to seek out and utilize appropriate dental care. I was able to see past that one dentist's poor judgment and determined that he was not representative of every single dentist that lives in America today. Sure would've been much easier to just condemn all dentistry as a whole and demand sweeping changes based on the actions of one dentist, but just because it's the easy thing to do doesn't make it the right thing to do. I know that's wildly perceptive and uncommon yet it's true.


There is still no word of any punishment of the cops involved. They belong in jail.


----------



## Geek999

rf197 said:


> Another guy who relies on media for their information. You weren't there. and don't know the facts. Sells papers and air time I guess. Fat tire has worked the streets for years... he knows.


So he's part of the blue mutual protection society. Do you think that makes him more or less credible?


----------



## FatTire

Well, i just have the one feeling left and you dont have access to it, so no worries bud 

As to your 'argument', what you describe is not 'debate', rather it is at best 'name calling', and proves nothing other than perhaps that you are immature and like to say such things in an environment that has no real physical consequences. Or it could just be that you are intellectually limited, I do not know.

You started off with the premise that those who are not in law enforcement lack the basis to make an informed judgement call about the actions of those who are in law enforcement. I responded to that with sarcasm, mostly because I sufficient wit to do so  Seriously though, that sort of logic is deeply flawed. Eg. by your reasoning, those not in the legislature can never understand the pressures there in, and thus are incapable of making an informed judgement on those who are in the legislature. See how silly that thinking is now?

The above post is a response to rf197, in case that was unclear...


----------



## Sentry18

One can have opinions without knowledge. One can have knowledge without experience. One can have perceptions without knowledge or experience. But when you combine knowledge and experience you bring things in the practical view and create insight. Insight that does not exist without both knowledge and experience.


----------



## Geek999

grakita said:


> Sentry18: Thanks for your kind and articulate reply. While I understand and actually agree with your post, therin lies part of the problem. It has gotten impossible to determine "exactly" when you are under arrest. From what I have seen and been told - handcuffing is pretty normal these days regardless of arrest status. From my own perspective if I am handcuffed, I am no longer free to leave therefore under arrest by defination and the phrase "officer safety" doesn't cut it.
> 
> Simply refusing to allow a search, to remain silent, etc instead of being looked at as a persons right, is now viewed as hiding something. Living with a cop and having cop friends I get to hear the conversation regarding "attitude" and the catch all - if you have nothing to hide...
> 
> While it may come across I am anti police, I'm not. Most are good people and do a good job. Unfortunantly, it is the one's that aren't that make everything harder for the good ones's


Exactly my point in all of these LEO related threads. There are bad cops. The good cops don't do enough to remove them from the street, thereby becoming bad cops themselves.


----------



## Sentry18

Spoken like someone without any knowledge or experience, just perceptions stated as facts.


----------



## FatTire

Sentry18 said:


> One can have opinions without knowledge. One can have knowledge without experience. One can have perceptions without knowledge or experience. But when you combine knowledge and experience you bring things in the practical view and create insight. Insight that does not exist without both knowledge and experience.


Thats a fair point, Sentry, and I tend to agree. The problem is, there are still 'bad' cops, so it seems clear to me that those with all the 'insight' (that is, those with both knowledge and experience, as you say) are not doing such a great job at keeping the bad apples out, nor finding and removing those bad apples that slip in.


----------



## rawhide2971

Just for the sake of argument and a presentation of my thought process I would like to interject a couple of opines and thoughts based on my observation of the current state of our country. I am sure it will start some lively "your out of your mind" comments.

1. Very recently there was a report of LE breaking down the door of the wrong house, shooting the family dog and inflicting terror on the family.
http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/holly-hill-dog-shot. 
http://www.naturalnews.com/041055_police_officers_family_dog_fatal_shooting.html#

Just do a bing search and you will find more than one occasion

2. Thugs dressed as cops breaking into homes: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...-as-Houston-cop-breaks-in-to-home-5034026.php

3. Cops braking into home and destroying cameras.....sorry no link but its been in the news, when the cops don't want to have a video evidence of the actions they are undertaking....sorry sounds to much like a POLICE state to me. Scares me.

4. I will repeat that it appears the way things are going is to assume the that we are guilty and prove our innocence. And for the record I dont watch the "COPS" stuff, its TV, not to be believed by anyone with half a brain as reality.

What bothers me more is the actual accounts of LEO's out of control, taking away cameras and cell phones, not wanting to operate out in the public eye....and yes I know cops get vilified and chastised and are always assumed to be the bad guy but an honest review indicates that its like any other profession or group, a few bad apples can rot the whole group......but it sure makes me nervous about how I deal with LEOS now.

And just for the record, if I see a group of unknown men, women or animals gathered in front, behind or the the side of my house I will be getting ready for something bad to happen and if they happen to break down my door with out announcing themselves something bad is going to happen, maybe to me but there will be others going owwwwwww it hurts.

Guess while all of us respect and try to obey the laws (even the idiotic ones) our society is devolving into one that does not trust authority at any level.


----------



## Geek999

Sentry18 said:


> Spoken like someone without any knowledge or experience, just perceptions stated as facts.


That applies to every post on every thread. I am sure it is appreciated by that 84yo man that the police can beat him for jaywalking and the rest of the country isn't allowed to conclude the cops were out of line "because they weren't there".

There's also no corruption at the IRS. After all we weren't there.


----------



## rf197

FatTire said:


> Well, i just have the one feeling left and you dont have access to it, so no worries bud
> 
> As to your 'argument', what you describe is not 'debate', rather it is at best 'name calling', and proves nothing other than perhaps that you are immature and like to say such things in an environment that has no real physical consequences. Or it could just be that you are intellectually limited, I do not know.
> 
> You started off with the premise that those who are not in law enforcement lack the basis to make an informed judgement call about the actions of those who are in law enforcement. I responded to that with sarcasm, mostly because I sufficient wit to do so  Seriously though, that sort of logic is deeply flawed. Eg. by your reasoning, those not in the legislature can never understand the pressures there in, and thus are incapable of making an informed judgement on those who are in the legislature. See how silly that thinking is now?
> 
> The above post is a response to rf197, in case that was unclear...


It is not silly, only your response is sir. What do you do for a living? Do you deal with the mentally ill, people who have nothing to lose, people who hate you because of what you do, people who are dying, people who want to hurt you because you wear a uniform? Maybe in Montana you don't but I invite you to come on over here in NY and see what how much you know about people.


----------



## rf197

There are bad cops and bad liberals, lets not group them together folks.


----------



## Sentry18

Geek999 said:


> That applies to every post on every thread. I am sure it is appreciated by that 84yo man that the police can beat him for jaywalking and the rest of the country isn't allowed to conclude the cops were out of line "because they weren't there".
> 
> There's also no corruption at the IRS. After all we weren't there.


That certainly doesn't apply to every post on every thread. We have electricians here that have lots of knowledge and experience about electrical engineering. We have homesteaders that have lots of knowledge and experience with off grid survival. We have paramedics with lots of knowledge and experience about first aid. We have LEO's with lots of knowledge and experience about law-enforcement service. We have horticulturists for have lots of knowledge and experience about growing plants. We even have financial advisors with lots of knowledge and experience about finances.

But parroting over and over and over about the 84-year-old jaywalker may sound to you like you're articulating something but to me it sounds like you're just beating that same old drum.


----------



## rf197

Sentry18 said:


> That certainly doesn't apply to every post on every thread. We have electricians here that have lots of knowledge and experience about electrical engineering. We have homesteaders that have lots of knowledge and experience with off grid survival. We have paramedics with lots of knowledge and experience about first aid. We have LEO's with lots of knowledge and experience about law-enforcement service. We have horticulturists for have lots of knowledge and experience about growing plants. We even have financial advisors with lots of knowledge and experience about finances.
> 
> But parroting over and over and over about the 84-year-old jaywalker may sound to you like you're articulating something but to me it sounds like you're just beating that same old drum.


Btw I also have a degree in Horticulture...seriously


----------



## FatTire

I see, so because I dont live in New York, it is beyond my capability to understand the very difficult job law enforcement must have there. Because I dont work in a mental hospital or jail, I simply cannot grasp the challenges of dealing with a deranged person wanting to do me bodily harm. 

Maybe you should take a deep breath and stop making silly assumptions.

In all honesty though, while these conversations are interesting, I dont have much if any hope that things will change for the better. The cops will continue to be more and more maligned as more absurd laws are passed and more people lose respect for law enforcement. This will IMHO continue to cycle and escalate. Eventually there will be no practical difference between the military and the police, and the only Free people will be those growing their own food and producing their own power, and the very rich.


----------



## grakita

I need to clarify before everyone thinks I am either an idiot or liberal, I am aware that TV cops/cop shows and real life are miles appart. Even COPS, while it may start as actual ride alongs, is edited for TV and ratings.


----------



## rawhide2971

mmmmmmmm lets play nice...maybe time to close this thread and move on to something more prep oriented.....


----------



## Geek999

"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Edmund Burke

So if I won't speak up on behalf of an 84yo jaywalker, what does that make me? If you defend those who beat him, what does that make you?


----------



## Sentry18

You're not speaking up on behalf of anyone. What have you done for that man? Visited him? Wrote him a letter? Called politicians? Demanded that agency conducted an internal review? Become very politically active in NY/NJ? Or just complained on PS about it 25 times? Complaining is really just doing nothing. If you are part of a real solution to your perceived problem, then pray tell let me know what efforts you are personally making. 

And yes FatTire, you don't understand what it is like to serve as an LEO in NY. Neither do I. I don't know what it is like to be a Navy Seal either but I have played Call of Duty and can throw out all kinds of opinions. I am also married with 5 daughters, but I still can't truly understand what it is like to menstruate. I can guess, I can theorize, I might even be able to extrapolate some articulate thoughts. But without a vagina and other female parts I cannot truly understand. But that seems silly to you huh? Interesting.


----------



## FatTire

It is interesting that in order to make some sort of point you have to change what I actually said to suit your argument.

That I am a thinking human being with more than couple brain cells to rub together means i can comprehend that there are certain aspects to police work that mark it very difficult, if not impossible, to make the best decision. This puts me on your side most of the time. Similarly, since I do not have a vagina, clearly there are certain aspects to being female I will never fully comprehend, but that does not mean im incapable of understanding why a woman might be angry, miserable, emotional, ect because she has a period. You guys seem have the attitude that there can be no comprehension from us dirty little civillians, and we best just do as you say. The really sad part is, you dont think thats a problem.


----------



## Geek999

Good point. I have contributed to the defense funds of people I felt were treated despicably by police in the past. Mr. Wong is still charged with jaywalking, resisting arrest, and a bunch of other BS. It appears that he is being defended by a group called the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund. Once I can verify that they are actually handling his case, I will be making a contribution.

I've already sent an email to them trying to learn how to contribute to his case.


----------



## Moose33

I've been pulled over twice in my life. On both ocassions I got the same respect I gave and was on my way within five minutes. 

TV shows sensationalize reality for ratings. A couple of weeks ago I heard one of the officers on TV say the guy could prove he was innocent in court. If I recall correctly that's not how it works, yet. 

LEOs have a tough job. They have to deal with every facet of humanity. Some facets are not so clean and polished. They (actually anyone) deserve respect until they do something to prove differently.


----------



## oldvet

Let's go back to the initial post. The question was should it be fail to cooperate or fail to comply, and Sentry did an excellent job (IMHO) of answering that question. Now this thread (again IMHO) has evolved into just another LEO bashing opportunity for those on here that seem like Vultures just waiting for the opportunity to pounce. 

I think (as was posted earlier) that it is time to put this thread to bed.


----------



## Geek999

Moose33 said:


> I've been pulled over twice in my life. On both ocassions I got the same respect I gave and was on my way within five minutes.
> 
> TV shows sensationalize reality for ratings. A couple of weeks ago I heard one of the officers on TV say the guy could prove he was innocent in court. If I recall correctly that's not how it works, yet.
> 
> LEOs have a tough job. They have to deal with every facet of humanity. Some facets are not so clean and polished. They (actually anyone) deserve respect until they do something to prove differently.


I'm glad your experience has been positive. Mine has not been. I have generally been treated disrespectfully by police. From past threads it seems that LEO practices in different parts of the country are very different.

Then there are cases like this:

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?id=9239265


----------



## Padre

Do you know who I AM.....

(CNN) -- A Southern California firefighter ended up in handcuffs this week after he disagreed with a highway patrol officer on where to park a fire engine.
The California Highway Patrol detained engineer Jacob Gregoire of the Chula Vista Fire Department for about 30 minutes after he refused to move an engine partially blocking a lane, CNN affiliate KFMB reported.

It was there to help protect ambulance crews treating people injured in a rollover accident on Interstate 805.

The same officer also asked firefighters with two other engines at the accident to leave the scene. They complied with the request.
Fire Chief Dave Hanneman stood by the crew that remained.
"We don't know what was going through the officer's mind," Hanneman told CNN affiliate KSWB. "From our perspective, our engineer was out there doing what they're trained to do and doing everything right to take care of patient care and protect that scene."
The incident prompted a meeting between CHP and Chula Vista officials Wednesday.

In a joint statement released after the session, they called the officer's detention an "unfortunate incident," labeling it "an isolated incident and not representative of the manner in which our agencies normally work together toward our common goal."

The statement promised the incident will be a topic of future joint training sessions between the two agencies.


----------



## Padre

Padre said:


> Do you know who I AM.....


Only slightly better than this one...


----------



## tsrwivey

I would imagine we are all guilty of "protecting our own" & giving the benefit of the doubt to those with whom we share a profession or other station in life & to those we know. I know I am. Sometimes good people just blow it every once in awhile. We all screw up, we all get it wrong sometimes. I know I do.

I sympathize with anyone who has to make split second decisions that are potentially life-changing. People expect you to evaluate a very limited set of data & act upon it in a way that is best for everyone involved, adheres to the prevailing moral standard as well as a myriad of laws & procedures, all in a split second & be right *[/B]every time. It's an impossible standard & God bless you for trying to adhere to that standard.*


----------



## Sentry18

FatTire said:


> You guys seem have the attitude that there can be no comprehension from us dirty little civillians, and we best just do as you say. The really sad part is, you dont think thats a problem.


The really sad part is that instead of taking my points at face value you have to become the victim of them to support your position. You even had to create insults for yourself, insults I never used or even implied in any way. If you really believe that you can just formulate a reasonable understanding of something by simply using your opinions, news stories and what you read on these forums than it's no wonder we end up in these pointless debates. The expression "Walk a mile in his shoes" didn't just spring up for no reason. Perhaps you can put together an extrapolation for the Denver Broncos so they can win the Lombardy trophy and a ring next year. I love football but since I have never played in the Pros I cannot really understand the pressures and what all goes on when it comes to professional pigskin. That doesn't seem to stop most people from jumping on the Monday Morning QB bandwagon and rant on and on about what they did wrong.


----------



## Geek999

Sentry18 said:


> The really sad part is that instead of taking my points at face value you have to become the victim of them to support your position. You even had to create insults for yourself, insults I never used or even implied in any way. If you really believe that you can just formulate a reasonable understanding of something by simply using your opinions, news stories and what you read on these forums than it's no wonder we end up in these pointless debates. The expression "Walk a mile in his shoes" didn't just spring up for no reason. Perhaps you can put together an extrapolation for the Denver Broncos so they can win the Lombardy trophy and a ring next year. I love football but since I have never played in the Pros I cannot really understand the pressures and what all goes on when it comes to professional pigskin. That doesn't seem to stop most people from jumping on the Monday Morning QB bandwagon and rant on and on about what they did wrong.


Puhleez! Do you take any of our points at face value?

Have you ever entered a room to find a cop has entered your house without a warrant and brought your Schizophrenic assailant into your house without your permission to enter? Have you taken at face value my statement that this happened to me?

Have you had police absolutely refuse to investigate your complaint? Have you taken that statement on my part at face value?

When you and the other LEOs here start taking some of our points at face value, then maybe we'll have some reason to take yours at face value.


----------



## Sentry18

My points are general beliefs held by myself rooted in common sense based on perceptions versus practical experience and working knowledge. They CAN be taken at face value when presented on the world wide web. Yours are the anonymous claims of someone on the internet without any evidence or verification. They cannot be substantiated and validated in this communication format and can be only be perceived as credible by extending you explicit unearned trust. No explicit trust in necessary to realize that an astronaut probably has a better understanding of what it is like in space than the guy who played Captain Kirk on TV.

Just the same I am sorry you had a negative experience with police. I hope you took the many steps available to find justice.


----------



## rf197

Geek999 said:


> Good point. I have contributed to the defense funds of people I felt were treated despicably by police in the past. Mr. Wong is still charged with jaywalking, resisting arrest, and a bunch of other BS. It appears that he is being defended by a group called the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund. Once I can verify that they are actually handling his case, I will be making a contribution.
> 
> I've already sent an email to them trying to learn how to contribute to his case.


I see your agenda in this post, we will never agree, not even what color the sky is.


----------



## Padre

tsrwivey said:


> I would imagine we are all guilty of "protecting our own" & giving the benefit of the doubt to those with whom we share a profession or other station in life & to those we know. I know I am. Sometimes good people just blow it every once in awhile. We all screw up, we all get it wrong sometimes. I know I do.
> 
> I sympathize with anyone who has to make split second decisions that are potentially life-changing. People expect you to evaluate a very limited set of data & act upon it in a way that is best for everyone involved, adheres to the prevailing moral standard as well as a myriad of laws & procedures, all in a split second & be right *[/B]every time. It's an impossible standard & God bless you for trying to adhere to that standard.*


*

That is not the problem. That cops make mistakes is a given. I am Catholic, I think we are all sinners.... I'm ok with that, and big into forgiveness.

What I have a problem with is the fact that other cops, their brass, and usually many civilians, don't seem to realize that cops make mistakes--and that all things being equal, they probably make mistakes more often than others because of the stress they are under. From my point of view mistakes aren't something to be run from, they are something to be learned from; but you can't do that if 90% of cops are making excuses for them and trying to ignore the 90lb gorilla in the room.

The problem is demonstrated right here. Every time we have a go around with this issue we hear the same: "90% of guys are good"; "giving the rest of us a bad name" argument. Well I will grant you that 90% of LEOs don't get caught (an sadly 90% of those who do don't get punished), but I would venture to guess that (granted I think we are all sinners) only 10% of LEOs (similar to the general pop) today are really good--which is to say trying to do good and avoid evil. The rest are going along to get along, just collecting a check, or morally compromised though still notionally concerned with right and wrong.

You have got to take each situation as a blank slate, there can't be an us vs. them mentality. Here in Boston we root for the Sox and whoever is playing the yankees!!! Someone concerned with moral integrity can't afford that sort of blinder when it comes to leo vs civilian. We are all CITIZENS, and so a cop needs to be asking what is in the best interest of law and justice, not police or civilian.

I don't presume cops are bad dudes when I walk into a room with them... or when I hear some story. I try to listen to both sides, and then look at the law, and when I believe the civilian is wrong I say so and vice versa.*


----------



## FatTire

Sentry18 said:


> My points are general beliefs held by myself rooted in common sense based on perceptions versus practical experience and working knowledge. They CAN be taken at face value when presented on the world wide web. Yours are the anonymous claims of someone on the internet without any evidence or verification. They cannot be substantiated and validated in this communication format and can be only be perceived as credible by extending you explicit unearned trust. No explicit trust in necessary to realize that an astronaut probably has a better understanding of what it is like in space than the guy who played Captain Kirk on TV.
> 
> Just the same I am sorry you had a negative experience with police. I hope you took the many steps available to find justice.


Seriously? You cant step back from you badge and ego for just a second and see how divisive, arogant, and just generally wrong headed this statement is?

You are one of the better cops ive talked to, at least you dont mace peoples dogs and laugh about it, but man if you cant see the way your attitude affects decent reasonable people, its no wonder cops continue to get a bad rap.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

Sentry18 said:


> One can have opinions without knowledge. One can have knowledge without experience. One can have perceptions without knowledge or experience. But when you combine knowledge and experience you bring things in the practical view and create insight. Insight that does not exist without both knowledge and experience.


Ahh, knowledge, perception and experience do create a lot of insight. (Of course, conclusions will vary according to your own personal knowledge, perception and experience.) These arguments sound very much like a parable I'm familiar with:

_*Six Blind Men & the Elephant

A Hindu Parable

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk
Cried, "Ho! what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up he spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee:
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope.
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong! *_


----------



## FatTire

Very apt, 3M.. im gonna have to write that one down and think on it...


----------



## Geek999

Sentry18 said:


> My points are general beliefs held by myself rooted in common sense based on perceptions versus practical experience and working knowledge. They CAN be taken at face value when presented on the world wide web. Yours are the anonymous claims of someone on the internet without any evidence or verification. They cannot be substantiated and validated in this communication format and can be only be perceived as credible by extending you explicit unearned trust. No explicit trust in necessary to realize that an astronaut probably has a better understanding of what it is like in space than the guy who played Captain Kirk on TV.
> 
> Just the same I am sorry you had a negative experience with police. I hope you took the many steps available to find justice.


The things you claim can be taken at face value run 180 degrees counter to my personal experience. Why would I "take them at face value"? You are just as anonymous to me as I am to you, but I am supposed to take what you say at face value when you won't take what I say at face value?

You don't know what it is like to be mistreated by cops any more than I know what it is like to be a cop, so save the "walk a mile in my shoes" stuff for the other LEOs who are ready to turn a blind eye to police misconduct.

BTW: that "explicit unearned trust" line cuts both ways. To me you are just some guy on the internet. Your only "practical experience" I can see from here is constantly defending police misconduct.

As for my getting justice, the cops have had to arrest that same schizophrenic at least twice a year every year since. They even did a SWAT raid on his house. My justice is I occasionally get the pleasure of saying "I told you so."


----------



## Wellrounded

I have very few positive experiences with police officers. Luckily we (hubby and me) are good friends with the local law enforcement. But honestly I've only been treated with contempt and something less than respect by officers that do not know me personally. I understand that the job is hard, that you can have bad days, I'm not forcing you to stay in the job. I have bad days too. I EXPECT to be treated with respect. I expect that from EVERY person I meet but more so from trained public servants. 
I don't watch TV dramas, I don't read internet articles, my experiences are personal. Yes I'm just a person randomly commenting from the ether BUT SO ARE YOU. You might be an avid player of video games and not have worked a day in your life. We will never know. 
I will support my local police force, I know them, they really are good guys. That doesn't mean I think ALL police officers are great stand up guys, I know they are not. I simply don't trust them, trust is earned not given.


----------



## Sentry18

Geek999 said:


> The things you claim can be taken at face value run 180 degrees counter to my personal experience. Why would I "take them at face value"? You are just as anonymous to me as I am to you, but I am supposed to take what you say at face value when you won't take what I say at face value?
> 
> You don't know what it is like to be mistreated by cops any more than I know what it is like to be a cop, so save the "walk a mile in my shoes" stuff for the other LEOs who are ready to turn a blind eye to police misconduct.
> 
> BTW: that "explicit unearned trust" line cuts both ways. To me you are just some guy on the internet. Your only "practical experience" I can see from here is constantly defending police misconduct.
> 
> As for my getting justice, the cops have had to arrest that same schizophrenic at least twice a year every year since. They even did a SWAT raid on his house. My justice is I occasionally get the pleasure of saying "I told you so."


I take it you didn't bother to read my post. You see I can explain to you that you have to open your eyes to see. It's not something that distance or the unknown plays a part in. It's tangible so you can take it at face value. You can even test it out for yourself. But if I tell you that cows inherently hate people and would kill you of they had a chance and that I know because one time a cow maliciously tried to kill me with a ball of cud, there is no way of proving or disproving that. Because without being substantiated it's just a story on the internet. You keep arguing that those are both the same when clearly they are not. Of course none of this matters because all you want to do is huff and puff about how evil all LEO's are, directly or indirectly.

But what I asked is did you take the steps available to seek out justice for the incident you said you were involved in? Did you contact the AG office? Did you contact the DOJ? Did you hire a lawyer? File a civil case? File a case against the specific officer? Take your story to the media?


----------



## Dakine

sentry18 said:


> but what i asked is did you take the steps available to seek out justice for the incident you said you were involved in? Did you contact the ag office? Did you contact the doj? Did you hire a lawyer? File a civil case? File a case against the specific officer? Take your story to the media?


QFT.......


----------



## Geek999

Sentry18 said:


> But what I asked is did you take the steps available to seek out justice for the incident you said you were involved in? Did you contact the AG office? Did you contact the DOJ? Did you hire a lawyer? File a civil case? File a case against the specific officer? Take your story to the media?


Overall it is none of your business. I have no desire to get questioned by a cop now. Especially one who I am absolutely certain cannot be trusted, and will not respect me.

So here is what I will tell you: I took the steps recommended by my attorney (well I guess that gives you one of the above) which included some of those things but not others. I also took a few steps which are not on your list.

No one should have to do any of those things in order to get treated properly when a complaint is made against a cop. It should be investigated like any other complaint.

We have been going back and forth on this forum for a long time and throughout that period you have not once considered that you "don't know what happened because you weren't there" or "taken my statements at face value". Like all cops I have encountered you have no interest in protecting anyone except other cops.

How many people have walked away from contacts with you, with the other person feeling like I do toward cops? How many times have you broken down the wrong door, terrorized the family, shot the dog, only to find you hit the wrong house? Did you even once provide restitution? Have you ever apologized and meant it?

If you can't listen to me and accept what I say, in a forum where it really doesn't matter, why should I think you listen to people day to day on the job? You don't listen to the people you come in contact with. From what I see here you are incapable of doing a serious investigation of anything. What is appalling is that your attitude is so normal among cops that I don't find it surprising when I encounter it here.

You want to show you are serious and not just some game player? Go read up on the "84 year old jaywalker". Stop with the "you weren't there" nonsense and engage the topic from the perspective of the people victimized by the cops. The fact is you weren't there either, so either say something useful or continue on acting like you have been, always defending the cops no matter how egregious their actions. If you just read about the case you will soon learn that not only did they beat the old man unconscious, but after they sent him to the hospital in handcuffs they wouldn't tell his family where he was. If these LEOs aren't thugs, who is?

In the news right now we have the City of Chicago shelling out $100 million in legal settlements because of cops who were torturing people, a retired LEO who shot an unarmed guy in a movie theater because the guy was texting, a cop who arrested a fireman, in uniform, while he was trying to save people who had been in a car crash, and of course our 84 year old jaywalker. Have you considered that maybe out of that list just once the cops involved were wrong? I can hardly wait for next week's news to hear what you heroes have done next.

You seem to be the only one who doesn't recognize that there are a few bad cops, and a whole lot of really stupid cops, and not enough is being done by their colleagues to turn public attitudes in your favor. All you have done is convince me that my perception is spot on.


----------



## LincTex

Never mind...no need to add fuel to the fire

Chula Vista Fire Chief Dave Hanneman told CBS, "To detain one of our firefighters in the middle of an incident is ridiculous."


----------



## oldvet

Sentry, this thread has now gone from "cop bashing" to totally undeserved insults thrown at you, so as I said before I think this thread needs to be shut down.


----------



## LincTex

oldvet said:


> Sentry, this thread has now gone from "cop bashing" to totally undeserved insults thrown at you, so as I said before I think this thread needs to be shut down.


Geek, I will agree that we can have discussion here without crossing over the line too far. It would be best to tone down a little bit and make it less personal.

I make this point (edited to take personal attack out):


Geek999 said:


> How many times have *police* broken down the wrong door, terrorized the family, shot the dog, only to find they hit the wrong house? Did *police* even once provide restitution? Have *police* ever apologized and meant it?


This is a HUGE deal. 
Police depts have become so afraid of appearing to be manned by "real humans" they deny any and all mistakes in hopes that no precedent is established (that will bit any and all depts in the butt in the future).

THIS is what our founding fathers wanted so bad to try to avoid.

The RIGHT THING to do when you are wrong .... is to just admit you were wrong. For cryin' out loud, if a cop makes a mistake, instead of apologizing to the public the chief gets on the air and lets everyone know he's on administrative leave with pay pending investigation (which could mean burying the evidence).

Mistakes HAPPEN. I have cost the company and or the US Govt $200,000 in the past when a major incident occurred. There were circumstances that led up to the event that were out of my control, so I was exonerated, but I still apologized.

Should it be so wrong to expect the same from the police? Why is it so blasted hard to get anything that resembles an apology from the major offenders?


----------



## LincTex

*Ex-cops acquitted in beating death of homeless man in California*
By Chuck Conder, CNN
updated 8:48 AM EST, Tue January 14, 2014
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/us/california-homeless-beating-verdict/
Los Angeles (CNN) -- A jury has acquitted two former Fullerton, California, police officers on trial in the beating death of Kelly Thomas, a mentally ill and homeless man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Kelly_Thomas

Kelly Thomas trial: Officers acquitted in homeless man's death
Published January 14, 2014 Associated Press
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/14/kelly-thomas-trial-officers-acquitted-in-homeless-man-death/
SANTA ANA, Calif. - Two California police officers who were videotaped in a violent struggle with a homeless man during an arrest were acquitted Monday of killing him.
It was a rare case in which police officers were charged in a death involving actions on duty. One of the officers acquitted had been charged with murder.
Jurors took less than two days to reach their verdicts.
The arrest was captured on a 33-minute surveillance video that was key evidence at the trial. It showed Kelly Thomas struggling with six police officers, who hit, kneed and jolted him with an electric stun gun as he was on the ground, calling out for his father over and over again.
Former Fullerton police Officer Manuel Ramos was acquitted of second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter in the 2011 death of Thomas.
Former Cpl. Jay Cicinelli was acquitted of involuntary manslaughter and excessive use of force.

Thomas' father sat stone-faced while his mother wept.

Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckus, who tried the case himself, said after the verdicts that charges will be dropped against Joseph Wolfe, a third officer awaiting trial.

Thomas' parents condemned the verdict outside court.
"Just horrified," Cathy Thomas said. "He got away with murdering my son."

Ron Thomas said the verdict gave police "carte blanche" to brutalize people.
"All of us need to be very afraid now," he said. "Police officers everywhere can beat us, kill us, whatever they want, but it has been proven right here today they'll get away with it.

Just before the altercation began, Ramos snapped on plastic gloves, made two fists and then held them in front of Thomas' face as he said, "Now see these fists? They're going to (expletive) you up."

And they did:









Fullerton police officers not guilty in homeless man's death, prosecutors won't try 3rd cop 
Manuel Ramos and Jay Cicinelli - both former Fullerton police officers - were acquitted of all charges stemming from the violent 2011 beating of a homeless man. The victim, 37-year-old Kelly Thomas, died five days after the violent encounter.
By Lee Moran / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Tuesday, January 14, 2014, 7:07 AM
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...aquitted-homeless-man-death-article-1.1578808
Two former cops accused of unlawfully killing a schizophrenic California homeless man in July 2011 have been found not guilty.
Manuel Ramos and Jay Cicinelli had been charged with battering Kelly Thomas with a baton and a stun gun during a vicious beating in Orange County that left him unconscious.
He never recovered from the attack - which was captured on video tape - and died just five days later.


----------



## tsrwivey

Why did the jury find them not guilty? The article mentions nothing about jury tampering, suppression of evidence, or any other shenanigans during the trial. A jury was able to view the evidence in it's entirety & hear all sides of the story from all of the witnesses, what evidence do we have that they reached an incorrect verdict?


----------



## Geek999

tsrwivey said:


> Why did the jury find them not guilty? The article mentions nothing about jury tampering, suppression of evidence, or any other shenanigans during the trial. A jury was able to view the evidence in it's entirety & hear all sides of the story from all of the witnesses, what evidence do we have that they reached an incorrect verdict?


The same evidence as we have on Casey Anthony, or OJ Simpson.

Those cops have to live with what they did. I don't envy them.


----------



## mojo4

Justice was done in the Kelly case. There was a trial and a jury said not guilty. Get over it. That is our system and if you don't like it go somewhere else where there isn't our system of cops and courts. It gets tiresome to hear people gripe about our legal system. When I was 15 my cousin was murdered in his front yard by another relative. There was a trial. Not guilty verdict. Its over. My mom didn't go on tv and act like a ******* and scream there is no justice. There was and it didn't go the way we wanted. Much like the Zimmerman trial. Not guilty. Agree or not it doesn't matter cause justice was done. As far as people complaining about always having run ins with a-hole cops I gotta ask 1 question?? Was it the same cop every time and if not maybe the a-hole is the one character that is in every encounter. 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Survival Forum mobile app


----------



## Geek999

mojo4 said:


> Justice was done in the Kelly case. There was a trial and a jury said not guilty. Get over it. That is our system and if you don't like it go somewhere else where there isn't our system of cops and courts. It gets tiresome to hear people gripe about our legal system. When I was 15 my cousin was murdered in his front yard by another relative. There was a trial. Not guilty verdict. Its over. My mom didn't go on tv and act like a ******* and scream there is no justice. There was and it didn't go the way we wanted. Much like the Zimmerman trial. Not guilty. Agree or not it doesn't matter cause justice was done. As far as people complaining about always having run ins with a-hole cops I gotta ask 1 question?? Was it the same cop every time and if not maybe the a-hole is the one character that is in every encounter.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Survival Forum mobile app


Was it the same cop who beat up Kelly Thomas in CA, an 84 year old jaywalker in NY, and somewhere in between managed to arrest a firefighter responding to an accident scene?

As for my entering without a warrant or permission case, we have another case here in NJ with a fellow named Keith Pantaleon going on right now. I've never met him, so we have at least two entering a home without a warrant or permission cases. The only thing the cases have in common is they are both in NJ. Cops here don't seem to know they can't just walk into someone's house without a warrant or permission.

Do you know what the Castle Doctrine was originally, not the current law in about half the states? It was real simple: A cop could not enter your house without a warrant and needed to knock, announce, and give you time to answer the door before entering. He could not destroy your door, throw around flash bangs, which have been known to cause fires, shoot your dog, and maybe shoot you, just because it was thought to be somehow safer for the cop, then walk away without restitution when it turns out it was the wrong house. That was the law, no exceptions, until the late 1950s.

The practice today is just home invasion under color of law.

To further clarify, most of what I have said is not that these clowns are "a-holes", but rather they are dumb as bricks. What sort of idiot walks into someone's house without either a warrant or the homeowner's permission? What kind of moron arrests a firefighter who is doing his job? What sort of retard kills a man for being homeless, or beats him up for jaywalking?

Even in the cases where violence is involved, the problem is we have cops who are not so much thugs (though there are some of those) as simply incompetent. Where do you think all the anti-2A police come from? They just haven't thought the matter through, haven't read the constitution they are supposed to uphold, and often don't know squat about the law or what works in holding down crime. We unleash them by the thousands, sticking them with traffic duty, until one day they run into a situation that is beyond their experience and they screw it up.

If you were a police captain, chief, or whatever the appropriate title is, and some fool working for you arrested a firefighter responding to a car crash would you fire the guy? I promise you that in any private industry job if someone did something that outrageously stupid he would not be put on paid vacation while it was figured out, but that seems to be the practice in law enforcement if you do something embarrassing enough. Any place I've ever worked they'd issue him a check through the end of his shift and wish him luck in whatever he decided to do next.

Finally, the refusal to admit that there are some cops who are less than fit for the job simply reinforces the impression most of us have that police will not clean up their own ranks. What we have is a field run by incompetents who look out for each other regardless the cost to the public. Only in government could such foolishness exist.


----------



## tc556guy

I haven't read the thread, but my take on the difference between the two words is that the general population cooperates with LE efforts, while the suspects in a given situation comply with instructions, orders, etc directed at them


----------



## Fn/Form

Geek999 said:


> Exactly my point in all of these LEO related threads. There are bad cops. The good cops don't do enough to remove them from the street, thereby becoming bad cops themselves.


*The reason bad cops stay is The People are content for it to be so. 
*
1% of us'n citizens will work to change it. And it's a small voice. Many of them are courageous to do it while wearing the same uniform, no less.

99% of people who are not the actual victims will raise a voice, raise a temper, treat a symptom (legal defense), but cannot be bothered to treat the cancer itself. It's human nature. And a few generations of "empowerment" training of our kids have done little to change our outlook.

99% of people will fire a plumber and complain like hell to his company for doing something wrong in their own house. Yet those same 99% won't go beyond treating symptoms for rights being trampled on. Even less when they suspect any form of retribution. That wasn't so for the 1% in the Revolution, but that's still the norm for the rest of the country. Grow a pair, get involved, be willing to give whatever is necessary for what is right.

*IT IS THE SAME THING WITH CONGRESS. *Everyone "knows" something is wrong, but no one will take real action on the root of the problem. America, this is YOU. You are in decay, thus your police are in decay. The signs are all around you, but you will not lift a finger. You are one of the the most able, affluent, comfortable societies in history, but you do nothing but wail and berate.

Geek999, this is no more true than in your indicated State of residence. I'm surprised you are surprised at what surrounds you. The people accept it, with an evident minority grumbling and griping, but so it is.

Geek999, if you don't take real action, you are simply another talk radio show junkie.

*On the subject of militarization of police...*

I have ZERO problem with giving my local police great tools--military tools if they can use them. Tools don't make someone bad, just like firearms don't make murderers out of everyone.

*I* am responsible for my local law enoforcement's use of those tools. I fund them, I elect the people that supervise them. I have an input--I have a RESPONSIBILITY to watchdog them and protect them. If I leave that responsibility lay, like so many do, then my local law enforcement does whatever they want and they're abused whichever way the people's court and citizenry want.

If my spouse were a SWAT officer tasked with going into mass hostage incident in a school or business then I want them coming home. Give them the tools! That's not taking into consideraiton guys in bunkers (Alabama), a man driving an armored bulldozer through town (Colorado) and other crazier situations.

If you don't agree, then take them away from your local LE. Take away everything you believe or emote should be taken away. See how many good officers stay. See what happens when there is a genuine need for the training and equipment they did have.

We have learned a LOT about fighting from the wars overseas. Many people have died learning these lessons, and a few people are willing to teache the masses those skills and equipment usage.

Govern responsibly and live the best you can. Govern any other way and suffer the consequences.


----------



## camo2460

Fn/Form said:


> *The reason bad cops stay is The People are content for it to be so.
> *
> 1% of us'n citizens will work to change it. And it's a small voice. Many of them are courageous to do it while wearing the same uniform, no less.
> 
> 99% of people who are not the actual victims will raise a voice, raise a temper, treat a symptom (legal defense), but cannot be bothered to treat the cancer itself. It's human nature. And a few generations of "empowerment" training of our kids have done little to change our outlook.
> 
> 99% of people will fire a plumber and complain like hell to his company for doing something wrong in their own house. Yet those same 99% won't go beyond treating symptoms for rights being trampled on. Even less when they suspect any form of retribution. That wasn't so for the 1% in the Revolution, but that's still the norm for the rest of the country. Grow a pair, get involved, be willing to give whatever is necessary for what is right.
> 
> *IT IS THE SAME THING WITH CONGRESS. *Everyone "knows" something is wrong, but no one will take real action on the root of the problem. America, this is YOU. You are in decay, thus your police are in decay. The signs are all around you, but you will not lift a finger. You are one of the the most able, affluent, comfortable societies in history, but you do nothing but wail and berate.
> 
> Geek999, this is no more true than in your indicated State of residence. I'm surprised you are surprised at what surrounds you. The people accept it, with an evident minority grumbling and griping, but so it is.
> 
> Geek999, if you don't take real action, you are simply another talk radio show junkie.
> 
> *On the subject of militarization of police...*
> 
> I have ZERO problem with giving my local police great tools--military tools if they can use them. Tools don't make someone bad, just like firearms don't make murderers out of everyone.
> 
> *I* am responsible for my local law enoforcement's use of those tools. I fund them, I elect the people that supervise them. I have an input--I have a RESPONSIBILITY to watchdog them and protect them. If I leave that responsibility lay, like so many do, then my local law enforcement does whatever they want and they're abused whichever way the people's court and citizenry want.
> 
> If my spouse were a SWAT officer tasked with going into mass hostage incident in a school or business then I want them coming home. Give them the tools! That's not taking into consideraiton guys in bunkers (Alabama), a man driving an armored bulldozer through town (Colorado) and other crazier situations.
> 
> If you don't agree, then take them away from your local LE. Take away everything you believe or emote should be taken away. See how many good officers stay. See what happens when there is a genuine need for the training and equipment they did have.
> 
> We have learned a LOT about fighting from the wars overseas. Many people have died learning these lessons, and a few people are willing to teache the masses those skills and equipment usage.
> 
> Govern responsibly and live the best you can. Govern any other way and suffer the consequences.


What a fair, reasonable, and thoughtful post. Thank you.


----------



## Loststar76

I just want to say I've sat here and read all of this guys we are all in this mess of life together. Planing on the future and whatever it may bring our way. America Find Your Voice that's what it's really all about pulling every resource together and working together to make a difference. In the long run it really isn't going to matter much who and what you where it's what you are doing now and the future of our country. Just saying I personally can't fix what happen in the past but I can change what I do and how I go forward in this big mess we are headed in......


Sent from my iPad using Survival Forum


----------



## dirtgrrl

"Get over it. That is our system and if you don't like it go somewhere else where there isn't our system of cops and courts. It gets tiresome to hear people gripe about our legal system."

What is occurring here is *NOT* our system, I *don't* like it, and no *I won't go away*. I will stay here and do what I can to fix it.

The point of this conversation is that now *law enforcement can kill just about anyone and get away with it*. They are not held accountable by their administrators, the law, or by each other. Did you ever think that maybe those jurors who acquitted the cops in the Kelly case were sitting there looking at the same cops who were patrolling their own neighborhoods? The jurors were known, but the cops sitting in the spectator seats were anonymous. I guarantee you every cop in that room knew their names, addresses, and where their kids went to school.

When my lily-white, church-going, non-hoodie-and-baggy-pants-wearing sons turned 16 and got their driver's licenses, we sat them down and had the facts-of-cop discussion with them. Keep your hands in sight, don't do anything until you're told, don't look them in the eye for more than a split second, whatever they do to you don't resist. Say yes sir and no ma'am. If it goes beyond a ticket and "have a nice day", keep your mouth shut. Do not consent to a search, even if they threaten to call the dog. If they are wrong you don't argue. Recognize that once they pull you out of the car, *your life is at stake*, and you may need all your street smarts to survive the moment. We can't bail you out of dead.

www.reviewjournal.com/news/deadly-force

The Las Vegas Review Journal - never known for it's liberal bias - has developed an eye-opening series dealing with deadly and excessive use of force by the LV Metropolitan Police, Henderson, and North Las Vegas police departments. Shootings are always, *always* found to be "justified". The inquest process is widely considered to be a joke. The number of unarmed citizens shot in Clark County is astounding.

I work with federal law enforcement officers all the time, helping with investigations and serving as expert witness when required. Most of them are good upright people who want to do the right thing and treat people with respect. But I would not want to meet a substantial minority of them bent over the hood of a car. There is something about having that much power that twists some people into monsters who should be removed from any position of authority. Due process is not supposed to be just words on paper.

If a middle-aged white woman feels like this, I can't imagine how a black or hispanic 16 year old just walking down the street feels.


----------



## Geek999

Fn/Form said:


> *The reason bad cops stay is The People are content for it to be so.
> *
> 1% of us'n citizens will work to change it. And it's a small voice. Many of them are courageous to do it while wearing the same uniform, no less.
> 
> 99% of people who are not the actual victims will raise a voice, raise a temper, treat a symptom (legal defense), but cannot be bothered to treat the cancer itself. It's human nature. And a few generations of "empowerment" training of our kids have done little to change our outlook.
> 
> 99% of people will fire a plumber and complain like hell to his company for doing something wrong in their own house. Yet those same 99% won't go beyond treating symptoms for rights being trampled on. Even less when they suspect any form of retribution. That wasn't so for the 1% in the Revolution, but that's still the norm for the rest of the country. Grow a pair, get involved, be willing to give whatever is necessary for what is right.
> 
> *IT IS THE SAME THING WITH CONGRESS. *Everyone "knows" something is wrong, but no one will take real action on the root of the problem. America, this is YOU. You are in decay, thus your police are in decay. The signs are all around you, but you will not lift a finger. You are one of the the most able, affluent, comfortable societies in history, but you do nothing but wail and berate.
> 
> Geek999, this is no more true than in your indicated State of residence. I'm surprised you are surprised at what surrounds you. The people accept it, with an evident minority grumbling and griping, but so it is.
> 
> Geek999, if you don't take real action, you are simply another talk radio show junkie.
> 
> *On the subject of militarization of police...*
> 
> I have ZERO problem with giving my local police great tools--military tools if they can use them. Tools don't make someone bad, just like firearms don't make murderers out of everyone.
> 
> *I* am responsible for my local law enoforcement's use of those tools. I fund them, I elect the people that supervise them. I have an input--I have a RESPONSIBILITY to watchdog them and protect them. If I leave that responsibility lay, like so many do, then my local law enforcement does whatever they want and they're abused whichever way the people's court and citizenry want.
> 
> If my spouse were a SWAT officer tasked with going into mass hostage incident in a school or business then I want them coming home. Give them the tools! That's not taking into consideraiton guys in bunkers (Alabama), a man driving an armored bulldozer through town (Colorado) and other crazier situations.
> 
> If you don't agree, then take them away from your local LE. Take away everything you believe or emote should be taken away. See how many good officers stay. See what happens when there is a genuine need for the training and equipment they did have.
> 
> We have learned a LOT about fighting from the wars overseas. Many people have died learning these lessons, and a few people are willing to teache the masses those skills and equipment usage.
> 
> Govern responsibly and live the best you can. Govern any other way and suffer the consequences.


Perhaps you havenm't understood what I have already said. I had a 3 year legal battle with our local police over illegal entry to my home. It resulted in a settlement that I am okay with, but the matter never should have occurred.

If that isn't enough "action" for you, what are you suggesting?


----------



## Fn/Form

Geek999 said:


> Perhaps you havenm't understood what I have already said. I had a 3 year legal battle with our local police over illegal entry to my home. It resulted in a settlement that I am okay with, but the matter never should have occurred.
> 
> If that isn't enough "action" for you, what are you suggesting?


That's the "plumber" in the house I was talking about. Anyone will do that, and justly so. Dealing with the Big Picture is another world.

You claim to have a big, ongoing problem with law enforcement in your area. Your civic responsibilities are calling. Don't expect it to get any better without searching out the truth of Why it's happening. And then taking _wise, proper_ action by you and your fellow citizens in that area.

Where I live we have plenty of Jackson/Sharpton wannabes and hundreds of thousands more whiners-that-don't-lift-a-finger. Your problem is very likely a multi-faceted problem that will take commitment, time, patience and love on both sides. Few people embody that in a leadership role--and even fewer are willing to do it for free in their community.

Find that person(s), find people with objective expertise (ex-cops, etc.) and together tackle the problem with an open mind. Take what you find in stride, with an eye to improving the agency from within. It's a long-term process not accomplished in a few years. And it will likely only shed light on more systemic problems no one deals effectively with... pass the torch to others.


----------



## Geek999

I find that a bit vague and I think the problem is not just my local police force. The whole northeast, CA, IL, etc. All suffer from the same malady, which has now reached CO, parts of TX, etc.

As for working on the problem I am somewhat active politically. I know a bunch of ex-cops through the local gun range and their opinions are pretty similar to mine. For instance, I voiced the opinion that the local cops don't know how to shoot to the gunsmith, a retired LEO. He said the reason for that is they want to get paid for time spent at the range, which was lazy and shortsighted. He then went on a rather entertaining rant about how none of them knew the law either.

That's pretty typical of the range.

Since my incident the town has gotten rid of the then Chief, though I really don't know if my case had anything to do with that. The new chief has posted a notice in the lobby that claims any complaint against the police will be investigated. Nice touch, though I suspect it is BS.

I don't really think the northeast is going to get better in my lifetime. I intend to move someplace with more freedom within a few years. To put that in perspective, there is an annual survey that ranks countries based on economic freedom. The US as a whole is now 20th in the world and dropping. I also care about other measures, but that gives you a sense of where my head is. I like countries that think TSA is a joke and I like countries that refuse to cooperate with TSA even better.


----------



## Fn/Form

Geek999 said:


> I find that a bit vague and I think the problem is not just my local police force. The whole northeast, CA, IL, etc. All suffer from the same malady, which has now reached CO, parts of TX, etc.
> ...


There is no vagueness as to the problem. You keep defining it further and further. You seem to know it well.

There is no vagueness about the solution. We all know who is ultimately responsible for making this issue right. It begins and ends there with the local citizenry. CA, IL have no bearing on your piece of the American Dream in NY. Get your home right, and help them get their community right.

The vagueness here is your response to duty when it calls. "Somewhat politically active" is not dealing with the specific, huge problem you allege. If not you, then whom? You don't have to be a one-person show. Use your specific talents and gifts with others to deal with the problem.

The vagueness here is your personal solution to move elsewhere in the country. You say it's the problem is the same across the country, but you expect it to be better somewhere else in this country.

The vagueness here is your poorly thought out consideration of moving to another country. It does not reflect the realities in other countries. You will simply be trading your problems for theirs.

If you're ready to talk about the nuts and bolts of the "militarization" of police solution, then let's talk. Leave the social bar room commentary and sidestepping behind, or we have no conversation.


----------



## Geek999

Fn/Form said:


> There is no vagueness as to the problem. You keep defining it further and further. You seem to know it well.
> 
> There is no vagueness about the solution. We all know who is ultimately responsible for making this issue right. It begins and ends there with the local citizenry. CA, IL have no bearing on your piece of the American Dream in NY. Get your home right, and help them get their community right.
> 
> The vagueness here is your response to duty when it calls. "Somewhat politically active" is not dealing with the specific, huge problem you allege. If not you, then whom? You don't have to be a one-person show. Use your specific talents and gifts with others to deal with the problem.
> 
> The vagueness here is your personal solution to move elsewhere in the country. You say it's the problem is the same across the country, but you expect it to be better somewhere else in this country.
> 
> The vagueness here is your poorly thought out consideration of moving to another country. It does not reflect the realities in other countries. You will simply be trading your problems for theirs.
> 
> If you're ready to talk about the nuts and bolts of the "militarization" of police solution, then let's talk. Leave the social bar room commentary and sidestepping behind, or we have no conversation.


Sorry, I am still not getting what you are suggesting. If you are suggesting greater involvement in politics that's a fair suggestion, though in NJ I suspect it is probably futile.

People move all the time. What's wrong to moving to a place that is free? I understand that no place is perfect and I may be giving up some things in order to live in a free society. As for that idea being poorly thought out, until I settle on a place to go, that's obvious. I am still researching.


----------



## tc556guy

Geek999 said:


> For instance, I voiced the opinion that the local cops don't know how to shoot to the gunsmith, a retired LEO. He said the reason for that is they want to get paid for time spent at the range, which was lazy and shortsighted.


There are a number of skills that LEOs use on a daily basis,. and admins would love for officers to do all of their on-going training in those skills off the clock , on their own dime or for free. Most LEOs see the gun on their hip as a necessary evil that at most gets used for putting down the occasional deer.

Non-LEO gun guys can't understand why LEOs are not as interested as they are in guns, just as car guys cannot understand why LEOs are not as into cars as they are.
It is hard enough to get other firearms instructors to do on-going firearms training, let alone the regular line officers


----------



## Fn/Form

Geek999 said:


> Sorry, I am still not getting what you are suggesting. If you are suggesting greater involvement in politics that's a fair suggestion, though in NJ I suspect it is probably futile.
> 
> People move all the time. What's wrong to moving to a place that is free? I understand that no place is perfect and I may be giving up some things in order to live in a free society. As for that idea being poorly thought out, until I settle on a place to go, that's obvious. I am still researching.


I clearly stated what you need to do. Please, give it serious thought and tell me what you think I'm saying, even if you're not sure what I mean, and we'll go from there.

Remember that "politics" is not civic duty. Politics is a result of civic duty. Civic duty includes knowing what your civil servants are doing with the power and funds entrusted to them. It also includes correcting their attitudes or removing them when they prove untrustworthy.


----------



## Geek999

Fn/Form said:


> I clearly stated what you need to do. Please, give it serious thought and tell me what you think I'm saying, even if you're not sure what I mean, and we'll go from there.
> 
> Remember that "politics" is not civic duty. Politics is a result of civic duty. Civic duty includes knowing what your civil servants are doing with the power and funds entrusted to them. It also includes correcting their attitudes or removing them when they prove untrustworthy.


Thanks. I will give it serious thought. I'll probably have a chat with a few locals. I mentioned the range, but as I get to know some of the CERT team better, they may be a supportive group as well.


----------



## LincTex

tsrwivey said:


> Why did the jury find them not guilty? The article mentions nothing about jury tampering, suppression of evidence, or any other shenanigans during the trial. A jury was able to view the evidence in it's entirety & hear all sides of the story from all of the witnesses, what evidence do we have that they reached an incorrect verdict?


I honestly believe the jury made a HUGE mistake. HUGE. I do NOT think "justice was served".

No, no justice happened here. Move along.

I had one law class in college, it was a n AMAZING eye opener. So much so that I would brazenly say if no one has had any formal law training (even one class) then their opinions will be exceedingly skewed.

Here is the biggest "shenanigan during the trial" you need to take very careful note of:


> Just before the altercation began, Ramos snapped on plastic gloves, made two fists and then held them in front of Thomas' face as he said, *"Now see these fists? They're going to F***(expletive) you up."*


That is CLEARLY intent - threat - malice. Ray Charles could see that while wearing earplugs!! ANY "good" lawyers should have been ALL OVER THIS! But the prosecutor was not....

The judge said: "They were operating as they were trained and they had no malice in their hearts."

*"I'm going to F*** you up"* is *CLEARLY* "malice".

No, I do not believe the jury acted in the best interest of the public. No, not one tiny bit.


----------



## Geek999

There is a high bar for a murder conviction. Would I have voted differently than the jury in this case? Maybe. Should these LEOs ever be employed in law enforcement again? Absolutely not.

While I have complained about NJ gun laws these individuals would bot be able to buy a BB gun here. Maybe that is the upside.


----------



## BillM

*I was and I never*



LincTex said:


> I honestly believe the jury made a HUGE mistake. HUGE. I do NOT think "justice was served".
> 
> No, no justice happened here. Move along.
> 
> I had one law class in college, it was a n AMAZING eye opener. So much so that I would brazenly say if no one has had any formal law training (even one class) then their opinions will be exceedingly skewed.
> 
> Here is the biggest "shenanigan during the trial" you need to take very careful note of:
> 
> That is CLEARLY intent - threat - malice. Ray Charles could see that while wearing earplugs!! ANY "good" lawyers should have been ALL OVER THIS! But the prosecutor was not....
> 
> The judge said: "They were operating as they were trained and they had no malice in their hearts."
> 
> *"I'm going to F*** you up"* is *CLEARLY* "malice".
> 
> No, I do not believe the jury acted in the best interest of the public. No, not one tiny bit.


I was a deputy sheriff for several years. In all that time, I never heard another officer utter "I am going to F--- You up!".

That would constitute a terroristic threat and any subject being confronted by such a threat would be justified in the use of self defense.

"Stop or I'll shoot" is a conditional threat and implies that the officer will shoot only if the subject refuses to comply with his lawful demand.

I was taught , never to say anything you did not want repeated in court.

If someone used vulgar language , I told them , "sir , I don't talk like that , nor do I allow anyone to address me in that manner. If you persist, I will arrest you for disorderly conduct".

If they persisted, I arrested and jailed them.

On TV, actors portray officers all the time threatening and cursing subjects.
I won't say it never happens but is defiantly not the norm.


----------



## Geek999

BillM said:


> I was a deputy sheriff for several years. In all that time, I never heard another officer utter "I am going to F--- You up!".
> 
> That would constitute a terroristic threat and any subject being confronted by such a threat would be justified in the use of self defense.
> 
> "Stop or I'll shoot" is a conditional threat and implies that the officer will shoot only if the subject refuses to comply with his lawful demand.
> 
> I was taught , never to say anything you did not want repeated in court.
> 
> If someone used vulgar language , I told them , "sir , I don't talk like that , nor do I allow anyone to address me in that manner. If you persist, I will arrest you for disorderly conduct".
> 
> If they persisted, I arrested and jailed them.
> 
> On TV, actors portray officers all the time threatening and cursing subjects.
> I won't say it never happens but is defiantly not the norm.


That seems reasonable, but what do you think happened in this case? Do you think what you describe as a "terroristic threat" occurred or are you trying to suggest it did not occur?


----------



## millertimedoneright

So you arrest a citizen for using vulgar language and y'all still wonder why so many citizens have a strong dislike of Leo's? You would never be arrested for the same just like you would never be arrested for lying to the citizen. This is the problem. Police should be held to the same standards as a citizen. Officers regularly use vulgar language and even issue threats against citizens even if unarmed and are cooperating. Police standards put them above citizens. When given power over others abuse will happen more regularly. 


Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## lotsoflead

one thing you can believe, the S is going to HTF the world over someday, Probably a world wide depression and wars, maybe none of us will be here to see it, but there will be more people slipping into civilian cloths to keep out of sight than there will be people slipping into cops uniforms.
If the food supplies were to run out in a week, I wouldn't want to be the cop on the corner telling a few hundred thousand hungry and poed people to turn around and go back.


----------



## BillM

*You just can't*



lotsoflead said:


> one thing you can believe, the S is going to HTF the world over someday, Probably a world wide depression and wars, maybe none of us will be here to see it, but there will be more people slipping into civilian cloths to keep out of sight than there will be people slipping into cops uniforms.
> If the food supplies were to run out in a week, I wouldn't want to be the cop on the corner telling a few hundred thousand hungry and poed people to turn around and go back.


You just can't wait for the STHTF ?


----------



## BillM

*Disorderly Conduct*



millertimedoneright said:


> So you arrest a citizen for using vulgar language and y'all still wonder why so many citizens have a strong dislike of Leo's? You would never be arrested for the same just like you would never be arrested for lying to the citizen. This is the problem. Police should be held to the same standards as a citizen. Officers regularly use vulgar language and even issue threats against citizens even if unarmed and are cooperating. Police standards put them above citizens. When given power over others abuse will happen more regularly.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


The loud and continued use of vulgar language in public is "disorderly conduct". When anyone persists in it's use after being warned by a lawfully sworn officer, they should be arrested.

Would you want to sit in a movie theater with your wife and children and have someone sit behind you and use vulgar language repeatedly or would you want him removed or arrested?


----------



## TheLazyL

BillM said:


> The loud and continued use of vulgar language in public is "disorderly conduct". When anyone persists in it's use after being warned by a lawfully sworn officer, they should be arrested.
> 
> Would you want to sit in a movie theater with your wife and children and have someone sit behind you and use vulgar language repeatedly or would you want him removed or arrested?


BillM

IMHO you are wasting your time.

A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind.


----------



## LincTex

BillM said:


> The loud and continued use of vulgar language in public is "disorderly conduct". When anyone persists in it's use after being warned by a lawfully sworn officer, they should be arrested.


I'll have to agree. 
A warning will shut up the wise, 
but a fool continues to run the mouth....


----------



## Geek999

Introducing vulgar language is escalating the situation. Whoever initiates it is the problem. Similarly shouting when the other person has been speaking in a normal tone is escalating. I have not personally experienced vulgar language from cops, though I am sure it happens. Shouting seems to be routine. In order to de-escalate the moment a cop starts shouting I clam up. If he shouts he gets silence. If he shouts a question, he gets absolute silence in return. This has worked for me every time.

If he is normal and civil I'll cooperate fully providing documents as requested and answers to reasonable questions.

In another thread it was suggested that the shouting was to establish dominance. If a young fit guy with a gun and a badge needs to scream at people to establish dominance, then he really is not up to the job. The best way to establish dominance is professionalism.


----------



## LincTex

Geek999 said:


> In another thread it was suggested that the shouting was to establish dominance.


Geez, I hope that isn't true!! I have had it happen in the past but not recently.



Geek999 said:


> If a young fit guy with a gun and a badge needs to scream at people to establish dominance,


That would be a highly unprofessional way to conduct himself as a law enforcement officer.


----------



## Geek999

The shouting is pretty common. I've experienced it more than once, especially when I was younger. My son has also experienced it. I haven't asked aroundto see how the extent it occurs with others 

As I said, my tactic is just to shut up, not repsond to questions and wait for the fool to figure out his BS isn't working, get through the incident and report it afterward. All I really expect from the report is for the cop to get an instruction to act professionally, but I have no way of knowing whether that occurs.

Perhaps one of the LEOs here would know what goes on when someone calls and says "I was stopped yesterday by Officer X. He was screaming his lungs out. I'm not making an official complaint, but you might consider adjusting his meds."


----------



## lotsoflead

BillM said:


> You just can't wait for the STHTF ?


at my age, I could care less, I just hope my kids, grandkids and GGKs remember everything they have been taught so they may survive. but if it must happen, I'd rather be here with them.


----------



## mojo4

dirtgrrl said:


> "Get over it. That is our system and if you don't like it go somewhere else where there isn't our system of cops and courts. It gets tiresome to hear people gripe about our legal system."
> 
> What is occurring here is *NOT* our system, I *don't* like it, and no *I won't go away*. I will stay here and do what I can to fix it.
> 
> The point of this conversation is that now *law enforcement can kill just about anyone and get away with it*. They are not held accountable by their administrators, the law, or by each other. Did you ever think that maybe those jurors who acquitted the cops in the Kelly case were sitting there looking at the same cops who were patrolling their own neighborhoods? The jurors were known, but the cops sitting in the spectator seats were anonymous. I guarantee you every cop in that room knew their names, addresses, and where their kids went to school.
> 
> When my lily-white, church-going, non-hoodie-and-baggy-pants-wearing sons turned 16 and got their driver's licenses, we sat them down and had the facts-of-cop discussion with them. Keep your hands in sight, don't do anything until you're told, don't look them in the eye for more than a split second, whatever they do to you don't resist. Say yes sir and no ma'am. If it goes beyond a ticket and "have a nice day", keep your mouth shut. Do not consent to a search, even if they threaten to call the dog. If they are wrong you don't argue. Recognize that once they pull you out of the car, *your life is at stake*, and you may need all your street smarts to survive the moment. We can't bail you out of dead.
> 
> www.reviewjournal.com/news/deadly-force
> 
> The Las Vegas Review Journal - never known for it's liberal bias - has developed an eye-opening series dealing with deadly and excessive use of force by the LV Metropolitan Police, Henderson, and North Las Vegas police departments. Shootings are always, *always* found to be "justified". The inquest process is widely considered to be a joke. The number of unarmed citizens shot in Clark County is astounding.
> 
> I work with federal law enforcement officers all the time, helping with investigations and serving as expert witness when required. Most of them are good upright people who want to do the right thing and treat people with respect. But I would not want to meet a substantial minority of them bent over the hood of a car. There is something about having that much power that twists some people into monsters who should be removed from any position of authority. Due process is not supposed to be just words on paper.
> 
> If a middle-aged white woman feels like this, I can't imagine how a black or hispanic 16 year old just walking down the street feels.


Im sorry you are so terrified of your local LE. If everyone on here has such fear of LE then I suggest you become more active in your local elections. I know geek has mentioned that 84 year old fellow who was attacked and how it has given him sleepless nights and cops disregarding people's rights but there is a solution given by the constitution. The courts and elections. Vote for more accountable leaders and sue the offending officers and agencies. So vote better geek so you wont get constantly abused and violated.


----------



## Geek999

mojo4 said:


> Im sorry you are so terrified of your local LE. If everyone on here has such fear of LE then I suggest you become more active in your local elections. I know geek has mentioned that 84 year old fellow who was attacked and how it has given him sleepless nights and cops disregarding people's rights but there is a solution given by the constitution. The courts and elections. Vote for more accountable leaders and sue the offending officers and agencies. So vote better geek so you wont get constantly abused and violated.


I do vote and am quite clear in what matters in my choice of candidates. As I mentioned earlier I did launch legal action against my local police and am pleased with the settlement. However, we still have the same basic problem throughout at least the Blue States regardless of resolution of my complaint.

The 84 yo was in NY. I am in NJ and my impression is NY is worse overall.


----------



## millertimedoneright

I noticed all the Leo's and former Leo's were all for people getting arrested for saying vulgar language. Absolutely none of you even mentioned the same happening by cops. These double standards are why you aren't trusted. It's ok for an officer to holler, get vulgar, point his weapon at you, lie to you, and threaten you. I have personally seen this happen to an unarmed and complying citizen. It's easy to say you are for someone getting arrested for doing something when you aren't held to the same standards. Can you say double standards? If some crackhead tells you I'm running a meth house in order to get out of jail you can bust in my house. If I pulled a gun to defend myself and my rights I'm a dead man or a man on death row for "murdering" a police officer. If I did the same thing to you no one would think twice when you shot me down. I have seen cops search my personal property with no warrant and only "probable cause" which I'm assuming meant they assumed I was too young and dumb to know my rights. In his search he scattered my personal items and destroyed one of my speakers. After he found nothing he got in his car leaving me with broke and scattered stuff. I put in a complaint only to hear he was acting in accordance to procedures and policies. Still to this day I never found out what his "probable cause" was. Police police themselves until it is brought into the public eye. It's like me being the one who checks my work to make sure I did the job right. I'm so tired of hearing this "oh police are human they have good days and bad days like everyone else". If I get a pissy attitude with my customer I get sent to the house. Police are supposed to work for the people. 


Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Meerkat

A nation of sheep will be [ as evidenced in this nation now] ruled by wolves.

we allowed our laws to be turned on us in every aspect of society. You ain't seen nothing yet, just wait till the foreign armies they have hired 'arrest' you.

The new dictator told us in plain English that he would have his own army more powerful than our own military, well he has now in the foreign troops training over our cities. If you think Obombs is bad just consider how cowering and silent both parties are.

Nothing new all empires fall. Ironic they all fall in the same way, so much for history 'lessons'.


----------



## Fn/Form

Geek999 said:


> ...Perhaps one of the LEOs here would know what goes on when someone calls and says "I was stopped yesterday by Officer X. He was screaming his lungs out. I'm not making an official complaint, but you might consider adjusting his meds."


At the least, make the complaint in person, advise them of your concern about this being regular behvior. Tell them you wish to receive a follow-up on the outcome.

If it was likely recorded (traffic stop, cell ohone, you observed a personal recorder on the officers person, etc.), get that recording and submit it with your complaint. Worst case, LE recordings--if not part of an active investigation--are generally available through your local version of Open Records laws.

If an officer is being verbally abusive for no obvious reason, make it stick.

A pattern of a problem will emerge, even in light of the fact an officer will receive complaints for simply doing their job.

But no one knows of the issue or has it dealt with without that process being started.


----------



## Meerkat

Fn/Form said:


> At the least, make the complaint in person, advise them of your concern about this being regular behvior. Tell them you wish to receive a follow-up on the outcome.
> 
> If it was likely recorded (traffic stop, cell ohone, you observed a personal recorder on the officers person, etc.), get that recording and submit it with your complaint. Worst case, LE recordings--if not part of an active investigation--are generally available through your local version of Open Records laws.
> 
> If an officer is being verbally abusive for no obvious reason, make it stick.
> 
> A pattern of a problem will emerge, even in light of the fact an officer will receive complaints for simply doing their job.
> 
> But no one knows of the issue or has it dealt with without that process being started.


 LOL, 

Officer soon as you remove the death grip from my neck, I'd like a "follow up on the outcome". :surrender:

And if you don't mind and I manage to live through this 'arrest' I also would like a copy of the video, :admin" if its not too much trouble. 
:eyebulge:


----------



## Geek999

Fn/Form said:


> At the least, make the complaint in person, advise them of your concern about this being regular behvior. Tell them you wish to receive a follow-up on the outcome.
> 
> If it was likely recorded (traffic stop, cell ohone, you observed a personal recorder on the officers person, etc.), get that recording and submit it with your complaint. Worst case, LE recordings--if not part of an active investigation--are generally available through your local version of Open Records laws.
> 
> If an officer is being verbally abusive for no obvious reason, make it stick.
> 
> A pattern of a problem will emerge, even in light of the fact an officer will receive complaints for simply doing their job.
> 
> But no one knows of the issue or has it dealt with without that process being started.


With the price of dashcams coming down I have been considering getting one for each car. Sounds like that fits with your advice.


----------



## LincTex

Geek999 said:


> With the price of dashcams coming down I have been considering getting one for each car. Sounds like that fits with your advice.


Most phones at least have a voice recorder function. Practice using it so you can begin recording very quickly. Hide it in a shirt pocket so it can be listening to the conversation.


----------



## Geek999

LincTex said:


> Most phones at least have a voice recorder function. Practice using it so you can begin recording very quickly. Hide it in a shirt pocket so it can be listening to the conversation.


Also a good idea. Thanks.


----------



## millertimedoneright

Some places using a phone to video or voice record a police officer is illegal from what I have been told.


Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999

millertimedoneright said:


> Some places using a phone to video or voice record a police officer is illegal from what I have been told.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


Plus one for the dashcam.


----------



## BillM

Well it's not illegal to record a police officer in KY. We encourage it .


----------



## moondancer

? I thought we had free speech I really didn't know they could arrest you for talking fowl . 


Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999

moondancer said:


> ? I thought we had free speech I really didn't know they could arrest you for talking fowl .
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


What makes you think the Bill of Rights is still respected? If you can't get on an airplane without being groped, what rights do you think won't get routinely violated?


----------



## moondancer

Geek999 said:


> What makes you think the Bill of Rights is still respected? If you can't get on an airplane without being groped, what rights do you think won't get routinely violated?


I guess your right it's everywhere but I will still choose to honor those who serve ie military ,police,firemen and such but do it with caution and eyes open . Not as a weak man but as an informed man . It's sad that this nation is headlong in the sewer

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## millertimedoneright

They can arrest you for anything now days. It truly is at the discretion of the officer. Most officers will let you by with all the small stuff but some will look until they find a reason. Trust me if they want to arrest you or ticket you they can find something since it's dang near impossible to be completely within the laws now days.


Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## GaryS

The chilling part of this thread is the fact that unlike decades ago when anger and fear mostly existed between cops and criminals, we now see an ever widening split between police and the law abiding populace. Good cops are allying with bad cop because they are part of the tribe with power and they fear losing it. Good citizens are allying with bad people because they are the tribe without power and they fear those who have it.

If you ever served on a jury, you know how undeniably stupid jurors can be, especially after lawyers get done challenging the competent. I've served on many, and as I told the last judge, when I was asked during voir dire if I found my prior jury service rewarding, that I had seen lots of law practiced, but precious little justice dispensed. I was excused.

The courts must honor the Constitution to near perfection before citizens can respect it. When that respect is gone, so is the law. When the law ceases to be a search for justice and becomes a tool for politics, we find the despicable situation that exists today.

A few years ago, Claire Wolfe's quote evoked a smile, but now seems to be mainstream thought."America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do'Til the Revolution.


----------



## lotsoflead

I think that a good cop to many people is the one who will let a drunk friend or relative drive home after passing a stopped school bus doing 70 and a bad cop is one who will put the cuffs on them. lol. there are people in all professions who would rather have a confrontation than a conservation.. Last summer, I was coming back from fishing about 1AM and a trooper stopped me, there was a light out on the trailer and I was going over the center line now and then to avoid pot holes. I was surprised, it was a women trooper about 35 yrs old. her partner was somewhere standing in the dark as here they always ride 2 in a car after 11 PM. she told me that I was stopped because of the tail lt and that I was weaving, all true, but I don't use any booze and she probably thought I was drunk also. I do have a CDL with hazmat and double endorsements I told her that I knew she was behind me and I was surprised that the boat was still on the trailer because of the rough road. she just laughed, handed me back my papers and told me to drive safely home or pull over and go to sleep a while if I was tired.
another 60 miles down the rd, a deputy stopped me for the tail lt. and you would have thought I just blew up the twin towers, a guy about 22, , hat pulled down in front with the strap around the back of his shaved head, mad at the world, probably in the bottom 2% of his high school class and disliked by everyone, even the other deputies and had connections to become a deputy. He opened everything in the trk and boat; looking for what I can only guess, He gave me a ticket for the tail lt out, I told him it was a waste of time as I would just mail it in with a copy of the bill for the lt bulb.. He got back in his car and left about 25 ft of rubber on the rd.I didn't tell him about being stopped by the troopers and that he was a real ass, he may have clubbed me.


----------



## LincTex

millertimedoneright said:


> Some places using a phone to video or voice record a police officer is illegal from what I have been told.


I can't see how... many vehicles can use the same technology. I can talk on my cell phone through the car stereo (bluetooth connection) and the microphone for that is up above my driver's side door window, to the left of the sun visor.

I haven't tried it to record a conversation, but maybe I'll give it a shot just for grins. My phone could be hidden inside the center console, and as long as the bluetooth connection is there it doesn't have to be on me.


----------



## Fn/Form

millertimedoneright said:


> I noticed all the Leo's and former Leo's were all for people getting arrested for saying vulgar language. Absolutely none of you even mentioned the same happening by cops. These double standards are why you aren't trusted. It's ok for an officer to holler, get vulgar, point his weapon at you, lie to you, and threaten you.
> ...





Meerkat said:


> A nation of sheep will be [ as evidenced in this nation now] ruled by wolves.
> 
> we allowed our laws to be turned on us in every aspect of society. You ain't seen nothing yet, just wait till the foreign armies they have hired 'arrest' you.
> ...





Meerkat said:


> LOL,
> Officer soon as you remove the death grip from my neck, I'd like a "follow up on the outcome". :surrender:





Geek999 said:


> What makes you think the Bill of Rights is still respected? If you can't get on an airplane without being groped, what rights do you think won't get routinely violated?





millertimedoneright said:


> They can arrest you for anything now days. It truly is at the discretion of the officer. Most officers will let you by with all the small stuff but some will look until they find a reason. Trust me if they want to arrest you or ticket you they can find something since it's dang near impossible to be completely within the laws now days.


All kidding aside, this sounds like a bunch of Russians.

You know Solzhenitsyn's quote. "And how we burned in the camps later..."

You still have the ability to do something about it. Our system is "broken" because people don't use it. If a vote doesn't take care of it, we have other legal means to take care of it. Decades of organizational and communication experience and know-how. This is the true definition of Community Organizer--only use it for the right reasons.

REMEMBER: There are many, many good people who serve. We have some of them very evident on this forum. Often the police are a reflection of the locale itself. I can name top flight departments in local cities, and some not so top flight departments. There is a huge pay, professionalism and community involvement difference between good and bad. Coincidence?

No. In some cities the police department sectors have war zone similarities--the few good inhabitants are far outnumbered by the acts of the selfish or purely evil. It takes a special kind of human to remain human and act human in the face of an otherwise and literal jungle. Extremely few of us outside the military have never had our workplace blown up with a bomb, been set up for intentional ambush at work, followed home and shot at. Even getting mean-mugged during a trial and followed out by thug's buddies gives anyone pause.

Officers are touchable, both from thugs and local citizens. Being lumped with all the idiot officers protected by the problems in the legal system, cronyism, etc. does not help one bit. Being stripped of the tools they need to do their job efficiently and well--having them stripped for the wrong reasons--is not progress. You can force a good man from the job, it's already stressful as it is. A lot of what I have read here is Chicken Little, Foghorn Leghorn crap. If you can't control that, do not take a leadership position in your efforts. Hand it off to someone who exemplifies the maturity and tact to do this well. Put your shoulder into other aspects of the effort.

I have a brother that lives in a rural county. It is just as rife with murder, drugs, assault and abuse as a city. Only the offenders are every bit as wild and almost always have long guns within reach.

REMEMBER: You can VERY easily help, hinder or even hurt your local department with your community actions. As I said before, it takes wisdom, patience and love to figure these things out. It also takes a lot of courage. The good Russian people felt what you are feeling, but they had 1000% less capability than you. If they knew they could have stood up and done something, how much more you?

*I'm looking forward to hearing about each and every one of your proactive, wise, patient, loving, far-seeing approach to solving the problems in your local area. Let's hear it!* Many of you have been very vocal about police abuse both in this topic ere and in many, many others.

I know police abuse exists, I've seen it in public AND within the bowels of the department. I stood against it while also in uniform. I got crap on me--but that's half expected. When you mess with poop, you're going to get some stink on you.

Courage, honor. Do it. Wherever you speak again of abuse against you and your fellow citizens I will ask what you are doing about it. I hope everyone here does the same and challenges each other to that positive action.

Your actions help or hinder. The blood is on your hands if you hinder.


----------



## LincTex

GaryS said:


> The chilling part of this thread is the fact that unlike decades ago when anger and fear mostly existed between cops and criminals, we now see an ever widening split between police and the law abiding populace.


Sad but TRUE.

My wife was raised in a very conservative and law abiding family, went to Oral Roberts U, a VERY conservative college, and has never really ever broken the law. I think she has had two minor tickets her whole life. She is very afraid of cops... not by what they have done to her, but by what they have done to others that they had no right whatsoever to have done. EVER.

She sees the Kelly Thomas incident (where officer Manny Ramos put on gloves and told Kelly that he was going to F him up) not as an isolated incident.... but just the foretelling of a precipitated eventuality.

Manny Ramos is the cop of the future.... today.

I see it, my wife sees it ..... and so do so many others. The good cops are slowly being replaced with bad ones, like a cancer throughout the body.



GaryS said:


> If you ever served on a jury, you know how undeniably stupid jurors can be


All too true!!



GaryS said:


> I've served on many, and as I told the last judge, when I was asked during voir dire if I found my prior jury service rewarding, that I had seen lots of law practiced, but precious little justice dispensed. I was excused.


See, that SHOULD have been a wake-up call! The problem is that the judges and lawyers just don't care much anymore.



GaryS said:


> The courts must honor the Constitution to near perfection before citizens can respect it. When that respect is gone, so is the law. When the law ceases to be a search for justice and becomes a tool for politics, we find the despicable situation that exists today.
> 
> A few years ago, Claire Wolfe's quote evoked a smile, but now seems to be mainstream thought."America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do'Til the Revolution.


----------



## Geek999

Fn/Form said:


> All kidding aside, this sounds like a bunch of Russians.
> 
> You know Solzhenitsyn's quote. "And how we burned in the camps later..."
> 
> You still have the ability to do something about it. Our system is "broken" because people don't use it. If a vote doesn't take care of it, we have other legal means to take care of it. Decades of organizational and communication experience and know-how. This is the true definition of Community Organizer--only use it for the right reasons.
> 
> REMEMBER: There are many, many good people who serve. We have some of them very evident on this forum. Often the police are a reflection of the locale itself. I can name top flight departments in local cities, and some not so top flight departments. There is a huge pay, professionalism and community involvement difference between good and bad. Coincidence?
> 
> No. In some cities the police department sectors have war zone similarities--the few good inhabitants are far outnumbered by the acts of the selfish or purely evil. It takes a special kind of human to remain human and act human in the face of an otherwise and literal jungle. Extremely few of us outside the military have never had our workplace blown up with a bomb, been set up for intentional ambush at work, followed home and shot at. Even getting mean-mugged during a trial and followed out by thug's buddies gives anyone pause.
> 
> Officers are touchable, both from thugs and local citizens. Being lumped with all the idiot officers protected by the problems in the legal system, cronyism, etc. does not help one bit. Being stripped of the tools they need to do their job efficiently and well--having them stripped for the wrong reasons--is not progress. You can force a good man from the job, it's already stressful as it is. A lot of what I have read here is Chicken Little, Foghorn Leghorn crap. If you can't control that, do not take a leadership position in your efforts. Hand it off to someone who exemplifies the maturity and tact to do this well. Put your shoulder into other aspects of the effort.
> 
> I have a brother that lives in a rural county. It is just as rife with murder, drugs, assault and abuse as a city. Only the offenders are every bit as wild and almost always have long guns within reach.
> 
> REMEMBER: You can VERY easily help, hinder or even hurt your local department with your community actions. As I said before, it takes wisdom, patience and love to figure these things out. It also takes a lot of courage. The good Russian people felt what you are feeling, but they had 1000% less capability than you. If they knew they could have stood up and done something, how much more you?
> 
> *I'm looking forward to hearing about each and every one of your proactive, wise, patient, loving, far-seeing approach to solving the problems in your local area. Let's hear it!* Many of you have been very vocal about police abuse both in this topic ere and in many, many others.
> 
> I know police abuse exists, I've seen it in public AND within the bowels of the department. I stood against it while also in uniform. I got crap on me--but that's half expected. When you mess with poop, you're going to get some stink on you.
> 
> Courage, honor. Do it. Wherever you speak again of abuse against you and your fellow citizens I will ask what you are doing about it. I hope everyone here does the same and challenges each other to that positive action.
> 
> Your actions help or hinder. The blood is on your hands if you hinder.


I will not be restricted to my local area or state in the actions I take. The US Constitution applies to thw whole country and its violation anywhere within the country is an abuse none of us should tolerate.


----------



## Fn/Form

Geek999 said:


> I will not be restricted to my local area or state in the actions I take. The US Constitution applies to thw whole country and its violation anywhere within the country is an abuse none of us should tolerate.


No restriction intended or implied. Where did I restrict you? By all means, go nationwide.

I think you will find that nationwide efforts are great for communication... but very poor at local action. The welfare system is a prime example.

I'd appreciate more help here in Texas, but NY/NJ/MA area needs it worse.


----------



## Fn/Form

millertimedoneright said:


> Some places using a phone to video or voice record a police officer is illegal from what I have been told.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


A couple of ideas for you.

Change local and state law changed to allow recording... if at least one party to the recording is aware of the recording. Reasonable? Many states have this law.

Have local or state law require personal A/V recorders for enforcement agents, whether LE, code compliance or what have you. Mandate the records be retaine for a specified, reasonable amount of time. Again, some of this is already law/requirement in some localities.

A jury of your peers can work out the issues regarding where to draw the line between reasonble recording efforts and interfering with a public servants duties. For example, sticking a camera in the face of the water guy who's turning off your water for non-payment and preventing him from doing is job is ridiculous. But doing it from a distance and without making a stick-em-up finger in your jacket pocket is perfectly reasonable.


----------



## Geek999

Fn/Form said:


> No restriction intended or implied. Where did I restrict you? By all means, go nationwide.
> 
> I think you will find that nationwide efforts are great for communication... but very poor at local action. The welfare system is a prime example.
> 
> I'd appreciate more help here in Texas, but NY/NJ/MA area needs it worse.


The point is our rights are being restricted piecemeal and the country is facing the same fate as a boiled frog. Start with what appears to be a reasonable restriction then keep pushing the envelope until our rights are gone.

Look at air travel. We started with security to prevent hijackings. Hijackings are now prevented with stronger cockpit doors and passengers who know passive acceptance won't work. Do we roll back TSA? No, we create Viper teams who interfere with every form of travel.

If rights are restricted in one place they can be restricted where you are too.

You are correct that we need more help here in the northeast. We haven't gotten it and as a result the country has a cancer.


----------



## Fn/Form

Geek999 said:


> The point is our rights are being restricted piecemeal and the country is facing the same fate as a boiled frog. Start with what appears to be a reasonable restriction then keep pushing the envelope until our rights are gone.


If you cannot handle your business in your home area then you have zero hope of handling it nationwide. The head of the snake isn't in Washington, D.C., or some quasi-national being.

The solution starts LOCALLY. YOUR LOCALITY is the heart of the matter, that is the actual unit of national identity, that is where you have exponentially greater power as a citizen. As a citizen you are relatively powerless nationwide. The only value in thinking nationally is COMMUNICATION.

Communication doesn't solve problems, tho. It does help awareness of the problem, definition of the problem and sharing the most efficient solutions to the problem. The actual solution, however, is taking action locally. And if you don't take action, you are less than a fart in the wind of time.

All of these discussions keep bumping into the elephant in the room. The elephant hasn't yet been recognized in this entire thread.



> Look at air travel. We started with security to prevent hijackings. Hijackings are now prevented with stronger cockpit doors and passengers who know passive acceptance won't work. Do we roll back TSA? No, we create Viper teams who interfere with every form of travel.


You forgot to mention the facts we've intercepted shoe bombers, underwear bombers, liquid binary explosives, etc. Hijacking was just the beginning--mass murder in a metal tube in the sky is part of their plan as well.

I don't defend TSA thugs one bit. Or violations of my Rights. But tell me how you counter the above threats and real incidents? What are the specifics of your plan? I'm asking for details on how you plan to keep the airways safe AND how you plan to deal with TSA? You spend a lot of time talking about this problem.

I seriously doubt you have a plan, especially from your limited, uinformed presentation of these topics. Again we bump up against the elephant in the room.

*The elephant in the room is a question:* Are the American people smart enough to DO anything about this? From another angle--Is it really worth it to do ANYTHING, seeing as how allegedly stupid our countrymen are?

In this thread I have seen a lot of anger at what's going on in this country. I see comparatively ZERO action. I see a lot of excuses. Anger without channeling into action is being a stupid American. Crying out or railing against--without doing anything about the "boot" on your neck (to use the words of Meerkat)--means nothing and is a stupid American. There is no hope for us because of your stupidity. You are the reason we have to prep.

If you spent half as much time on action as you do on the internet, and 10% of the time you actually spend on prepping, then you would definitely have it better in your area. And we would be better as a nation.

*Get with it. Take action.*

If you can't be bothered, then do us the favor of taking your insular web identities and your I-give-up attitude and patiently and quietly wait for the TEOTWAWKI you are effectively driving us toward. If you can't do that, well, at least we Action people can block your posts from our individual views.

No more words, excuses, anger without action. Tell us how you're going to do something about the problems.


----------



## Geek999

Fn/Form said:


> If you cannot handle your business in your home area then you have zero hope of handling it nationwide. The head of the snake isn't in Washington, D.C., or some quasi-national being.
> 
> The solution starts LOCALLY. YOUR LOCALITY is the heart of the matter, that is the actual unit of national identity, that is where you have exponentially greater power as a citizen. As a citizen you are relatively powerless nationwide. The only value in thinking nationally is COMMUNICATION.
> 
> Communication doesn't solve problems, tho. It does help awareness of the problem, definition of the problem and sharing the most efficient solutions to the problem. The actual solution, however, is taking action locally. And if you don't take action, you are less than a fart in the wind of time.
> 
> All of these discussions keep bumping into the elephant in the room. The elephant hasn't yet been recognized in this entire thread.
> 
> You forgot to mention the facts we've intercepted shoe bombers, underwear bombers, liquid binary explosives, etc. Hijacking was just the beginning--mass murder in a metal tube in the sky is part of their plan as well.
> 
> I don't defend TSA thugs one bit. Or violations of my Rights. But tell me how you counter the above threats and real incidents? What are the specifics of your plan? I'm asking for details on how you plan to keep the airways safe AND how you plan to deal with TSA? You spend a lot of time talking about this problem.
> 
> I seriously doubt you have a plan, especially from your limited, uinformed presentation of these topics. Again we bump up against the elephant in the room.
> 
> *The elephant in the room is a question:* Are the American people smart enough to DO anything about this? From another angle--Is it really worth it to do ANYTHING, seeing as how allegedly stupid our countrymen are?
> 
> In this thread I have seen a lot of anger at what's going on in this country. I see comparatively ZERO action. I see a lot of excuses. Anger without channeling into action is being a stupid American. Crying out or railing against--without doing anything about the "boot" on your neck (to use the words of Meerkat)--means nothing and is a stupid American. There is no hope for us because of your stupidity. You are the reason we have to prep.
> 
> If you spent half as much time on action as you do on the internet, and 10% of the time you actually spend on prepping, then you would definitely have it better in your area. And we would be better as a nation.
> 
> *Get with it. Take action.*
> 
> If you can't be bothered, then do us the favor of taking your insular web identities and your I-give-up attitude and patiently and quietly wait for the TEOTWAWKI you are effectively driving us toward. If you can't do that, well, at least we Action people can block your posts from our individual views.
> 
> No more words, excuses, anger without action. Tell us how you're going to do something about the problems.


You are totally missing the point about local vs. national approaches. If you tolerate incursions on the Bill of Rights in some other part of the country while working "locally", the precedent of limiting your rights has been set and you just lost yours, but don't know it yet.

How long do you think it will take for some abomination in NY to make it to NJ? Sitting back and saying "well those New Yorkers voted for it, what do I care?" won't cut it. That's the attitude that has gotten us to where 1/3 of the population has no legal right to carry.


----------



## Fn/Form

Geek999 said:


> You are totally missing the point about local vs. national approaches. If you tolerate incursions on the Bill of Rights in some other part of the country while working "locally", the precedent of limiting your rights has been set and you just lost yours, but don't know it yet.
> 
> How long do you think it will take for some abomination in NY to make it to NJ? Sitting back and saying "well those New Yorkers voted for it, what do I care?" won't cut it. That's the attitude that has gotten us to where 1/3 of the population has no legal right to carry.


In the very post you quote above I tell you the benefits of national participation. Scroll back several posts and read where I told you to go nationwide.

You know the concepts I speak of, you've been schooled in reality, but you will not participate. Not online, and not in person.

Last chance. Cut the straw man rehashing, and let's REASON. Let's discuss how we're going to address the local militarization or demeanor of local law enforcement. Your lead. Go!


----------



## Geek999

Fn/Form said:


> In the very post you quote above I tell you the benefits of national participation. Scroll back several posts and read where I told you to go nationwide.
> 
> You know the concepts I speak of, you've been schooled in reality, but you will not participate. Not online, and not in person.
> 
> Last chance. Cut the straw man rehashing, and let's REASON. Let's discuss how we're going to address the local militarization or demeanor of local law enforcement. Your lead. Go!


What gives you the idea I won't participate? I don't believe I have indicated anything of the sort. You're making a very false assumption.


----------



## tc556guy

Fn/Form said:


> Let's discuss how we're going to address the local militarization or demeanor of local law enforcement. Your lead. Go!


There is no "militarization" of law enforcement
Just because most LEOs don't look like the NJSP anymore, have realistic uniforms, gear and tactics, doesn't mean they are being "militarized"
It is a false controversy being generated mainly by folks on gun and prep forums.


----------



## Fn/Form

Geek999 said:


> What gives you the idea I won't participate? I don't believe I have indicated anything of the sort. You're making a very false assumption.


There is no further discussion here. I wish you the best in your righteous endeavors.


----------



## Fn/Form

tc556guy said:


> There is no "militarization" of law enforcement
> Just because most LEOs don't look like the NJSP anymore, have realistic uniforms, gear and tactics, doesn't mean they are being "militarized"
> It is a false controversy being generated mainly by folks on gun and prep forums.


Thar was a reference to the person's own terminology, first comment on the first page of this thread. I was willing to meet them where they stood, but there was no discussion after all.


----------



## Geek999

Historically the country has been very opposed to the use of the military for domestic purposes due to our experiences in both the Revolution and the Civil War. Several elements of the Bill of Rights and the concept of posse comitatus are expressly for that purpose. In the past 40 years there has been a trend to adopt military tactics, e.g. SWAT is essentially urban warfare tactics used domestically, military equipment, e.g. MRAPs, armored personnel carriers, and a military appearance.

This trend is what people mean when they are referring to militarization of police.


----------



## BlueShoe

I'll say that I don't argue with your call to action but we need to set the facts in correct order regarding some charges made.



Fn/Form said:


> You forgot to mention the facts we've intercepted shoe bombers, underwear bombers, liquid binary explosives, etc. Hijacking was just the beginning--mass murder in a metal tube in the sky is part of their plan as well.


When you say "we've intercepted shoe bombers, underwear bombers", you know you aren't talking about the TSA? Because they didn't stop any of those. Those were all stopped by the passengers and airline employees. The Republican created TSA was a budget busting increase of federal employees and hasn't stopped the major events covered in our media. Even though Newt Gingrich suggested that the DHS and TSA should allow some of the events to happen so we can show how good of job they're doing. 



> I don't defend TSA thugs one bit. Or violations of my Rights. But tell me how you counter the above threats and real incidents?


Well that means you incorrectly think the TSA prevented those you listed. They didn't prevent the ones I rebutted to.



> I seriously doubt you have a plan, especially from your limited, uinformed presentation of these topics.


There's a lot of uninformed presentation going around.



> *The elephant in the room is a question:* Are the American people smart enough to DO anything about this?


 The facts being what they are it probably should go without saying that it was the private citizens who foiled the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber even though an undocumented man was escorted on one of the plains to commit his attack. [/quote]

We we can start by eliminating the TSA and DHS.


----------



## Geek999

BlueShoe said:


> I'll say that I don't argue with your call to action but we need to set the facts in correct order regarding some charges made.
> 
> When you say "we've intercepted shoe bombers, underwear bombers", you know you aren't talking about the TSA? Because they didn't stop any of those. Those were all stopped by the passengers and airline employees. The Republican created TSA was a budget busting increase of federal employees and hasn't stopped the major events covered in our media. Even though Newt Gingrich suggested that the DHS and TSA should allow some of the events to happen so we can show how good of job they're doing.
> 
> Well that means you incorrectly think the TSA prevented those you listed. They didn't prevent the ones I rebutted to.
> 
> There's a lot of uninformed presentation going around.
> 
> The facts being what they are it probably should go without saying that it was the private citizens who foiled the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber even though an undocumented man was escorted on one of the plains to commit his attack.


We we can start by eliminating the TSA and DHS.[/QUOTE]

I've said before I was in the WTC when it was hit. In my opinion, The combination of cockpit doors and passengers being aware is all the security we need for air travel.

We don't need the removal of toy guns from sock puppets, banning of nail clippers, ad nauseam.


----------



## BillM

*Just as*



Geek999 said:


> Historically the country has been very opposed to the use of the military for domestic purposes due to our experiences in both the Revolution and the Civil War. Several elements of the Bill of Rights and the concept of posse comitatus are expressly for that purpose. In the past 40 years there has been a trend to adopt military tactics, e.g. SWAT is essentially urban warfare tactics used domestically, military equipment, e.g. MRAPs, armored personnel carriers, and a military appearance.
> 
> This trend is what people mean when they are referring to militarization of police.


Just as a black rifle is no more dangerous than a more traditional rifle with a wooden stock, An officer in SWAT gear is no more dangerous than an officer in a traditional uniform.

You should quit worrying about what the officer looks like and only worry about what he does.


----------



## LincTex

BillM said:


> Just as a black rifle is no more dangerous than a more traditional rifle with a wooden stock, An officer in SWAT gear is no more dangerous than an officer in a traditional uniform.
> You should quit worrying about what the officer looks like and only worry about what he does.


Not necessarily.

Basic Human Psychology 101 always proves that when you give someone greater authority, ability, tools or weapons... the tendency to get into situations with the possibility to test the new-found abilities or equipment increases (simply because fewer dangerous situations are no longer avoided)

I know people who will avoid certain areas/places if they are not carrying concealed that day - - - and will go into the same area again later when carrying. I'll have to admit, I have done the same at times as well. Police are no different.


----------



## Geek999

The guy in SWAT gear has a battering ram to destroy your house, flashbangs that cause fires, routinely shoot any dogs, terrorize entire families, etc. When they hit the wrong house, or the person they are after is totally innocent, what is the result? Typically he has to sue just to get reapirs done.

You aren't in Mayberry any more.

Let's assume 90% of SWAT raids are the correct home, organic farm or barbershop$ that means 6,000 are either innocent or not even the right house. What do you think those 6000 families think about cops?

Per year.


----------



## rf197

Geek999 said:


> I've said before I was in the WTC when it was hit.


Remember some folks ran out of the WTC, COPS and FIREFIGHTERS ran in. My point? Stop the bashing.


----------



## Fn/Form

Geek999 said:


> The guy in SWAT gear has a battering ram to destroy your house, flashbangs that cause fires, routinely shoot any dogs, terrorize entire families, etc. When they hit the wrong house, or the person they are after is totally innocent, what is the result? Typically he has to sue just to get reapirs done.
> 
> You aren't in Mayberry any more.
> 
> Let's assume 90% of SWAT raids are the correct home, organic farm or barbershop$ that means 6,000 are either innocent or not even the right house. What do you think those 6000 families think about cops?
> 
> Per year.


If you answer my questions, I'll answer yours.

You've got some catching up to do. At the tail end you can prove your "90%" statistic.


----------



## BillM

*It would actually*



Geek999 said:


> The guy in SWAT gear has a battering ram to destroy your house, flashbangs that cause fires, routinely shoot any dogs, terrorize entire families, etc. When they hit the wrong house, or the person they are after is totally innocent, what is the result? Typically he has to sue just to get reapirs done.
> 
> You aren't in Mayberry any more.
> 
> Let's assume 90% of SWAT raids are the correct home, organic farm or barbershop$ that means 6,000 are either innocent or not even the right house. What do you think those 6000 families think about cops?
> 
> Per year.


It would actually be about 99 % of the raids that happen at the correct house.

The 1% that happen at the wrong house get maximum exposure in the media.

Entry teams stack up and go in to overwhelm people who might otherwise fight back. It is safer for the officers and the arrested individual.

Defense attorneys will tell you if you ask that it is not very often that they defend truly innocent clients.

Some of them go through their whole careers without ever having an innocent client.

I am just giving you a little dose of reality.


----------



## Fn/Form

BlueShoe said:


> I'll say that I don't argue with your call to action but we need to set the facts in correct order regarding some charges made.
> 
> When you say "we've intercepted shoe bombers, underwear bombers", you know you aren't talking about the TSA? Because they didn't stop any of those. Those were all stopped by the passengers and airline employees. The Republican created TSA was a budget busting increase of federal employees and hasn't stopped the major events covered in our media. Even though Newt Gingrich suggested that the DHS and TSA should allow some of the events to happen so we can show how good of job they're doing.
> 
> Well that means you incorrectly think the TSA prevented those you listed. They didn't prevent the ones I rebutted to.
> 
> There's a lot of uninformed presentation going around.
> 
> The facts being what they are it probably should go without saying that it was the private citizens who foiled the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber even though an undocumented man was escorted on one of the plains to commit his attack.
> 
> We we can start by eliminating the TSA and DHS.


I think you have my cart before my horse. Maybe I can better explain it.

The only reason the persons who stopped the underwear/shoe/fluid bombers were because the attempts were not successful on the first try. If they didn't have problems the people would never have had time to react. The flights would never reached destination intact or at all.

The point is there is nothing to replace the TSA's job outside of full body/chem scans for everyone or simply not flying at all. And TSA's increased role was created in reactionary fashion, sadly. There has been an effort to combine that reactionary update to include emerging threats such as surgical or forced implants in body cavities.

We kind of get it right, but we're no El Al.

I'm sure you could begin brokering General Aviation flights for people who want no scans/searches at all. 'cause 'merica. But you might find pilots unwilling to ferry the unwashed (unsearched) masses en masse.

Pick your poison.

"eliminating DHS and TSA" is crazy talk. You have no idea how many people they've intercepted on the ground and trying to get in the air because the agencies have some semblance of information sharing now (and it's still pathetic). I'm not talking about news stories, I'm talking about the cases you don't hear about. The news doesn't scratch the surface.

Heck we still haven't better secured our schools even though the Russians have been warning us for a loooong time. We won't even learn from our homegrown killers.

If you don't have the guts to lead, we will all fall with you.


----------



## mojo4

Geek999 said:


> I do vote and am quite clear in what matters in my choice of candidates. As I mentioned earlier I did launch legal action against my local police and am pleased with the settlement. However, we still have the same basic problem throughout at least the Blue States regardless of resolution of my complaint.
> 
> The 84 yo was in NY. I am in NJ and my impression is NY is worse overall.


Well geek its time to move. Seriously!!! When you don't trust your local gov and local LE to the point where you are afraid for your safety just get out!! As I have never lived or even visited the NE US I have heard not good things about the abuse and corruption. When there is extremely densely populated areas the LE tend to have a bunker mentality. They are all against us so we stick together and so on and so forth. Add in the gov with a dim view of personal freedoms especially on gun control issues and I say its high time for a bug out. Leave now while you still can buddy.


----------



## GaryS

It's time to put iron bars on schools and armed federal employees on the gates. Make people fly nude in government approved togas...give enemas to all airline passengers before flight...issue government regulated toothpaste tubes and shampoo bottles...shoot all dogs when raiding homes looking for traffic ticket scofflaws...club into insensibility everyone who questions a government employee's actions...nothing is too extreme when protecting citizens! It's for your own good!

As for me, I'll not comply with that authoritarian crap of accepting only what's good for me. When the TSA was created, I quit flying. When the police became combat troops with tacit approval to destroy without fear of sanction, I quit respecting. If simple freedoms must be stifled and eradicated in the name of public safety, then go ahead and shoot me right now, because without liberty life is not worth living.


----------



## Fn/Form

GaryS said:


> It's time to put iron bars on schools and armed federal employees on the gates. Make people fly nude in government approved togas...give enemas to all airline passengers before flight...issue government regulated toothpaste tubes and shampoo bottles...shoot all dogs when raiding homes looking for traffic ticket scofflaws...club into insensibility everyone who questions a government employee's actions...nothing is too extreme when protecting citizens! It's for your own good!
> 
> As for me, I'll not comply with that authoritarian crap of accepting only what's good for me. When the TSA was created, I quit flying. When the police became combat troops with tacit approval to destroy without fear of sanction, I quit respecting. If simple freedoms must be stifled and eradicated in the name of public safety, then go ahead and shoot me right now, because without liberty life is not worth living.


GaryS, the above is not searching out a matter. It is a fit of wilfully uninformed exasperation; and it's all the more ironic given its typed on a device connected to an Internet with a wealth of verifiable information. Your fit is a perfect example of lack of wisdom, patience and love in treatment of a perceived problem.

I'd be happy to try to discuss this with you, but a discussion demands a willingness to clarify and define the problem and make a reasonable plan for solution. I don't know that you're capable of it, but I'm willing to give it another go when you're ready.

Remember that you live in the same world as the Russians, Israelis, Spanish, Germans, etc. And they keep warning us about what they experience, what they find, and how America is not living in reality. All of this began well before 2001.

The Israelis are no less hated than we are by our shared enemies. Yet Israel lives in an effectively target-rich environment with direct, overland connection to terrorists. The way they protect their airlines, borders, shopping malls and deploy federal, state and local public servants is an art. It is living well in spite of the surroundings. It is a constant effort, a huge drain on their resources. It is courageous, but they know it is necessary to live peacefully as possible at the present moment in time.

We don't have 24hr EOD tech coverage in major population centers like the Israelis do. Their most popular malls put any airport, let alone TSA, to shame. It's a life for death matter for them. If they ignore it, they die.

And here, we, the no-less hated, whine about how the world changes (which have already cost us 10s of thousands of killed and injured) and how it inconveniences us. We're a fat, lazy, effectively illiterate, stupid people that are cutting our own throats.

There is evidence the Mumbai attack was supposed to be NYC. We have experts such as Lt. Col. David Grossman who plead with us to heed the lessons learned from Beslan. Trains bombed in Spain, planes bombed for the last 40yrs, etc.

You want to blame someone? Blame Al Qaeda, etc., who threaten the mode of travel that forms a backbone of our economy--local and worldwide. Blame your leaders who spend billions on training for war but don't have the stomach to war when it's required. Rather they ply a military malaise of good intentions, but raped intentions.

Blame yourself for being one of the people too selfishly angry to lift a finger. Do you know what a self-fulfilling prophecy is? Here's a definition quoted in Wikipedia:

"*The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the original false conception come 'true'. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning.*"


----------



## GaryS

Despite your snarky comment hinting that I am incapable of discussing this subject rationally, I'll refrain from returning it in kind.

You may choose to support the current situation all you want...that's a freedom we still have...but I am not, nor will I ever be an apologist for wrongdoing in the name of safety. Remember our founder's thoughts on that.

For your edification, I DO blame Muslim extremists for the violence, but I also blame us, both political parties, for not being able to mind our own business. I might not be as informed as you, but I'm not a mushroom either. The Middle East is the Middle East's business, not ours. We can't police the world and we can't reform religion, and I have no stomach for trying either any longer. I tried holding that view during my 23 years in the military, but believing in fantasies, hoping they become reality, is simply a waste of time and in my dotage I'm inclined to quit wasting my time.

If you perceive a view that contradicts yours to my being fat, lazy, effectively illiterate, stupid, and selfishly angry, so be it, but you don't know me. I'm not fat, I'm not lazy, I'm not selfish, and I believe I'm at least one step above illiterate and stupid, but you're damn right I'm angry!

In the meantime, I'm not going to let some government union thug grope my ass before I can travel to aunt Millie, or turn a blind eye when an officer of the law decides the laws don't pertain to him as long as it's for "the public good". That's the fight I'm going to continue, not the one that believes they can moderate religious lunatics, or the one that tries to force feed our way of life on a group of people who spend their day growing poppies and currying camels and simply wish to continue doing so.


----------



## millertimedoneright

GaryS said:


> Despite your snarky comment hinting that I am incapable of discussing this subject rationally, I'll refrain from returning it in kind.
> 
> You may choose to support the current situation all you want...that's a freedom we still have...but I am not, nor will I ever be an apologist for wrongdoing in the name of safety. Remember our founder's thoughts on that.
> 
> For your edification, I DO blame Muslim extremists for the violence, but I also blame us, both political parties, for not being able to mind our own business. I might not be as informed as you, but I'm not a mushroom either. The Middle East is the Middle East's business, not ours. We can't police the world and we can't reform religion, and I have no stomach for trying either any longer. I tried holding that view during my 23 years in the military, but believing in fantasies, hoping they become reality, is simply a waste of time and in my dotage I'm inclined to quit wasting my time.
> 
> If you perceive a view that contradicts yours to my being fat, lazy, effectively illiterate, stupid, and selfishly angry, so be it, but you don't know me. I'm not fat, I'm not lazy, I'm not selfish, and I believe I'm at least one step above illiterate and stupid, but you're damn right I'm angry!
> 
> In the meantime, I'm not going to let some government union thug grope my ass before I can travel to aunt Millie, or turn a blind eye when an officer of the law decides the laws don't pertain to him as long as it's for "the public good". That's the fight I'm going to continue, not the one that believes they can moderate religious lunatics, or the one that tries to force feed our way of life on a group of people who spend their day growing poppies and currying camels and simply wish to continue doing so.


 I agree completely. If we mind our own business and stop sticking our nose in everyone else's we would have no need for these invasive security measures. I will take being in "danger" over being dang near molested any day of the week. Keep your "safety" I will keep my rights.

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Fn/Form

GaryS said:


> Despite your snarky comment hinting that I am incapable of discussing this subject rationally, I'll refrain from returning it in kind.
> 
> You may choose to support the current situation all you want...that's a freedom we still have...but I am not, nor will I ever be an apologist for wrongdoing in the name of safety. Remember our founder's thoughts on that.
> 
> For your edification, I DO blame Muslim extremists for the violence, but I also blame us, both political parties, for not being able to mind our own business. I might not be as informed as you, but I'm not a mushroom either. The Middle East is the Middle East's business, not ours. We can't police the world and we can't reform religion, and I have no stomach for trying either any longer. I tried holding that view during my 23 years in the military, but believing in fantasies, hoping they become reality, is simply a waste of time and in my dotage I'm inclined to quit wasting my time.
> 
> If you perceive a view that contradicts yours to my being fat, lazy, effectively illiterate, stupid, and selfishly angry, so be it, but you don't know me. I'm not fat, I'm not lazy, I'm not selfish, and I believe I'm at least one step above illiterate and stupid, but you're damn right I'm angry!
> 
> In the meantime, I'm not going to let some government union thug grope my ass before I can travel to aunt Millie, or turn a blind eye when an officer of the law decides the laws don't pertain to him as long as it's for "the public good". That's the fight I'm going to continue, not the one that believes they can moderate religious lunatics, or the one that tries to force feed our way of life on a group of people who spend their day growing poppies and currying camels and simply wish to continue doing so.


GaryS, your post before the above one gave a synopsis of how you feel about some very large topics, and some conclusions without much support. WHY do you think the way you do? Please tell me. I really, honestly want to know.

You referred to my take on TSA and such. I plainly stated I do not accept violations of my rights. I am not happy with the system. But I understand why a system is needed.

I have yet to find a single person with your level of anger that will spend some time:
- Laying it all out in the open
- Find what's true or not
- Make a plan to take action on what's true
- Take action

It plays out the same way 95% of the time, online or in person. I do my best to press for real info and help work toward a real solution. I hope they'll start a real journey to find out what's really going on.

Or simply think twice in the future when they are tempted to make conclusionary statements about things they really don't know about... or suffer the consequences again. Questions and inquiry is always welcome, and it's something I actively participate in. But uninformed, unbased statements cannot go unanswered.

I hope you are indeed different. You're the first to engage, here. Who else in this thread will join in this effort to find the truth and make a proactive, best faith effort to do something about what you find? *millertimedoneright*?

GaryS, I don't think your conclusions are an accurate read of Why the TSA scheme exists and How the solution is implemented. I believe there are serious problems they address, and there are serious problems within. Experts in other countries, Israel one of the most notable, are telling us how we're doing it wrong.

I don't agree with your take on DHS and law enforcement in general. I have worked with guys from JTTF, local SWAT and more. It doesn't jive. Let's discuss and find out where either of us is right or wrong. I'm up for it.

You know what I was saying about us being fat, stupid and illiterate people. We have enough comfort at the moment to not have to care. We're stupid to be preoccupied with the things we are. We're illiterate in that we are surrounded by information, even delivered information to our fingertips, but unwilling to know it. At least, not do anything about it beyond some maybe-possible-future reactionary response.

Do we effectively expect solutions on a silver platter? Should it just ought to magically not be this way, or should "someone" else fix it for us?

That's not reality in the world of a first-world citizen.


----------



## tc556guy

Geek999 said:


> Historically the country has been very opposed to the use of the military for domestic purposes due to our experiences in both the Revolution and the Civil War. Several elements of the Bill of Rights and the concept of posse comitatus are expressly for that purpose. In the past 40 years there has been a trend to adopt military tactics, e.g. SWAT is essentially urban warfare tactics used domestically, military equipment, e.g. MRAPs, armored personnel carriers, and a military appearance.
> 
> This trend is what people mean when they are referring to militarization of police.


I know what they mean by the term.
That doesn't change the reality that just because LE is adopting gear that's appropriate for the task and the type of work they do that they are becoming "militarized"


----------



## tc556guy

GaryS said:


> When the police became combat troops with tacit approval to destroy without fear of sanction, I quit respecting. If simple freedoms must be stifled and eradicated in the name of public safety, then go ahead and shoot me right now, because without liberty life is not worth living.


I must have missed where LE policies did away with use of force guidelines, case law, etc that dictate LE activities. Please show us where LE has an official policy of "approval to destroy without fear of sanction"....


----------



## GaryS

Fn/Form...Yesterday I spent a half-hour in front of my computer responding to each of your latest comments, fully intending to debate the issues. Today, I blew everything away after asking myself why I should waste my time and yours. 

Our split is too deep to reach any sort of agreement. Neither is willing to compromise his core beliefs, so why bore others with opinionated rants. We have each chosen sides and while my libertarian side has already given up too much, your authoritarian side is willing to surrender even more freedom, in exchange for unattainable promises of security. Let's just end it here.


----------



## GaryS

tc556guy said:


> I must have missed where LE policies did away with use of force guidelines, case law, etc that dictate LE activities. Please show us where LE has an official policy of "approval to destroy without fear of sanction"....


You misquoted me. I never mentioned "official" anything. If you condone SWAT style entries into private homes to serve warrants for non-violent crimes, then we just disagree on the term "tacitly approved destruction".


----------



## Fn/Form

GaryS said:


> Fn/Form...Yesterday I spent a half-hour in front of my computer responding to each of your latest comments, fully intending to debate the issues. Today, I blew everything away after asking myself why I should waste my time and yours.
> 
> Our split is too deep to reach any sort of agreement. Neither is willing to compromise his core beliefs, so why bore others with opinionated rants. We have each chosen sides and while my libertarian side has already given up too much, your authoritarian side is willing to surrender even more freedom, in exchange for unattainable promises of security. Let's just end it here.


Thanks for taking that time, GaryS.

If we don't spend time and effort working this out, then we will never understand any better. For example, my personal perspective.

I am a Libertarian. I no longer work for any government entities, nor do I want to. I work in the private sector in an unrelated field. I don't see huge difference between how you and I feel about these issues. I do see a huge difference in our experiences with it and how we go about changing it.

I do have a good bit of insider experience to share. I put many, many hours into organizing efforts to make the department better and attack the people who should not be there. I tracked one project and found I spent 200hrs of personal time on it. There was also period of time during where I looked over my shoulder to make sure one of the problem officers wasn't about to ambush me. The same for a few others involved in that particular effort. We all wore the same uniform and patrolled the same streets as the terd officer.

Please reconsider your decision and some of your assumptions about me. If we cannot talk here, on a simple online forum, it does not bode well for our ability elsewhere.

I do not--not for a second--believe I have a complete, full handle on the issues at hand. I am prepared to be wrong, and I accept that. If I make a statement, I expect it to be examined for truth. I respond in kind.

However, I will not accept baseless statements or throw the baby out with the bath water. If a person makes a statement and refuses to discuss then it adds little weight to our discussion.

Here are my general thoughts on how we might do this:
1. Focus on a narrow topic and stay on that topic until branching out is seriously warranted. Indeed there are many inter-related issues, but we cannot afford the time or distraction of tangential issues.
2. Search for the Truth of the matter, first and foremost. This takes maturity, restraint many times. Objectivity is paramount. Especially when we're simply defining the problem.
3. Accept the truth wherever we find it.
3. Be loving, be wise and continue to do something about our concerns or fears no matter how long this discussion lasts or doesn't last.

When can we start? Anyone is invited.


----------



## Geek999

If you want a narrow topic, we seem to keep dancing around the appropriate use of SWAT. I think in a general sense the forum knows my views, so I won't rehash them while the question is simply whether that is a narrow enough topic.


----------



## camo2460

One of the problems as I see it is a lot of folks get their information from you tube and the lame stream media, and take the information as gospel, but never realize that their only getting part of the story. For example: there is a you tube video of a Missouri police dept. breaking down a door, shooting a dog and searching the occupants and the residence, which many here have alluded to. What they don't tell you is that the occupants were known gang members, drug pushers, and the dog attacked the officers, who had no other recourse but to shoot it. Now if these so called "jack booted thugs" and their tactics piss you off, consider that these "people" are known to engage in drive by shootings where innocent kids are killed or injured, and are known to peddle drugs to school kids. Further these gang members are known to beat passers by on the street, commit robberies, and assignation style hits. If the black uniform and the black rifle scares you, consider how scared you would be if you had to send your kid out into that war zone, and what would happen if those "jack booted thugs" were not actively engaged in bringing those sh*t bags to justice.


----------



## BillM

Special Weapons And Tactics = SWAT

If the police used them every time they served a search warrant or an arrest warrant, then they wouldn't be special.

They don't !


----------



## Fn/Form

Geek999 said:


> If you want a narrow topic, we seem to keep dancing around the appropriate use of SWAT. I think in a general sense the forum knows my views, so I won't rehash them while the question is simply whether that is a narrow enough topic.


I would at least like input on the topic focus from the likes of the OP and GaryS. Failing that, we'll continue with the most popular topic.

To anyone else interested in meaningful discussion: please sound off with what you believe to be the most important topic in the nature of this thread. ONE post with the topic and your detailed-as-possible justification for its consideration.


----------



## Dakine

I'm still reading this thread, and I see there's some animosity, lets ask this...



Fn/Form said:


> I'd be happy to try to discuss this with you, but a discussion demands a willingness to clarify and define the problem and make a reasonable plan for solution. I don't know that you're capable of it, but I'm willing to give it another go when you're ready.


why? why does calling bull$hit on bull$hit require that someone submit to your predisposed form of redress? You're no authority to tell someone their argument isn't valid because you didn't get to have the conversation you wanted. your backhanded "offer" to capitulate to your point of view is offensive.



Fn/Form said:


> Remember that you live in the same world as the Russians, Israelis, Spanish, Germans, etc. And they keep warning us about what they experience, what they find, and how America is not living in reality. All of this began well before 2001.


No we don't. FACT: Israel profiles. IT WORKS. How many airliners have crashed into Tel Aviv? How many have been hijacked? and this is the #1 enemy of the fanatical extremists correct? They only hate us because we support them, is that correct?



Fn/Form said:


> I have yet to find a single person with your level of anger that will spend some time:
> - Laying it all out in the open
> - Find what's true or not
> - Make a plan to take action on what's true
> - Take action


because 2 guys hugging it out on the interwebz solves the international terror problem. are you for real???

I could go on all day picking this crap apart, but normally Fn/Form is about facts, right now I dont know what he's after.

and I dont agree with millertimedoneright either, unless we're gonna stipulate that anyone wanting to board an airplane does so wearing a speedo...  what has been seen can NOT be unseen!!! 

I wont fly anymore because TSA is completely absurd and because things that really work to identify terrorists are forbidden to be done. We wouldnt want to hurt anyones feelings while trying to stop airliners from crashing into the sea/land/buildings like the muslim extremists seem to love to do whenever possible.

Just calling it like it is...


----------



## Fn/Form

Dakine said:


> why? why does calling bull$hit on bull$hit require that someone submit to your predisposed form of redress? You're no authority to tell someone their argument isn't valid because you didn't get to have the conversation you wanted. your backhanded "offer" to capitulate to your point of view is offensive.


Anyone can call BS, just like anyone can get married. What you do with it after that is the real responsibility. And HOW you accomplish it makes all the difference in the world.

Calling BS, like getting married, is only the beginning, and it's second easiest thing to do. The easiest part is destroying the issue or marriage by active abuse or simply doing nothing.

I am asking for the What you do with it, and I am asking for How you are going to do it. Otherwise the BS calling is simply a bunch of noisy crows.

That is what is different.



> No we don't. FACT: Israel profiles. IT WORKS. How many airliners have crashed into Tel Aviv? How many have been hijacked? and this is the #1 enemy of the fanatical extremists correct? They only hate us because we support them, is that correct?


I think you misunderstood what I was saying. You are proving my point.

By saying "remember you live in the same world" I meant we, the Israelis, Russians, etc. all live in the same world affected by terrorists. It matters not how long it takes for what we see Over There to make it Over Here.

My main point is that we SEE a lot threats overseas before they make it to the US. Flying planes into buildings, surgically implanted explosives, etc. Russia, et al., freely share what they are finding. But we work in a reactionary fashion instead of the proactive fashion many of them work in.



> because 2 guys hugging it out on the interwebz solves the international terror problem. are you for real???
> 
> I could go on all day picking this crap apart, but normally Fn/Form is about facts, right now I dont know what he's after.
> 
> and I dont agree with millertimedoneright either, unless we're gonna stipulate that anyone wanting to board an airplane does so wearing a speedo...  what has been seen can NOT be unseen!!!
> 
> I wont fly anymore because TSA is completely absurd and because things that really work to identify terrorists are forbidden to be done. We wouldnt want to hurt anyones feelings while trying to stop airliners from crashing into the sea/land/buildings like the muslim extremists seem to love to do whenever possible.
> 
> Just calling it like it is...


Hugging it out it is not.

This is for mature people interested in a solution. Problem solving begins with definition of the problem.

Nitpicking, carrying out someone's metaphors to odd and unintended extents, simply calling BS and making hit 'n run comments... is not defining the problem.

This is a call to begin that process. I would like to focus on that process. The moments for back 'n forth comments nitpicking, etc. is over.

We have to work at trying to see what someone is really trying to say. We try to see the core of the issue and deal with it, working through the imperfect presentations.

On the other hand, we have to make an honest attempt at presenting our thoughts and proofs without coloring it with our subjective thoughts.

Speaker and listener alike have work to do, and it's all about seeking the truth of the matter in civility. It's what the forums are all about. But it's not what many posters are all about, no matter the intentions.

Let's move on from that.


----------



## FatTire

Ill make an attempt here to try and noodle thru some of the issue of 'the militarization of police'. I think to start with we have to agree that such a thing is going on. I would argue that when SWAT is used to confiscate a deer from an animal shelter, its pretty clear that those giving the orders know they have a highly effective, very efficient tool at their disposal and are not averse to using that tool so long as any justification (there do exist after all, radical animal rights groups) can be made. Put another way, when your favorite tool is a hammer, most problems start to look like nails. Given incidents like the above mentioned deer case, it seems reasonable to conclude that the militarization of police is a reality. 

In order to come up with possible solutions, i think we must look at the roots, at what caused the issue. It seems pretty clear to me we need look no further than the war on drugs. In fact, examining the war on drugs leads to the only reasonable conclusion, that in empowering our police to prosecute this war, we have necessitated the militarization of the police, and have given up our Liberty in the name of safety. The really sad part is, the war on drugs is an absolute abysmal failure, the net result of which is increased violence, and decreased liberty. Drugs cannot be kept out of prisons, yet the powers that be seem all too willing to monitor everything we say and do, and to limit our freedom of movement, turning everyday life into a de facto prison where we have just the slimmest illusion of freedom.

We could add to the 'war on drugs', the 'war on terror', and see similar results, with an added threat to liberty; anyone can be labeled a 'terrorist'. Our veterans who disagree with the current administration, open carry advocates, even the farmer who sells raw milk and the prepper who thinks is a good idea to have more than a box of 410 shells, can all be 'terrorists'.

So given these roots, it becomes clear to me that if we want solutions, we need to advocate more liberty, and thereby more responsibility, not less. The more we place our safety in the hands of authority figures, the less liberty we will have. It is dangerous to allow people the choice to use drugs or not. some, perhaps many, will abuse it and become a danger to others. If we want less SWAT team raids on the wrong house, thats the chance we have to take. Personally, Id prefer to deal with a junky attempting to steal my tv, than a team of highly trained and motivated guys with automatic weapons and flash bangs trying to steal my liberty. The solution to me is obvious, legalize drugs.

As to the 'war on terror', I think we can find the solution again in more liberty, rather than less. We the people must assert our natural right to self defense. This means that sometimes crazy people are going to get on planes, go on shooting sprees, and generally be nutjobs with guns. The trade-off is, for every nutjob with a gun, there will be (or could be) dozens of decent civilians with guns ready and able to respond.

So, nuts and bolts solutions.. I dont know. I think we are well past the point of convinced people that more liberty is the answer. Im pretty sure im going to get a lot of disagreement right here on this forum. Its an interesting discussion though...


----------



## camo2460

FatTire said:


> Ill make an attempt here to try and noodle thru some of the issue of 'the militarization of police'. I think to start with we have to agree that such a thing is going on. I would argue that when SWAT is used to confiscate a deer from an animal shelter, its pretty clear that those giving the orders know they have a highly effective, very efficient tool at their disposal and are not averse to using that tool so long as any justification (there do exist after all, radical animal rights groups) can be made. Put another way, when your favorite tool is a hammer, most problems start to look like nails. Given incidents like the above mentioned deer case, it seems reasonable to conclude that the militarization of police is a reality.
> 
> In order to come up with possible solutions, i think we must look at the roots, at what caused the issue. It seems pretty clear to me we need look no further than the war on drugs. In fact, examining the war on drugs leads to the only reasonable conclusion, that in empowering our police to prosecute this war, we have necessitated the militarization of the police, and have given up our Liberty in the name of safety. The really sad part is, the war on drugs is an absolute abysmal failure, the net result of which is increased violence, and decreased liberty. Drugs cannot be kept out of prisons, yet the powers that be seem all too willing to monitor everything we say and do, and to limit our freedom of movement, turning everyday life into a de facto prison where we have just the slimmest illusion of freedom.
> 
> We could add to the 'war on drugs', the 'war on terror', and see similar results, with an added threat to liberty; anyone can be labeled a 'terrorist'. Our veterans who disagree with the current administration, open carry advocates, even the farmer who sells raw milk and the prepper who thinks is a good idea to have more than a box of 410 shells, can all be 'terrorists'.
> 
> So given these roots, it becomes clear to me that if we want solutions, we need to advocate more liberty, and thereby more responsibility, not less. The more we place our safety in the hands of authority figures, the less liberty we will have. It is dangerous to allow people the choice to use drugs or not. some, perhaps many, will abuse it and become a danger to others. If we want less SWAT team raids on the wrong house, thats the chance we have to take. Personally, Id prefer to deal with a junky attempting to steal my tv, than a team of highly trained and motivated guys with automatic weapons and flash bangs trying to steal my liberty. The solution to me is obvious, legalize drugs.
> 
> As to the 'war on terror', I think we can find the solution again in more liberty, rather than less. We the people must assert our natural right to self defense. This means that sometimes crazy people are going to get on planes, go on shooting sprees, and generally be nutjobs with guns. The trade-off is, for every nutjob with a gun, there will be (or could be) dozens of decent civilians with guns ready and able to respond.
> 
> So, nuts and bolts solutions.. I dont know. I think we are well past the point of convinced people that more liberty is the answer. Im pretty sure im going to get a lot of disagreement right here on this forum. Its an interesting discussion though...


No sir... whether I agree with you or not, or some where in between, a post that is calm, respectful of others, their views and without name calling, finger pointing and knee jerk responses is what leads to understanding issues, and how to solve them and prevent them in the future. This, unfortunately is not the case with some, who can't see beyond their own opinions, and believe they are right no matter what evidence that is presented. Now, as far as your above post is concerned, I agree with you on some points, disagree on others. For example: I do not believe that legalizing drugs is the answer. I do however appreciate the manner of your post, and I thank you for that.


----------



## Sentry18

> [Edit]the issue of 'the militarization of police'. I think to start with we have to agree that such a thing is going on.


No we don't. We can agree that some people believe it is going on and some people don't. Law enforcement using military style tactics and equipment AND vice-versa has existed since man first picked up a sharp stick (okay, maybe a sword and shield). Complaining about it has existed almost as long. The term used to describe it is new, but nothing else.


----------



## FatTire

Sentry, if you dont believe its an issue, then i fail to see why you take part in the discussion, except to derail the discussion. If you dont agree that the militarization of police is an issue, thats fine, and as member of law enforcement, even expected.

I dont expect to convince you that using SWAT teams for raids on family farms is indicative of anything other than the safe and judicious use of force on behalt of our benevolent law enforcement officers. I would however, like to hear from others in the general public what they think about it.


----------



## Sentry18

Having only like minded people with the same opinion talking about an issue is not a discussion. You are not the only person who can have and express their opinion, unless you fear the introduction of an opposing point of view. If you want to hear from the general public then don't begin your query with "we have to agree". That is not enlisting opinions, that is asking for people who agree with you to chime in. It also begs for those who do not agree to chime in as well. Plus I would submit that only those with a strong opinion are still following this thread as we reach pages 4-6.


----------



## FatTire

People in the general public have valid views on law enforcement that those in law enforcement are not capable of understanding. Sucks, but thats the way it is. Now, for those in the general public, if you guys dont see the militarization of police as an issue, Im more than willing to discuss that.

Remember sentry, you set the precedent, you hold fast to the notion that those of us not in law enforcement simply lack the capability to understand those in law enforcement, Im simply saying it works both ways.

And just to clarify, when i said 'we have to agree its a problem', that was in the context of finding a solution to the problem... if you dont agree its a problem, how can you arrive at a solution? i guess if that the best you can do at picking it apart, i did ok...


----------



## Sentry18

That's quite a jump. Somehow this went from a discussion of opposing views to vague accusations about understanding and capabilities. Not unusual for these threads. Since there still seems to be some unresolved confusion about what I said before I will try and clarify further. One cannot speak from first hand experience about any topic without having first hand experience. This is actually a pretty well grounded principle and one that I did not formulate on my own. In fact I believe Holiday Inn Express has an entire series of humorous commercials based on people becoming self-conceived experts simply by staying at their hotels. Another example would be me telling you all about life in Montana. What it's like, what choices you should make, criticizing the choices you have made, pointing out failures, etc., etc. I have never lived there but surely I should know what life there is like because of my combined education and life experiences? Probably not. I can surmise but I cannot speak from actual experience. Anyone can have an opinion about anything, an opinion requires no factual basis, knowledge, experience or even understanding. It is personal and theoretical, for me and for you. Unfortunately that is also misunderstood and all too often on LEO topics or threads the line between actual experience, facts and opinions become blurred. Perhaps on both sides of the debate. If you want to have an actual discussion then as Fn/Form has eluded to repeatedly, you have to find the proper method and medium in which to have such a discussion with all available viewpoints present. 

You are searching for a problem that I don't feel exists. Or maybe there is a problem but we don't think it's the same problem? How can there be a solution if the problem doesn't exist? How can there be a problem if the problem doesn't exist? Perhaps we need to define the problem (if there is one) before we start searching for solutions.


----------



## FatTire

Um.. 'we' did define a problem. for many of us on this forum, and many more outside this forum, 'the militarization of police' is a problem. Again, if you personally dont think it exists, thats your opinion, but it seems to me that means you dont have anything to add as far as solutions go...

Can we agree that you are not going to convince me that the militarization of police is not problem, and Im not going to convince you that it is?


----------



## Sentry18

Who is we? What problem was defined? And who certified that it exists? As I read this this thread I see a number of opposing beliefs by a number of people. There has not even been complete consensus on either side of the issue.

We can agree that I don't believe the militarization of police exists and you believe it does. We may be able to agree that law enforcement agencies that have specialized units need to enhance their protocols to ensure that they have the correct training & personnel, addresses are triple checked, informants are truly credible, procedures are followed, etc., etc. so that mistakes that are being made are reduced to the bare minimum possible (nothing that human error is impossible to eliminate). We _might_ even be able to agree that the issue of these specialized units and perhaps even their use of specialized equipment has been distorted and/or sensationalized by the media. Those all seem like topics that if discussed may actually improve relationships between law enforcement and the communities in which they serve (plus better law enforcement service and safer communities).

I should also add that far more police techniques, methodologies and equipment has been adopted by the military than the other way around (in recent years anyway).


----------



## camo2460

I do not believe that the so called "militarization" of police is an issue simply because tactics and equipment have evolved to keep pace with the evolving criminal element. Now, do mistakes occur? you bet they do, and THAT is a problem. I can point to one such occurrence that happened in a small town right here in Missouri, where a SWAT team, acting on bad misleading information, raided a house, which turned out to be the wrong house. Were they in a world of hurt? Yes they were, but the lame stream media only covered the fact that the house of an 80 yro woman was invaded, no mention was made that the team was ultimately dismissed, and the woman won a multi million dollar law suit against the city and those officers. My point is that LE does make mistakes, sometimes bad ones, but there is no cover up, no conspiracies, as has been stated before you don't have all of the information and just because a mistake is made doesn't make it deliberate and doesn't make all LEO's suspect.


----------



## FatTire

Sentry18 said:


> Who is we? What problem was defined? And who certified that it exists? As I read this this thread I see a number of opposing beliefs by a number of people. There has not even been complete consensus on either side of the issue.
> 
> We can agree that I don't believe the militarization of police exists and you believe it does. We may be able to agree that law enforcement agencies that have specialized units need to enhance their protocols to ensure that they have the correct training & personnel, addresses are triple checked, informants are truly credible, procedures are followed, etc., etc. so that mistakes that are being made are reduced to the bare minimum possible (nothing that human error is impossible to eliminate). We _might_ even be able to agree that the issue of these specialized units and perhaps even their use of specialized equipment has been distorted and/or sensationalized by the media. Those all seem like topics that if discussed may actually improve relationships between law enforcement and the communities in which they serve (plus better law enforcement service and safer communities).
> 
> I should also add that far more police techniques, methodologies and equipment has been adopted by the military than the other way around (in recent years anyway).


If youve read this thread and cannot see that there are several people who think that the militarization of police is a problem, again i have to question your intent in responding to my post.

As to more training and better procedures and mistakes being made, I would refer you back to my post, where I attempted, perhaps poorly, to make the connection between excessive use of force in law enforcement and the general publics abdication of rights and responsibilities. To sum up, I dont think we can solve the problem with less liberty, by giving more power to law enforcement, but rather we must take back our natural rights (and thereby responsibilities) and increase our liberty, limiting the scope of law enforcement. So long as LEA's have at their disposal the use of military hardware, problems with continue to more and more appear to require a military hardware and tactics solution.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

camo2460 said:


> ...My point is that LE does make mistakes, sometimes bad ones, but there is no cover up, no conspiracies, as has been stated before you don't have all of the information and just because a mistake is made doesn't make it deliberate and doesn't make all LEO's suspect.


LE does make mistakes ... I agree on that.

No cover up, no conspiracies? I disagree with that one. I've known too many LEO's who've bragged about them.

"Mistake," by definition, rules out "deliberate."

If LEO's had all the information before they acted would mistakes have been made? Perhaps that is where the problems lie?


----------



## Sentry18

Why are you so worried about my alleged intent versus letting your argument stand on its own merits? Have you read the posts in this thread by the people who don't feel militarization of police exists or is a problem? Even on this very page Camo2460 stated he doesn't believe it exists or is a problem. There are two sides to the coin.

I'm completely lost on the correlation of an officer driving an armored vehicle were wearing a ballistic helmets and the oppression of someone else's civil rights. That argument feels an awful lot like the anti-gun argument where the device itself is either inherently evil or create evil in the hands of someone. The trampling of liberties is a decision made in either the mind of a person or the mindset of an organization and has little or nothing to do with the equipment that they have at their disposal. Right now in my supply closet I have an entire tactical suit with ballistic helmet, a class III firearms capable of three round burst and a variety of munitions. I can head over to Motorpool and check out an armored vehicle at any time. And yet somehow I got through my entire workday without violating anyone's civil rights or trampling on their liberties.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

Regarding experience: One of the things that keeps coming up is this concept that unless you've been a LEO you have no valid opinion on how they do or should operate. That's BS. It's similar to telling a child in an abusive home that since they have no experience as a parent they have no valid understand of what an abusive parent is like.

They have the experience as an abused child and therefore their view of abusive parents has some validity from their own experiences. They don't have to be a parent (abusive or otherwise) to have a valid opinion on the matter. In these discussions, those with bad experiences with LEO's have valid opinions of what is being done that is wrong. Those opinions need to be taken under consideration by everyone ... especially those in law enforcement. You guys have been hard on Geek yet he seems to have valid reasons for his opinions regarding law enforcement. The same is true of others as well. How about if instead of trying to silence the opposition by telling them they have no valid opinion we instead try to understand and relate to the experiences we've all had?


----------



## FatTire

Nor, I suspect, were you ordered to do so. And to borrow from Shakespear, there in lies the rub. Some cops are ordered to violate peoples rights. Wether thats because they have the wrong address, or because some other mistake was made, it seems irrelevant. The reality is, some idiotic town council member, or window licking legislator, or even the majority of voters, can and often do pass laws that are both against the constitution and against the concept of natural (you can call it god given if thats more your cup o meade) rights. LEO's are then forced out of necesity to ramp up militarily. There are a great many unintended consequences. Not the least of which is that SWAT teams raid raw milk sellers, because after all, they have all these kewl toys, and those dairy farmers could be dangerous..

What im realizing more and more as i type this, is that its our own fault. we keep passing more and more laws, giving up more and more responsibility... SWAT raiding the wrong house seems like a natural necesary consequence of legislating away our freedoms...


----------



## Sentry18

mosquitomountainman said:


> Regarding experience: One of the things that keeps coming up is this concept that unless you've been a LEO you have no valid opinion on how they do or should operate. That's BS. It's similar to telling a child in an abusive home that since they have no experience as a parent they have no valid understand of what an abusive parent is like.


I don't understand how the concept of experience creating a first hand perception that cannot be created without experience keeps getting so diluted and altered. In your example that child would have a clear experience of what it's like to be an abusive home and to suffer at the abusive of hands of a parent. But with that a child understand the pressures and stresses of being a parent? Would he or she understand what it's like to go to work and pay bills and all of the other stressors of adulthood? With that child understand the marriage of his parents or the fact that his parents are not married? No they would not. The child would be limited to his or her own experiences and knowledge. That does not diminish the opinions or beliefs of that child, it just defines their worldview. And later in life when that child grows up and has the experiences of adulthood, those experiences combined with knowledge will change their perception again and again and again. Opinions change with knowledge and experience, that is not BS. It's how we work.


----------



## Sentry18

FatTire said:


> What im realizing more and more as i type this, is that its our own fault. we keep passing more and more laws, giving up more and more responsibility....


On that we agree. There are too many ineffective and redundant laws, too much ineffective regulation, too many ineffective legislators, etc.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

Sentry18 said:


> ...The child would be limited to his or her own experiences and knowledge. That does not diminish the opinions or beliefs of that child, it just defines their worldview. And later in life when that child grows up and has the experiences of adulthood, those experiences combined with knowledge will change their perception again and again and again.


I like the "again, again, again" part. It's very pertinent to the discussion. It's when a person (on either side) starts to believe that the experiences and knowledge of "others" is invalid that learning and understanding ceases to occur. Now, unless a person knows everything (there's a significant difference between knowing everything and just believing one knows everything) learning will always occur ... if a person is willing to learn, that is.

It's also doubtful that a LEO can experience the actions of other LEO's the same way a civilian does. You already have greater knowledge of your rights plus you can flash the badge and rely on "the brotherhood" for back-up if things start to get out of hand. Can you imagine the outcome if those two women in Texas that were publicly groped had been LEO's. The cops would never have succeeded in getting that far out of line in the first place.

I used to be a mechanic. Can you imagine what happened the two times other mechanics tried to blow smoke up my male donkey over some uneeded car repairs they wanted to sell me (by lying through their teeth!)? I can never experience things the way my wife did when she had to take her vehicle in for repairs. I have too much knowledge about vehicles and the way repair shops are run.


----------



## FatTire

Sentry18 said:


> On that we agree. There are too many ineffective and redundant laws, too much ineffective regulation, too many ineffective legislators, etc.


more than that, there are a great many laws that require the police to employ agressive tactics and hardware. For instance, that drugs are illegal means huge profits for drug dealers, which means they are going to protect their turf and their product, which means ever increasing violence, which means the cops gotta keep up with it using ever more agressive tactics and increasingly military-esque hardware. Tangential to the violence, comes the people who desire to seek safety thru legislation, they see guns as bad, the tools of thugs, and so pass absurd gun laws, which the cops then have to enforce...

So this comes back to my original post a page or two back, if we want to solve the militarization of police (wether we agree it exists or not), we need to start tossing out absurd legislation. We need fewer laws, not more.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

Sentry18 said:


> I don't understand how the concept of experience creating a first hand perception that cannot be created without experience keeps getting so diluted and altered. In your example that child would have a clear experience of what it's like to be an abusive home and to suffer at the abusive of hands of a parent. But with that a child understand the pressures and stresses of being a parent? Would he or she understand what it's like to go to work and pay bills and all of the other stressors of adulthood? ...


I cut this one off because I've heard the same line of argument from wife beaters. Their wife just doesn't understand the pressures they are going through and when she says something wrong he just blows his top! That's BS. No excuses allowed.

He has responsibility to control himself just as cops do. If they can't handle the pressure they need to find another job.

Some things are so obviously wrong that you don't need a college degree and twenty years of experience to know it.


----------



## camo2460

mosquitomountainman said:


> I cut this one off because I've heard the same line of argument from wife beaters. Their wife just doesn't understand the pressures they are going through and when she says something wrong he just blows his top! That's BS. No excuses allowed.
> 
> He has responsibility to control himself just as cops do. If they can't handle the pressure they need to find another job.
> 
> Some things are so obviously wrong that you don't need a college degree and twenty years of experience to know it.


MMM I don't think that Sentry meant it that way, I believe that you took his post out of context, which is also another one of the problems here.


----------



## Sentry18

That is such a major leap away from the discussing the formulating of opinions based on the combination of knowledge and experience that I am at a loss. That was like throwing a basketball into the middle of a football field and shouting strike two! Perhaps instead of cutting it off you should read the whole post.

It would be nice if we lived in a magical world of black-and-white, but we don't. Yeah somethings appear to be more clear than others, in which case we fall back on our knowledge and experience to help us make those determinations. Of course all too often additional information or explanations comes out and opinions change. Or we add new knowledge and experiences and opinions change again. Unless of course you were personally present and an active participant in the situation, then that's a whole different level of perception.


----------



## Geek999

If you apply that logic to jurors they would never be able to reach a verdict. None of them were present or participants in events and the only information they get is what one side or the other chooses to present.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

Sentry18 said:


> ...Unless of course you were personally present and an active participant in the situation, then that's a whole different level of perception.


This is again, false logic. Just because a two people were at the same event there's no guarantee that their perceptions of the event are the same. It's all filtered through our personal knowledge and experiences. You're a cop so you should know that every witness perceives things differently. If a cop beats someone with a nightstick and a passer-by witnesses it then do you believe that the person being beaten, the cop and the witness all perceived things the same way? The only thing you might all agree on is that the suspect was being hit with a nightstick. The differences would become apparent when trying to determine the motive for hitting the suspect and the degree of harm that was being inflicted. How would the witness's perception of the event change if the person being beaten was their son? What if the witness was white and the suspect being beaten was black? What if the witness and suspect were both black? Can't you see that you (and other LEO's) are usually going to see things differently than us lowly civilians? Think about it, the scene was the same yet what was perceived as happening would most likely change remarkably depending upon the make-up of the witness, the suspect and the officer involved? What many of these arguments boil down to is that LEO's see things differently than civilians. That doesn't by itself make one right and the other wrong but it can certainly shed new light on certain events.

And Geek is absolutely correct in stating that by your logic it would be impossible for a jury to make an informed decision.


----------



## Geek999

Actually all of us in our everyday lives need to make judgement calls, decisions, based on incomplete facts. It is a normal part of everyday experience. None of us are exempt.


----------



## BillM

*SWAT*

Special Weapons and Tactics , has a definite place in law enforcement.

When appropriately used, it saves the lives of both officers and the perpetrators they are arresting.

It is also used to quickly overwhelm a scene where evidence is likely to be destroyed, primarily drugs.

That being said, this is my perspective on SWAT teams.

Members of a SWAT team should do regular rotations of duty in normal police patrols. This keeps them from becoming so specialized in their duties that they lose their perspective regarding the people they serve.

Departments do not need to spend so much money on SWAT teams that the administrators think they need to have a SWAT operation going constantly just to justify the expenditures.

There is an old adage , When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.


----------



## camo2460

BillM said:


> Special Weapons and Tactics , has a definite place in law enforcement.
> 
> When appropriately used, it saves the lives of both officers and the perpetrators they are arresting.
> 
> It is also used to quickly overwhelm a scene where evidence is likely to be destroyed, primarily drugs.
> 
> That being said, this is my perspective on SWAT teams.
> 
> Members of a SWAT team should do regular rotations of duty in normal police patrols. This keeps them from becoming so specialized in their duties that they lose their perspective regarding the people they serve.
> 
> Departments do not need to spend so much money on SWAT teams that the administrators think they need to have a SWAT operation going constantly just to justify the expenditures.
> 
> There is an old adage , When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.


Yes I agree, that's what my former Department did. The swat unit is also regular patrol, DUI units, drug enforcement and canine handlers. The SWAT unit is only called out for very severe situations, such as a hostage situation, or in the apprehension of a criminal who is known to be armed and dangerous, or has committed a very serious crime such as murder. Otherwise they were dressed in their regular duty uniform and went about their regular duties as LEO.


----------



## Geek999

Your departments may use SWAT judisciously, but you don't conduct 60,000 raids without hitting a wrong house, or hitting houses that could have been easily handled with a knock on the door. The issue is not about SWAT being properly used. I think all the non-LEOs here would agree there are such cases. However, the "preservation of evidence" justification for drugs argument really doesn't work when states are moving toward legalization of marijuana.

There is also no thought to the damage to LEO relations when SWAT hits what turns out to be an innocent family. Will that family ever feel safe in their home again? Does the agency that ordered the raid repair the home? Replace the dog? Provide psychological counseling for the traumatized children?

These raids should be rare and they are now common. The "presumption of innocence" is toast the moment the stack forms at the door.


----------



## tc556guy

GaryS said:


> You misquoted me. I never mentioned "official" anything. If you condone SWAT style entries into private homes to serve warrants for non-violent crimes, then we just disagree on the term "tacitly approved destruction".


When does SWAT enter homes NOW for "non-violent crimes? SWAT is employed for entries where a higher risk level of warrant service is expected. It doesn't require that the crime the warrant for is violent in nature per se. When it comes to drug growers and other types of crimes that some people tend to claim are "non-violent" crimes, guess what..those types of people tend to want to shoot back and use violence.


----------



## tc556guy

Geek999 said:


> Your departments may use SWAT judisciously, but you don't conduct 60,000 raids without hitting a wrong house, or hitting houses that could have been easily handled with a knock on the door. The issue is not about SWAT being properly used. I think all the non-LEOs here would agree there are such cases. However, the "preservation of evidence" justification for drugs argument really doesn't work when states are moving toward legalization of marijuana.


Marijuana isn't the only dug out there, and even if marijuana is legalized there is still crime associated with it.
There was just a big thing on the news last night about crooks hitting the legal pot vendors in CO for their cash and product.
Yes there might be some mistakes, but they have to be minimized. There is no such thing as a perfect track record without errors. Demanding that for use of SWAT is too stringent a standard


----------



## camo2460

Geek999 said:


> Your departments may use SWAT judisciously, but you don't conduct 60,000 raids without hitting a wrong house, or hitting houses that could have been easily handled with a knock on the door. The issue is not about SWAT being properly used. I think all the non-LEOs here would agree there are such cases. However, the "preservation of evidence" justification for drugs argument really doesn't work when states are moving toward legalization of marijuana.
> 
> There is also no thought to the damage to LEO relations when SWAT hits what turns out to be an innocent family. Will that family ever feel safe in their home again? Does the agency that ordered the raid repair the home? Replace the dog? Provide psychological counseling for the traumatized children?
> 
> These raids should be rare and they are now common. The "presumption of innocence" is toast the moment the stack forms at the door.


Geek I think that we can both agree that there are many street drugs that are more dangerous than Marijuana. Have you ever seen a house where they cook Meth? I'm not talking about a mobile cooker, I'm talking about a house that is off the beaten track, like an abandoned farm house or barn, these places are armed camps including booby traps, explosives and automatic weapons. You don't just walk up and knock on these doors, they have and will kill you where you stand. As far as Marijuana is concerned, I have never seen a SWAT raid on the guy that has a nickel bag on his counter, Here in Missouri 35 grams or less is a class D Misdemeanor and will get you a ticket and fine, hardly reason to use SWAT. The only reason SWAT would be used in the case of Marijuana is on a large, open grow, where again, these places are armed camps including booby traps, automatic weapons, and they will kill you where you stand, or possibly a large growing operation in a home. However these situations would not involve LE unless their attention was drawn to it in some manner, and a through investigation. So, in short your "legalization of Marijuana" argument doesn't stand.

As to your second point, there is a very large incentive to not make those kinds of mistakes in the form of Civil and possibly Criminal law suits, and I can only hope that in a true "wrong" house situation, at least some form of reparations are offered. Also your use of the 60,000 hits number is certainly biased and skewed, just like the anti-gun crowd skew the number of deaths by hand gun. I don't think your being fair when using that number, as it is probably 100% certainty that the number includes the justified "hits".

Now your third point: your right, these raid should be rare, unfortunately they are not, and they illustrate the far more dangerous world that we live in, not only for the average guy, but also for LE. Back when I was a kid there were no SWAT raids, but there were also few nut jobs willing to kill you because you wear a badge. And your comment that the presumption of innocence is toast when the stack forms at the door is untrue, and also unfair, as I have explained above, LE wouldn't be there unless their attention had been drawn to it in some manner, typically the violation of law, and further it is not the officers duty to assess guilt or innocence, that's the courts job. By your comment you unfairly assign the duties of Judge, Jury, and Executioner to a LEO. I'm not trying to be hateful, but this also illustrates a lack of understanding on how the Judicial system works, and what that entails. May I suggest that you, and others here educate yourself by taking a Criminal Justice course, or at the very least, spend some time at the library.


----------



## Turtle

BillM said:


> Special Weapons and Tactics , has a definite place in law enforcement.
> 
> When appropriately used, it saves the lives of both officers and the perpetrators they are arresting.
> 
> It is also used to quickly overwhelm a scene where evidence is likely to be destroyed, primarily drugs.
> 
> That being said, this is my perspective on SWAT teams.
> 
> Members of a SWAT team should do regular rotations of duty in normal police patrols. This keeps them from becoming so specialized in their duties that they lose their perspective regarding the people they serve.
> 
> Departments do not need to spend so much money on SWAT teams that the administrators think they need to have a SWAT operation going constantly just to justify the expenditures.
> 
> There is an old adage , When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.


I'll agree with this, as well. Our SWAT unit is actually in danger of being disbanded or ( the idea that I support) being turned into a collateral unit with only a couple of full-time members. It really just makes the most sense. Our guys have also recently been folded back into a support role for our patrol operations division.

After the government shutdown happened, the office weenies started looking really closely at cutting spending. It is hard to justify a unit that hasn't been deployed in more than ten years.

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## GaryS

tc556guy said:


> When does SWAT enter homes NOW for "non-violent crimes? SWAT is employed for entries where a higher risk level of warrant service is expected. It doesn't require that the crime the warrant for is violent in nature per se. When it comes to drug growers and other types of crimes that some people tend to claim are "non-violent" crimes, guess what..those types of people tend to want to shoot back and use violence.


From the left, the right, the center, the libertarian, the courts, the police, and the unestablished.
Check out the Cato Institute's interactive map, and don't miss the one about dismantling a house instead of waiting out a suspect, and especially don't miss the ones about having to shoot those vicious Chihuahuas.

http://io9.com/5546659/a-map-of-american-swat-raids-gone-wrong
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/29/11_over_the_top_u_s_police_raids_that_victimized_innocents/
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/20639-five-unnecessary-swat-team-raids-gone-terribly-wrong
http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/A-costly-SWAT-raid-gone-wrong-4303215.php
http://www.businessinsider.com/9-horrifying-botched-police-raids-2012-2?op=1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...nducts-_n_3764951.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2013/03/07/chicago-swat-raid-gone-terribly-wrong/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2085779/posts
http://newsone.com/1260825/arizona-swat-team-kills-marine-in-botched-raid/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/12/18/minneapolis-swat-team-raids-wrong-house/
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/03/09/swat-is-america-coming-under-martial-law/
http://www.thepolicestate.org/utah-swat-team-raids-wrong-house-terrorizes-family/
http://bearingarms.com/woman-killed-by-negligent-discharge-before-swat-style-raid/
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwo...ree-affiliated-tribes-reservation-ends-146467
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=3421753.0;wap2 
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/04/0...oting-chihauhua-three-times-in-missouri-home/


----------



## Sentry18

mosquitomountainman said:


> This is again, false logic. Just because a two people were at the same event there's no guarantee that their perceptions of the event are the same. It's all filtered through our personal knowledge and experiences.


You claim it to be false logic and then repeated exactly what I said. Everything is filtered through knowledge and experience. If you have no knowledge or no experience your perception WILL BE limited. Perception is not necessarily factual, it is simply what you perceive. Some people perceived that the moon landing was real, some people perceive that it was fake. But I am pretty sure that Buzz Aldrin's perception is superior to mine in every way when it comes to the topic of moon landing. And I am certain sure there are people with telescopes that would disagree and feel they know just as much about moon landing based on their knowledge. Monday morning astronauts as the case may be.

I have never been a mechanic, you have. I know a little about vehicle repair but not much. So you firmly believe that I can diagnose engine problems, understand when I am being fleeced by a mechanic and other issue pertinent to auto repair equally as you? My guess is no. Your knowledge and experience exceeds mine in that area so your perceptions are much more likely to be accurate.

Juries are selected (or are supposed to be) based on the fact that have limited knowledge or experience, blank slates who pass judgement based on what is presented them in a supposedly unbiased manner and with specific rules and guidelines provides by the presiding judge. When I am called to Jury Duty and say that I am an LEO, I am sent home by the defense immediately. Because they KNOW that my perceptions are going to be seen as more accurate to the other jurors (in regards to policing) and I may influence them. Both sides WANT to stack the juror with persons who will sway people to their side, but the system is deigned to get impartial people who can look at the case independent from bias or personal experience. The jurors themselves are then required to discuss the issues without outside influence and formulate a group belief or admit it is not possible to do so.


----------



## Geek999

camo2460 said:


> Geek I think that we can both agree that there are many street drugs that are more dangerous than Marijuana. Have you ever seen a house where they cook Meth? I'm not talking about a mobile cooker, I'm talking about a house that is off the beaten track, like an abandoned farm house or barn, these places are armed camps including booby traps, explosives and automatic weapons. You don't just walk up and knock on these doors, they have and will kill you where you stand. As far as Marijuana is concerned, I have never seen a SWAT raid on the guy that has a nickel bag on his counter, Here in Missouri 35 grams or less is a class D Misdemeanor and will get you a ticket and fine, hardly reason to use SWAT. The only reason SWAT would be used in the case of Marijuana is on a large, open grow, where again, these places are armed camps including booby traps, automatic weapons, and they will kill you where you stand, or possibly a large growing operation in a home. However these situations would not involve LE unless their attention was drawn to it in some manner, and a through investigation. So, in short your "legalization of Marijuana" argument doesn't stand.
> 
> As to your second point, there is a very large incentive to not make those kinds of mistakes in the form of Civil and possibly Criminal law suits, and I can only hope that in a true "wrong" house situation, at least some form of reparations are offered. Also your use of the 60,000 hits number is certainly biased and skewed, just like the anti-gun crowd skew the number of deaths by hand gun. I don't think your being fair when using that number, as it is probably 100% certainty that the number includes the justified "hits".
> 
> Now your third point: your right, these raid should be rare, unfortunately they are not, and they illustrate the far more dangerous world that we live in, not only for the average guy, but also for LE. Back when I was a kid there were no SWAT raids, but there were also few nut jobs willing to kill you because you wear a badge. And your comment that the presumption of innocence is toast when the stack forms at the door is untrue, and also unfair, as I have explained above, LE wouldn't be there unless their attention had been drawn to it in some manner, typically the violation of law, and further it is not the officers duty to assess guilt or innocence, that's the courts job. By your comment you unfairly assign the duties of Judge, Jury, and Executioner to a LEO. I'm not trying to be hateful, but this also illustrates a lack of understanding on how the Judicial system works, and what that entails. May I suggest that you, and others here educate yourself by taking a Criminal Justice course, or at the very least, spend some time at the library.


We aren't doing 60,000 raids a year of the type you describe. Most of those raids are serving warrants. I am not assigning the role of judge jury, etc to the LEO, but when a break down the door type raid is conducted, it is hard to say that the person is not being punished or that there is a presumption of innocence.

I also come back to the following question. When a raid is conducted on what turns out to be an innocent family what is done to rectify that wrong? My impression is that typically the answer is "We followed procedures. Tough break." That is unacceptable in a free society.


----------



## Sentry18

I can't say from personal experience because after being involved in 100's of raids personally there has never been a case in my area where SWAT has raided the wrong house. But in the cases I am aware of in neighboring states (generally in large communities), apologies and monetary compensation were provided. Although both were dependent on the totality of circumstances. For example if a resident of the house made false assertions and provided fictitious evidence (prima facia), everyone followed proper procedure, a warrant was issued and the raid properly conducted -only to determine it was a targeted action by one person or a group of persons; he, she or they would likely be held primarily accountable. Of course the residents of that house would have legal recourse available to them. The standard we have to achieve to arrest & convict someone is much higher than the standard they have to meet to seek damages.


----------



## FatTire

tc556guy said:


> Marijuana isn't the only dug out there, and even if marijuana is legalized there is still crime associated with it.
> *There was just a big thing on the news last night about crooks hitting the legal pot vendors in CO for their cash and product.*
> Yes there might be some mistakes, but they have to be minimized. There is no such thing as a perfect track record without errors. Demanding that for use of SWAT is too stringent a standard


This is an excellent example of the law causing the crime. Im not removing responsibility from the robbers, however, if it were not a federal crime for those legal dispensaries to deposit their cash in a bank, there would not be large amounts of cash there in the first place.


----------



## Geek999

Sentry18 said:


> I can't say from personal experience because after being involved in 100's of raids personally there has never been a case in my area where SWAT has raided the wrong house. But in the cases I am aware of in neighboring states (generally in large communities), apologies and monetary compensation were provided. Although both were dependent on the totality of circumstances. For example if a resident of the house made false assertions and provided fictitious evidence (prima facia), everyone followed proper procedure, a warrant was issued and the raid properly conducted -only to determine it was a targeted action by one person or a group of persons; he, she or they would likely be held primarily accountable. Of course the residents of that house would have legal recourse available to them. The standard we have to achieve to arrest & convict someone is much higher than the standard they have to meet to seek damages.


I'm glad you haven't hit the wrong house, but you've got the same issue if you hit a house and the party turns out to be innocent. Does he have to sue to get his house repaired? What is done for the rest of the family who were also victims? Personally I think every case of this nature should result in a 7 figure settlement until judges start to really question the over-use of these warrants.

As for someone else being held primarily responsible, if you break down a door, you own it.


----------



## millertimedoneright

Any house you go to has the chance to be dangerous. Which ones warrant a swat team? The ones that the crackhead or jealous neighbor told you were dangerous? A warrant is so easily obtained now days it's ridiculous. 


Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## mosquitomountainman

Sentry18 said:


> You claim it to be false logic and then repeated exactly what I said. Everything is filtered through knowledge and experience. If you have no knowledge or no experience your perception WILL BE limited. Perception is not necessarily factual, it is simply what you perceive. Some people perceived that the moon landing was real, some people perceive that it was fake. But I am pretty sure that Buzz Aldrin's perception is superior to mine in every way when it comes to the topic of moon landing. And I am certain sure there are people with telescopes that would disagree and feel they know just as much about moon landing based on their knowledge. Monday morning astronauts as the case may be.
> 
> I have never been a mechanic, you have. I know a little about vehicle repair but not much. So you firmly believe that I can diagnose engine problems, understand when I am being fleeced by a mechanic and other issue pertinent to auto repair equally as you? My guess is no. Your knowledge and experience exceeds mine in that area so your perceptions are much more likely to be accurate.
> 
> Juries are selected (or are supposed to be) based on the fact that have limited knowledge or experience, blank slates who pass judgement based on what is presented them in a supposedly unbiased manner and with specific rules and guidelines provides by the presiding judge. When I am called to Jury Duty and say that I am an LEO, I am sent home by the defense immediately. Because they KNOW that my perceptions are going to be seen as more accurate to the other jurors (in regards to policing) and I may influence them. Both sides WANT to stack the juror with persons who will sway people to their side, but the system is deigned to get impartial people who can look at the case independent from bias or personal experience. The jurors themselves are then required to discuss the issues without outside influence and formulate a group belief or admit it is not possible to do so.


The "false logic" is that a group of people witnessing an event will agree on what they saw. The meaning is that everyone uses their own filters so just because a cop has knowledge and experience about being a cop it doesn't mean that his testimony is any more credible than the suspect. He saw things through his personal filters as a LEO. His viewpoint is not in any way, shape or form "impartial." Neither is it necessarily accurate.

The mechanic analogy was to show that cops, because of their knowledge and experience, can never see things the same way a civilian can nor are many of the things that happen to civilians going to happen to a cop. I mentioned the Texas women who were publicly groped by the cops. That wouldn't have happened had the two women been off-duty cops because they'd have stopped the other cops before it got that far. The meaning is that cops really can't identify with what the civilian perceives when he is stopped by the cops. It's like a man telling a woman what it's like to be pregnant. He has no clue what it means to be pregnant. Cops have no clue what it's like to be a civilian who is stopped by the cops.

I'd be willing to bet that cops are not wanted on juries because a cop's "perceptions are going to be seen as more accurate to the other jurors." It's more likely that the defense knows that cops, due to professional bias, will always side with other cops.

_"[juries]pass judgement based on what is presented them in a supposedly unbiased manner and with specific rules guidelines provides by the presiding judge."_

Anyone who thinks the evidence cited by the prosecution and defense is "unbiased" is truly delusional.


----------



## Sentry18

I would like you to find and point out the post where I said all witnesses will agree on everything they saw, that assertion was never made by me. I only made a single sentence comment about someone being personally present and how that would affect their perception.

You didn't actually answer my question about the mechanic analogy. Would your perceptions having been a mechanic be more accurate than mine never having been a mechanic in the areas cited? Of course we both know they would be. Sometimes bias is confused with knowledge and experience confirming something to be true and accurate, not simply an unfair presumption or belief. I am not a fan of the .40 caliber round, I have extensively tested the 9mm versus .40 versus 45acp. I have done ballistic testing, muzzle flip testing, recoil impulse testing, firearm wear & parts breakage testing, etc. Along with others in my group we tested ammunition for over five years. In the end I found very few positives in regards to the .40, which was well supported by the results of the testing. But if I go to a gun forum and say that that the .40 is not the best choice available, fans of the caliber will call me biased and declare that I am incorrect. And the majority of them will have never actually done any comparative testing or in any other way confirmed their assertions.

The court cases that I was citing we're law-enforcement officers would quickly be dismissed from the jury were civil and not criminal in nature, thus no law-enforcement officers to side with. Not even a prosecutor would allow a currently working police officer to serve on the criminal jury, that alone might be grounds for appeal. And having sat on a number of advisory councils in the community, I can assure you that the majority of people do look to police officers for more accurate information. In fact I'm pretty sure this very thread started with a question for law enforcement officers.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

Sentry18 said:


> ... You didn't actually answer my question about the mechanic analogy. Would your perceptions having been a mechanic be more accurate than mine never having been a mechanic in the areas cited? Of course we both know they would be. Sometimes bias is confused with knowledge and experience confirming something to be true and accurate, not simply an unfair presumption or belief. ...


Uhmmm, I did answer the mechanic analogy. You're trying to take it out of context. My knowledge from being a mechanic will not leave me as vulnerable to fraud and dishonesty as someone who knows nothing about vehicles. I equated it with the two women who were groped in Texas by the cops. It would never have happened had they been off-duty cops.

It's important to note that people who feel that they've been ripped off by mechanics quite often are correct. I don't make excuses for the illicit behavior of mechanics and I'm not going to say that they'd get any type of "justice" by appealing to some "board" of mechanics.

Those women in Texas would have most likely received no justice by appealing to the cops. It was only after (and because) their story hit the news that action was taken.

Otherwise the cops involved would have received a slap on the wrist at best (if even that). It still wasn't enough. Every cop who took part or witnessed or knew about the incident should have been fired for either not stopping it or not reporting it. There were only two options in that case: either they knew it was illegal and condoned it or did not know it was illegal and are guilty of gross negligence for not knowing the law.


----------



## Turtle

When I was at FLETC, one of the scenarios which all recruits are run-through, is a judgment scenario. In this scenario, you must interact with an officer who has crossed a line. It is up to you how you choose to deal with it, but it must be dealt with in order to pass. I would have to assume that other departments and agencies include a similar scenario during their training phases.

I believe it is for this reason that most of us find it reprehensible that an officer would not hold their fellows accountable for improper or illegal behavior. It is ingrained in us from the beginning that we must set a good example and hold ourselves and others accountable so as not to undermine the public's faith in the system.

I don't believe that any of us have said that all cops are perfect all of the time. That would be foolish. Perhaps we, as responsible officers, are overly optimistic in our expectation that the vast majority of officers think as do we. However, that does seem to be the unanimous experience of the officers on this forum. Hopefully, that means that the problem is not as widespread as some believe. Worst case scenario? That belief at least indicates that there are a lot of good officers across a wide selection of agencies and departments across the country, as represented by the members of this forum.




Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999

I think where a big part of the problem lies is not in deliberate violations of rights, but just plain stupid mistakes. Stupid mistakes are understandable and forgiveable, but first they must be recognized and acknowledged for that to happen.

For instance, I would have been satisfied with a serious review of the incident in my home, an apology and a promise it would not happen again. Instead I had a 3 year legal odyssey and will never trust my local PD again.

Unless all complaints are seriously investigated, you can't get to the fact that an LEO did something that was just a boneheaded mistake.

Similarly, I doubt the cops involved in beating up the 84yo jaywalker woke up and said to themselves "I'm going to beat up a senior citizen today." Unfortunately, instead of investigating the matter the chief of police was immediately defending the officers. An appropriate response would have been to immediately drop all charges, including the jaywalking, and apologize. Now NYC is facing a multi-million dollar lawsuit and a PR black eye.


----------



## Sentry18

Geek, we might find some common ground in that last post. But I would add that all too often in a world of extreme liability, scape-goats, lawsuits and politicians / celebrities jumping in to champion causes; no one on either side of the battle really wants to publicly admit fault. So everyone circles the wagons. Then those disgruntled with law enforcement presume everything is a stupid mistake or intentional violation even if it wasn't and pro law-enforcement people presume everything was justified even if it might not have been. This is part of why I advocate never rushing to judgment until all of the information can be reviewed. This is also why if you want to get promoted above Lieutenant in my department you have to spend a term with internal affairs.


----------



## camo2460

GaryS said:


> From the left, the right, the center, the libertarian, the courts, the police, and the unestablished.
> Check out the Cato Institute's interactive map, and don't miss the one about dismantling a house instead of waiting out a suspect, and especially don't miss the ones about having to shoot those vicious Chihuahuas.
> 
> http://io9.com/5546659/a-map-of-american-swat-raids-gone-wrong
> http://www.salon.com/2013/08/29/11_over_the_top_u_s_police_raids_that_victimized_innocents/
> http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/20639-five-unnecessary-swat-team-raids-gone-terribly-wrong
> http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/A-costly-SWAT-raid-gone-wrong-4303215.php
> http://www.businessinsider.com/9-horrifying-botched-police-raids-2012-2?op=1
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...nducts-_n_3764951.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
> http://www.captainsjournal.com/2013/03/07/chicago-swat-raid-gone-terribly-wrong/
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2085779/posts
> http://newsone.com/1260825/arizona-swat-team-kills-marine-in-botched-raid/
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/12/18/minneapolis-swat-team-raids-wrong-house/
> http://jonathanturley.org/2013/03/09/swat-is-america-coming-under-martial-law/
> http://www.thepolicestate.org/utah-swat-team-raids-wrong-house-terrorizes-family/
> http://bearingarms.com/woman-killed-by-negligent-discharge-before-swat-style-raid/
> http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwo...ree-affiliated-tribes-reservation-ends-146467
> http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=3421753.0;wap2
> http://jonathanturley.org/2011/04/0...oting-chihauhua-three-times-in-missouri-home/


I wanted to address this issue earlier, especially the last web address, but I didn't have all of the facts, so I waited until I was able to get the Information straight from the horse's mouth. I happen to personally know several Officers in Columbia, and spoke directly with one of them who had first hand knowledge of the incident. As I have mentioned in an other post, a lawful warrant was issued for known gang members, known to be living in that house, known to be involved in distribution of drugs, and known to be involved in shootings. Further more the dog in question was not a Chihuahua, but a Pit Bull mix that attacked the Officer, and the Officer in question has not resigned or been fired, but is 100% still employed by the Columbia P.D. This Illustrates the bad information that often comes from the internet and lame stream media. I am of the opinion that if I am lied to or fed misleading or false information, I then tend to distrust the source. This problem has not happened once or twice, but thousands and thousands of times on the Internet, and yet many continue to happily wallow in this BS, without spending one second trying to corroborate said information, and continue trying to pass that information off as fact. Stop It, get the facts straight, and gain a little knowledge before the hammer is picked up.


----------



## Turtle

camo2460 said:


> I wanted to address this issue earlier, especially the last web address, but I didn't have all of the facts, so I waited until I was able to get the Information straight from the horse's mouth. I happen to personally know several Officers in Columbia, and spoke directly with one of them who had first hand knowledge of the incident. As I have mentioned in an other post, a lawful warrant was issued for known gang members, known to be living in that house, known to be involved in distribution of drugs, and known to be involved in shootings. Further more the dog in question was not a Chihuahua, but a Pit Bull mix that attacked the Officer, and the Officer in question has not resigned or been fired, but is 100% still employed by the Columbia P.D. This Illustrates the bad information that often comes from the internet and lame stream media. I am of the opinion that if I am lied to or fed misleading or false information, I then tend to distrust the source. This problem has not happened once or twice, but thousands and thousands of times on the Internet, and yet many continue to happily wallow in this BS, without spending one second trying to corroborate said information, and continue trying to pass that information off as fact. Stop It, get the facts straight, and gain a little knowledge before the hammer is picked up.


This is actually something that i have been considering of late, as well. I hate to sound like a conspiracy nutjob, buuuut.....

Has anyone considered that this rise in the reports of things like this comes at time when the media is trying to divide America? Wouldn't a deliberate under-mining of the faith of the American people serve to further divide us all? Wouldn't this encourage the infamous "us versus them" mentality?

I'm certainly trying to shift blame and say that cops never do stupid things. Look at the two NYC guys who were arrested for creating child porn with teenaged girls. Definitely dirtbags. But isn't it possible, with all of the lies that the "lame-stream" media has been shoveling down the sheeple's collective throats... Maybe a lot of this is being sensationalized?

Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Geek999

Sentry18 said:


> Geek, we might find some common ground in that last post. But I would add that all too often in a world of extreme liability, scape-goats, lawsuits and politicians / celebrities jumping in to champion causes; no one on either side of the battle really wants to publicly admit fault. So everyone circles the wagons. Then those disgruntled with law enforcement presume everything is a stupid mistake or intentional violation even if it wasn't and pro law-enforcement people presume everything was justified even if it might not have been. This is part of why I advocate never rushing to judgment until all of the information can be reviewed. This is also why if you want to get promoted above Lieutenant in my department you have to spend a term with internal affairs.


I can understand that, but if you go through life doing coverups to avoid lawsuits, you aren't going to convince people that aren't doing coverups.

For instance, in my case having an uninvolved cop take statements from the witnesses would have shown the PD was actually investigating my complaint. The rest followed and now I will never trust them.

In the case of the 84yo I have no idea what would be acceptable to him, but the chief of police's response was basically a public announcement that beating up 84yo jaywalkers is acceptable for NYPD. That is obviously not working as they seem to be looking at a significant lawsuit.

Each complaint needs to be treated seriously. Mine wasn't. The NYPD response on the 84yo shows the NYPD is covering up, not investigating. If fending off lawsuits is more important than treating the public properly then LEOs have no basis to expect respect from the public.


----------



## Geek999

camo2460 said:


> I wanted to address this issue earlier, especially the last web address, but I didn't have all of the facts, so I waited until I was able to get the Information straight from the horse's mouth. I happen to personally know several Officers in Columbia, and spoke directly with one of them who had first hand knowledge of the incident. As I have mentioned in an other post, a lawful warrant was issued for known gang members, known to be living in that house, known to be involved in distribution of drugs, and known to be involved in shootings. Further more the dog in question was not a Chihuahua, but a Pit Bull mix that attacked the Officer, and the Officer in question has not resigned or been fired, but is 100% still employed by the Columbia P.D. This Illustrates the bad information that often comes from the internet and lame stream media. I am of the opinion that if I am lied to or fed misleading or false information, I then tend to distrust the source. This problem has not happened once or twice, but thousands and thousands of times on the Internet, and yet many continue to happily wallow in this BS, without spending one second trying to corroborate said information, and continue trying to pass that information off as fact. Stop It, get the facts straight, and gain a little knowledge before the hammer is picked up.


"Before the hammer is picked up". Threats. That doesn't advance the dialog. It reinforces the negative impression of cops. I suggest you try another approach if you want to convince anyone of anything.


----------



## *Andi

Turtle said:


> This is actually something that i have been considering of late, as well. I hate to sound like a conspiracy nutjob, buuuut.....
> 
> Has anyone considered that this rise in the reports of things like this comes at time when the media is trying to divide America? Wouldn't a deliberate under-mining of the faith of the American people serve to further divide us all? Wouldn't this encourage the infamous "us versus them" mentality?
> 
> I'm certainly trying to shift blame and say that cops never do stupid things. Look at the two NYC guys who were arrested for creating child porn with teenaged girls. Definitely dirtbags. But isn't it possible, with all of the lies that the "lame-stream" media has been shoveling down the sheeple's collective throats... Maybe a lot of this is being sensationalized?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


Sounds good till you think about the number of folks that have had it happen to them. (first hand)

Like me ... for one.

I will be thinking twice the next time, I want to do the "right" thing. 

Just sayin...


----------



## camo2460

Geek999 said:


> "Before the hammer is picked up". Threats. That doesn't advance the dialog. It reinforces the negative impression of cops. I suggest you try another approach if you want to convince anyone of anything.


No Geek, you misunderstood, I used that phrase to mean saying things that are hurtful, inflammatory, disrespectful ETC. It was NOT in any way, shape, or form meant as a threat. I'm sorry you took it that way


----------



## Geek999

camo2460 said:


> No Geek, you misunderstood, I used that phrase to mean saying things that are hurtful, inflammatory, disrespectful ETC. It was NOT in any way, shape, or form meant as a threat. I'm sorry you took it that way


I'll accept that, but you have probably figured out that I am not easily cowed. Whether the member you were responding to is okay with it is his call.


----------



## Geek999

*Andi said:


> Sounds good till you think about the number of folks that have had it happen to them. (first hand)
> 
> Like me ... for one.
> 
> I will be thinking twice the next time, I want to do the "right" thing.
> 
> Just sayin...


And me.

I agree that some of these stories may be sensationaiized, but with far too many the raw version is still just plain wrong.


----------



## camo2460

Geek999 said:


> I'll accept that, but you have probably figured out that I am not easily cowed. Whether the member you were responding to is okay with it is his call.


Really Geek, did you not read my response? Let me say it again, It was not meant in any way, shape, or form as a threat to you OR anyone else, therefore, NO ONE, including you, needs to feel like anyone is trying to make them "cow down". You seem to delight in taking EVERYTNING out of context, and making everyone Spell...Everything... Out. WHY? Did you drink to much Coffee or over dose on Five Hour Energy? Or do you just get your jollies by stirring the pot and trying to start a fight. Grow the "F" up


----------



## Geek999

camo2460 said:


> Really Geek, did you not read my response? Let me say it again, It was not meant in any way, shape, or form as a threat to you OR anyone else, therefore, NO ONE, including you, needs to feel like anyone is trying to make them "cow down". You seem to delight in taking EVERYTNING out of context, and making everyone Spell...Everything... Out. WHY? Did you drink to much Coffee or over dose on Five Hour Energy? Or do you just get your jollies by stirring the pot and trying to start a fight. Grow the "F" up


Virtually everything I say is taken out of context. The LEO side of these arguments varies between insulting and threatening. You may not have meant to be threatening but yours is hardly the first post to be taken out of context and I will not back down from bullies.


----------



## GaryS

camo2460 said:


> I wanted to address this issue earlier, especially the last web address, but I didn't have all of the facts, so I waited until I was able to get the Information straight from the horse's mouth. I happen to personally know several Officers in Columbia, and spoke directly with one of them who had first hand knowledge of the incident. As I have mentioned in an other post, a lawful warrant was issued for known gang members, known to be living in that house, known to be involved in distribution of drugs, and known to be involved in shootings. Further more the dog in question was not a Chihuahua, but a Pit Bull mix that attacked the Officer, and the Officer in question has not resigned or been fired, but is 100% still employed by the Columbia P.D. This Illustrates the bad information that often comes from the internet and lame stream media. I am of the opinion that if I am lied to or fed misleading or false information, I then tend to distrust the source. This problem has not happened once or twice, but thousands and thousands of times on the Internet, and yet many continue to happily wallow in this BS, without spending one second trying to corroborate said information, and continue trying to pass that information off as fact. Stop It, get the facts straight, and gain a little knowledge before the hammer is picked up.


I made no attempt to verify or disprove any of the links I posted, but randomly selected a few from the pages and pages of links that came up. I have no doubt that there is misleading information and downright lies being posted, but are all of them wrong? Does one lie discredit twenty truths? I have no more reason to believe your friend's version than I do the report in the link. Liars are liars, and there are enough of them on all sides of a story to make me tend to ignore everything I read and hear.

When Richard Nixon was being blamed for wrongdoing, I sided with him because I was firmly convinced that no one, especially my president, who claimed to share my values and ideas could do anything illegal. It took years for me to realize that he was indeed a crook, just like Clinton and Obama, and thousands of other politicians are crooks. I did the same with cops, especially when my son-in-law was a career officer in a small town department.

I didn't do anything to make cops start doing so many bad or stupid things. I too often forgave their transgressions because I thought bad things sometimes happen to good people. However, the sheer number of stupid acts and the arrogant comments and provable lies trying to justify them, finally made me realize that many police departments are just as corrupt as Nixon's White House. Stories from my son-in-law made me realize that even small towns cover for police incompetence and wrongdoing.

My ever diminishing loss of respect for law enforcement is caused by the actions of people on your side of the badge, so quit trying to place the blame on bad reporting or my bias. I understand that there are wonderful, caring, honest people on your team, and it's a shame they share the stench that continues to rise, but it is members of your team who do the things that foul the air and until you clean it up, the stink will remain.

https://medium.com/human-parts/9f53ef6a1c10


----------



## tc556guy

GaryS said:


> Check out the Cato Institute's interactive map, and don't miss the one about dismantling a house instead of waiting out a suspect, and especially don't miss the ones about having to shoot those vicious Chihuahuas.


Sorry, but I don't consider the CATO site that gets floated all the time by anti-LE types to be an unbiased source. So they have an impressive looking map with a list of raids that had issues. That's out of literally 1000's of uses of SAT nationally every year.


----------



## GaryS

tc556guy said:


> Sorry, but I don't consider the CATO site that gets floated all the time by anti-LE types to be an unbiased source. So they have an impressive looking map with a list of raids that had issues. That's out of literally 1000's of uses of SAT nationally every year.


Why do you continue to brand those who can no longer turn a blind eye to police misconduct as anti-LE?

I comply with the law, and I expect everyone else to do the same...especially those who wear a badge, or whose job takes place in a court of law and in the public eye. I believe police officers should be well paid, respected, trusted and supported by the public, but their conduct must be above reproach. Dressing and acting like some despot's personal palace guard won't hack it.

If you want to dispel the charge of too much militarization, quit calling everyone without a badge "civilians". Quit accepting military vehicles from the government. Quit dressing in black solely to intimidate. Quit communicating in a command voice. Start acting like a public servant, instead of an arm of the government on an adrenalin overdose.

Making enemies of those whose desire and history have always been to support LEOs will not fix any societal ills or make your job safer and easier. And if anyone happens to wear a badge in Connecticut, ask yourself how great it's going to be trying to arrest 300,000 gun magazine felons. That should really test the SWAT teams skills and generate good will with the "civilians".


----------



## Outpost

WARNING! LONG POST AHEAD!

Two comments from two different posts.



Turtle said:


> I believe it is for this reason that most of us find it reprehensible that an officer would not hold their fellows accountable for improper or illegal behavior. It is ingrained in us from the beginning that we must set a good example and hold ourselves and others accountable so as not to undermine the public's faith in the system.


and



Turtle said:


> This is actually something that i have been considering of late, as well. I hate to sound like a conspiracy nutjob, buuuut.....
> 
> Has anyone considered that this rise in the reports of things like this comes at time when the media is trying to divide America? Wouldn't a deliberate under-mining of the faith of the American people serve to further divide us all? Wouldn't this encourage the infamous "us versus them" mentality?


These hit close to home for me.

It seems that about twice a year someone I'm close to, family, friend, or whatever, who's some kind of L.E. comes to me with some story of some new policy, instruction, event, or some other trace of some malevolent intent by somebody's hierarchy, in some form or another. (It's happened again, but I promise to word things better than I may have in the past.) Because I know them so well, I can certainly say that your first quote contains a rarely spoken truth. I can tell you with conviction that I have been places I felt I couldn't trust anyone, but I also know they are the minority.

Perhaps *I'm* so critical sometimes because of the integrity of those with whom I associate; that I tend to measure all by the same standard. It's a very difficult standard; such is the nature of those I call friend.

Now, to your second quote.
It would be easy to call it conspiracy, but that would be an underestimation of the evil involved. All one must do to kill a conspiracy is to expose it. This is out in the open and it refuses to die. Rather, people embrace it.

The "Us vs Them" mentality of which you speak is something that has its tendrils into every aspect of society. Those with money and those without are taught to mistrust and blame each other. Those with power and those without are taught to mistrust and blame each other.

"Divide and Conquer" is not a result of conspiratorial tactic, it's a tool of a movement; a philosophical shift. This shift has been coming for a long time. There is now simply a rift in our society; those who believe in freedom and liberty, and those who believe in control.

All of us.....

*All of us*, are desperately trying to believe that there are people, outside our own "classes", if you will; outside our normal "circles" that we can trust. It appears that it may become, literally, a matter of life and death.

I have two rules that I live by; First and foremost, cause no harm or hardship to an innocent. Second; Tolerate none.

It's the second rule that has caused me heartburn, far more than the first. It's also the rule I look for in those I call friend; brother; sister; regardless of their profession. I find that it's the *ONLY* legitimate delineation of people, badge or no... and if your first quote is any indication, you probably understand, and if you do, you'll see the problem coming too.

It's not a conspiracy. They act together, seemingly in concert, quite unwittingly, simply because they think the same way.

It's time for us, *ALL OF US*, to wipe off *their* B.S., and start doing the same.

-Peace to all.


----------



## Turtle

Outpost, you definitely get it. Thank you for your eloquent response. 

I get the feeling that I would be proud to stand next to you in a shield wall, trench, you name it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## Outpost

Turtle said:


> Outpost, you definitely get it. Thank you for your eloquent response.
> 
> I get the feeling that I would be proud to stand next to you in a shield wall, trench, you name it.


The honor would be mine, sir.

-All the best.


----------



## Tylos

Actually you have the right to revert back to silent at any time in the interview process. If a subject is foolish enough to answer one question, this does not mean he can't decide to stop talking at any time. Its not the same as invoking the 5th Amendment and then waiving that right by making a statement of some kind in a court or other legal proceeding.
YMMV 


Tylos
Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum


----------



## kappydell

That is one reason I am glad I retired....I didn't sign on to beat people over the head with the law. I too am alarmed at the change in policing styles; you NEVER used to hear of people being shot for failing to comply....now I do, more and more. No wonder my deaf friends are petrified of police.


----------



## BillM

*Absolute Thugs*

Just look at what these thug Cops did to this dog.

http://viralsurvival.com/2014/05/17/what-did-cops-see-that-made-them-jump-in-this-mud/


----------



## LincTex

BillM said:


> http://viralsurvival.com/2014/05/17/what-did-cops-see-that-made-them-jump-in-this-mud/


Good for them.

An unlikely scenario in the vast majority of other areas, though.


----------

