User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:00:17 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: O_P, not all of this is directed at you, but it provides a good segue into the rest of my post: I'm as pro-cop as it gets, but yes, cops are responsible for determining what is and is not constitutional. When they take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and enforce the laws, that oath is to uphold and defend the Constitution as they understand it. A police officer really can't be expected to do anything else. The problem is that like most citizens, police officers' understanding of the Constitution is often limited solely to what the courts say is "okay." If the state or federal courts [erroneously] say that various gun control legislation is good-to-go, the average cop like the average citizen assumes that is correct. Same goes for things like checkpoints, civil asset forfeiture, drug laws, vehicle inventory searches, etc. For better or worse, this online community is much more attuned to the Constitution and its proper meaning than the rest of the public; police, citizen, or otherwise. All of the bitching here about cops enforcing unconstitutional laws really ought to be directed toward the citizenry in general. Remember folks, cops are made up of a cross-section of the society at large. They get the same crappy constitutional education that everyone else gets. You want to fix the problem of cops enforcing unconstitutional laws? Fix our country's education system! Fix our courts! Fix our elected officials! To expect that the average officer with the same crappy constitutional education from the public school system tocome up with a proper understanding of the Constitution all on their own is a wee bit ridiculous. Should it be this way? No, but that's how it is. The average cop has only his own understanding of case law as related to him by his training and education to guide him. The average cop, like the average citizen, is not as invested in constitutional law and theory as the average Arfcommer. For better or worse, the majority of America is not like us here on this site. A substantial segment of American citizens can't even be persuaded to vote, much less to care about their constitutional rights! I don't like this fact, but I recognize that it is the reality. Fortunately, there are many cops out there that do have a decent respect and understanding of the Constitution. There are entire law enforcement agencies that go out of their way to ensure that their officers are well educated in regards to the Constitution. But that is a reflection of that agency's community. The agencies in Wyoming are probably going to have a healthier respect for the Constitution than the agencies in California and New York because the citizenry that they serve have a healthier respect for the Constitution. I will relate an interaction I had with an RCMP officer regarding a handgun I owned. Some back ground info. A former liberal Prime Minister decided that any .25 & 32 caliber hand guns or handguns with a barrel shorter then 4" were deemed to dangerous for civilians to own and changed their status from restricted to prohibited. I owned a .32 cal 5 shot revolver with a 3" barrel (double wammy) that was legally registered to me. But because I was caught in a gray area (they didn't go back far enough when they grandfathered owners and the revisions didn't make it through parliament in time) I suddenly became in possession of an illegal firearm. I appealed the firearms center decision and had to go to court. during this time frame I had an RCMP Constable show up at my house with their copy of a letter I was sent explaining the process for dealing with this situation. He explained the letter was intended for me and that he was there to deliver it and pick up the revolver in question. I was..   So..I explained how the process worked..quoting from the letter he was holding and at the end of the conversation..he apologized for wasting my time and said "why the heck did they send me out here then?". The next day he was back under the pretense that he forgot to get my phone number.  and again..attempted to get me to turn over the revolver.I know full well it wasn't him that was doing this on his own..it was RCMP brass..no doubt in Ottawa. No doubt they confiscated quite a few handguns from gun owners who didn't take the time to educate themselves on this particular situation. So..because I had a naive RCMP officer show up at my door attempting to take one of my firearms from me..do I hate all cops now? Hell no..he was doing what a supervisor no doubt told him to do..and when I explained the entire situation to him..he apologized and left..without my handgun. Does this mean I trust the entire police hierarchy. Hell no. I've been around long enough to know that some of those at the top (not all) have hidden agenda's or political aspirations. google Julian Fantino to see what I mean. But until such time as a street cop gives me a reason to not trust him..then I will. Have I had bad experiences with cops. yes a few..but my issue is with that specific cop..not all of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:01:35 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hope you have a fast recovery. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I had surgery a Thursaday and I'm full of painkillers today, so 'm out. I can't gather my thoughts quite the way I would like and probably wouldn't have even posted, but maybe in a week or two I will type what I have been feeling about this subject...or maybe I won't. either way. I'm out of this thread right now. Hope you have a fast recovery. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:01:46 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sad but true. Agree 100%. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The average cop, like the average citizen, is not as invested in constitutional law and theory as the average Arfcommer. For better or worse, the majority of America is not like us here on this site. A substantial segment of American citizens can't even be persuaded to vote, much less to care about their constitutional rights! I don't like this fact, but I recognize that it is the reality. Fortunately, there are many cops out there that do have a decent respect and understanding of the Constitution. There are entire law enforcement agencies that go out of their way to ensure that their officers are well educated in regards to the Constitution. But that is a reflection of that agency's community. The agencies in Wyoming are probably going to have a healthier respect for the Constitution than the agencies in California and New York because the citizenry that they serve have a healthier respect for the Constitution. Sad but true. Agree 100%. SO true 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:03:03 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am glad to answer that question. It is because the citizens of those locations elect corrupt politicians who pass bad laws. And they elect corrupt Judges that rule wrongly about the laws. You are getting mad at the wrong people when you blame cops for bad laws. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Excellent article. Didn't see anything wrong with it at all. So explain why the citizens of DC still can't get a CCL for a handgun as of today? If the system works for everyone, why is it still an issue? Are Washington DC's police still enforcing the clearly unconstitutional laws that their politicians continue to pass? I am glad to answer that question. It is because the citizens of those locations elect corrupt politicians who pass bad laws. And they elect corrupt Judges that rule wrongly about the laws. You are getting mad at the wrong people when you blame cops for bad laws. You kind of have to also blame those who enforce said laws as well. "Just following orders" is not an excuse for bad actions. You don't check your morality at the door when you put on a uniform. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:03:59 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I used to sell software into law enforcement intel and spent quite a bit of time with seasoned cops as a result. One guy told me flat out one day that cops after a time either see everyone as a victim of circumstance or as a criminal just waiting to commit or be caught.. there are just the two camps and eventually everyone falls into them. Extrapolating from what he said it sure seemed like for that 2nd group there's your brothers in blue and there's "them" and its pretty much it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The problem with the "militarization" of the police is that, more and more, they're coming to look at average Americans as "the enemy". It's not only about equipment, though. It's a culture and mindset, too - and as standards are lowered to keep the rosters full, so too will the quality of LEO's deteriorate. Over-the-top violent cops will continue to stomp on the constitution and the good ones left will either become corrupted themselves, or become so disgusted, they'll leave LE altogether. Either way, it's not a rosy scenario and I don't see it getting better anytime soon. Oh. And I don't "hate cops". I am quite aware of what's happening, though. All you need are eyes, ears and a fucking brain. only paranoid people think that. absolutely not..... I used to sell software into law enforcement intel and spent quite a bit of time with seasoned cops as a result. One guy told me flat out one day that cops after a time either see everyone as a victim of circumstance or as a criminal just waiting to commit or be caught.. there are just the two camps and eventually everyone falls into them. Extrapolating from what he said it sure seemed like for that 2nd group there's your brothers in blue and there's "them" and its pretty much it. So you base all of your thoughts about LEOs based on the comments of one cop?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:04:59 PM EDT
[#6]
As a free American, I can own anything I want, including a machine gun, a silencer or even what the press calls "a tank". I'd Like to see him try to own a PS90 or some other machine gun made after the ban. Yeah You CAN own a M16 rifle. For the little expense of $15,000. Sure you have the dealers who get to play with "police demos". As to the article I don't hate cops. My mother was a dispatcher for 20 years and I have known and been friends with many cops. I don't care for the ones who have no integrity and lie, cheat, and steal and think there needs to be more accountability.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:05:12 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well said. I will be the first to admit I have become not "distrustful" but wary of people that I don't know now. I have no choice..being wary, vigilant, hell maybe a bit paranoid keeps me alive. I can't speak to the out of control police depts or small towns run by corrupt officials or police as I have no experience with that. I can understand though why people that have experienced it being anti leo. I also have no problem (as do most of the cops I know) with people discussing "specific" cases of bad or corrupt leo's. Believe it or not..we hate corrupt leos worse then you folks..because we depend on them to have our back when it goes sideways.. If you can't trust them 100% because they sold out..then then need to get what's coming to them. fired, prison,etc. However we have far more "paint em all with the same brush" posts here by people that post for no other reason then to stir up shit. This site has always been pro leo and pro military. That doesn't mean we protect the bad cops or bad soldiers.. We do however not allow people to bash police or soldiers in general.. Got a problem with a cop or police dept..post the links, articulate your "case" in a respectful manner and be able to defend it in the soon to follow debate. +! 
I don't think that is to much to ask. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ya..I didn't consider it would appear as a troll thread. Just trying to generate good conversation on the "hate for cops" that seems to be very prevalent here. Having said that..if people can debate the article or express their opinions without breaking the site rules..then there is nothing to worry about is there. I can't speak to the out of control police depts or small towns run by corrupt officials or police as I have no experience with that. I can understand though why people that have experienced it being anti leo. I also have no problem (as do most of the cops I know) with people discussing "specific" cases of bad or corrupt leo's. Believe it or not..we hate corrupt leos worse then you folks..because we depend on them to have our back when it goes sideways.. If you can't trust them 100% because they sold out..then then need to get what's coming to them. fired, prison,etc. However we have far more "paint em all with the same brush" posts here by people that post for no other reason then to stir up shit. This site has always been pro leo and pro military. That doesn't mean we protect the bad cops or bad soldiers.. We do however not allow people to bash police or soldiers in general.. Got a problem with a cop or police dept..post the links, articulate your "case" in a respectful manner and be able to defend it in the soon to follow debate. +!
I don't think that is to much to ask. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:05:33 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
O_P, not all of this is directed at you, but it provides a good segue into the rest of my post: I'm as pro-cop as it gets, but yes, cops are responsible for determining what is and is not constitutional. When they take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and enforce the laws, that oath is to uphold and defend the Constitution as they understand it. A police officer really can't be expected to do anything else. The problem is that like most citizens, police officers' understanding of the Constitution is often limited solely to what the courts say is "okay." If the state or federal courts [erroneously] say that various gun control legislation is good-to-go, the average cop like the average citizen assumes that is correct. Same goes for things like checkpoints, civil asset forfeiture, drug laws, vehicle inventory searches, etc. For better or worse, this online community is much more attuned to the Constitution and its proper meaning than the rest of the public; police, citizen, or otherwise. All of the bitching here about cops enforcing unconstitutional laws really ought to be directed toward the citizenry in general. Remember folks, cops are made up of a cross-section of the society at large. They get the same crappy constitutional education that everyone else gets. You want to fix the problem of cops enforcing unconstitutional laws? Fix our country's education system! Fix our courts! Fix our elected officials! To expect that the average officer with the same crappy constitutional education from the public school system tocome up with a proper understanding of the Constitution all on their own is a wee bit ridiculous. Should it be this way? No, but that's how it is. The average cop has only his own understanding of case law as related to him by his training and education to guide him. The average cop, like the average citizen, is not as invested in constitutional law and theory as the average Arfcommer. For better or worse, the majority of America is not like us here on this site. A substantial segment of American citizens can't even be persuaded to vote, much less to care about their constitutional rights! I don't like this fact, but I recognize that it is the reality. Fortunately, there are many cops out there that do have a decent respect and understanding of the Constitution. There are entire law enforcement agencies that go out of their way to ensure that their officers are well educated in regards to the Constitution. But that is a reflection of that agency's community. The agencies in Wyoming are probably going to have a healthier respect for the Constitution than the agencies in California and New York because the citizenry that they serve have a healthier respect for the Constitution. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So let me know the first time a cop calls the local TV station and says "Look, I've done this for fifteen years, and really wanted to keep helping my community, but since the passage of the SAFE Act it is clear that I will be required to violate people's constitutional rights so I'm done, ...... So, you are a lawyer, yet you believe it is the responsibility of police officers to determine what is Constitutional and what is not? Can we just do away with Judges and the court system? We could sure save a ton of money. 
O_P, not all of this is directed at you, but it provides a good segue into the rest of my post: I'm as pro-cop as it gets, but yes, cops are responsible for determining what is and is not constitutional. When they take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and enforce the laws, that oath is to uphold and defend the Constitution as they understand it. A police officer really can't be expected to do anything else. The problem is that like most citizens, police officers' understanding of the Constitution is often limited solely to what the courts say is "okay." If the state or federal courts [erroneously] say that various gun control legislation is good-to-go, the average cop like the average citizen assumes that is correct. Same goes for things like checkpoints, civil asset forfeiture, drug laws, vehicle inventory searches, etc. For better or worse, this online community is much more attuned to the Constitution and its proper meaning than the rest of the public; police, citizen, or otherwise. All of the bitching here about cops enforcing unconstitutional laws really ought to be directed toward the citizenry in general. Remember folks, cops are made up of a cross-section of the society at large. They get the same crappy constitutional education that everyone else gets. You want to fix the problem of cops enforcing unconstitutional laws? Fix our country's education system! Fix our courts! Fix our elected officials! To expect that the average officer with the same crappy constitutional education from the public school system tocome up with a proper understanding of the Constitution all on their own is a wee bit ridiculous. Should it be this way? No, but that's how it is. The average cop has only his own understanding of case law as related to him by his training and education to guide him. The average cop, like the average citizen, is not as invested in constitutional law and theory as the average Arfcommer. For better or worse, the majority of America is not like us here on this site. A substantial segment of American citizens can't even be persuaded to vote, much less to care about their constitutional rights! I don't like this fact, but I recognize that it is the reality. Fortunately, there are many cops out there that do have a decent respect and understanding of the Constitution. There are entire law enforcement agencies that go out of their way to ensure that their officers are well educated in regards to the Constitution. But that is a reflection of that agency's community. The agencies in Wyoming are probably going to have a healthier respect for the Constitution than the agencies in California and New York because the citizenry that they serve have a healthier respect for the Constitution. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:05:40 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you do not vote for the party who enacts laws, do you feel obligated to follow those laws? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If I had voted liberal then yes..I would be partially responsible for the crap gun laws up here. But I voted conservative..and they got rid of the long gun registry, have tightened up laws that benefited the criminals, enacted laws to give more rights to victims and are in the process of eliminating redundant permits and unnecessary crap from our current gun laws. See how that works..elect officials that will write or change laws that will benefit the populace.. If you do not vote for the party who enacts laws, do you feel obligated to follow those laws? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:06:00 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you base all of your thoughts about LEOs based on the comments of one cop? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The problem with the "militarization" of the police is that, more and more, they're coming to look at average Americans as "the enemy". It's not only about equipment, though. It's a culture and mindset, too - and as standards are lowered to keep the rosters full, so too will the quality of LEO's deteriorate. Over-the-top violent cops will continue to stomp on the constitution and the good ones left will either become corrupted themselves, or become so disgusted, they'll leave LE altogether. Either way, it's not a rosy scenario and I don't see it getting better anytime soon. Oh. And I don't "hate cops". I am quite aware of what's happening, though. All you need are eyes, ears and a fucking brain. only paranoid people think that. absolutely not..... I used to sell software into law enforcement intel and spent quite a bit of time with seasoned cops as a result. One guy told me flat out one day that cops after a time either see everyone as a victim of circumstance or as a criminal just waiting to commit or be caught.. there are just the two camps and eventually everyone falls into them. Extrapolating from what he said it sure seemed like for that 2nd group there's your brothers in blue and there's "them" and its pretty much it. So you base all of your thoughts about LEOs based on the comments of one cop? I base my opinion towards LEO from the interactions I've had. And the attitude of some that post here just add to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:06:21 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Very well said sir. I will relate an interaction I had with an RCMP officer regarding a handgun I owned. Some back ground info. A former liberal Prime Minister decided that any .25 & 32 caliber hand guns or handguns with a barrel shorter then 4" were deemed to dangerous for civilians to own and changed their status from restricted to prohibited. I owned a .32 cal 5 shot revolver with a 3" barrel (double wammy) that was legally registered to me. But because I was caught in a gray area (they didn't go back far enough when they grandfathered owners and the revisions didn't make it through parliament in time) I suddenly became in possession of an illegal firearm. I appealed the firearms center decision and had to go to court. during this time frame I had an RCMP Constable show up at my house with their copy of a letter I was sent explaining the process for dealing with this situation. He explained the letter was intended for me and that he was there to deliver it and pick up the revolver in question. I was..
So..I explained how the process worked..quoting from the letter he was holding and at the end of the conversation..he apologized for wasting my time and said "why the heck did they send me out here then?". The next day he was back under the pretense that he forgot to get my phone number. and again..attempted to get me to turn over the revolver.
I know full well it wasn't him that was doing this on his own..it was RCMP brass..no doubt in Ottawa. No doubt they confiscated quite a few handguns from gun owners who didn't take the time to educate themselves on this particular situation. So..because I had a naive RCMP officer show up at my door attempting to take one of my firearms from me..do I hate all cops now? Hell no..he was doing what a supervisor no doubt told him to do..and when I explained the entire situation to him..he apologized and left..without my handgun. Does this mean I trust the entire police hierarchy. Hell no. I've been around long enough to know that some of those at the top (not all) have hidden agenda's or political aspirations. google Julian Fantino to see what I mean. But until such time as a street cop gives me a reason to not trust him..then I will. Have I had bad experiences with cops. yes a few..but my issue is with that specific cop..not all of them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
O_P, not all of this is directed at you, but it provides a good segue into the rest of my post: I'm as pro-cop as it gets, but yes, cops are responsible for determining what is and is not constitutional. When they take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and enforce the laws, that oath is to uphold and defend the Constitution as they understand it. A police officer really can't be expected to do anything else. The problem is that like most citizens, police officers' understanding of the Constitution is often limited solely to what the courts say is "okay." If the state or federal courts [erroneously] say that various gun control legislation is good-to-go, the average cop like the average citizen assumes that is correct. Same goes for things like checkpoints, civil asset forfeiture, drug laws, vehicle inventory searches, etc. For better or worse, this online community is much more attuned to the Constitution and its proper meaning than the rest of the public; police, citizen, or otherwise. All of the bitching here about cops enforcing unconstitutional laws really ought to be directed toward the citizenry in general. Remember folks, cops are made up of a cross-section of the society at large. They get the same crappy constitutional education that everyone else gets. You want to fix the problem of cops enforcing unconstitutional laws? Fix our country's education system! Fix our courts! Fix our elected officials! To expect that the average officer with the same crappy constitutional education from the public school system tocome up with a proper understanding of the Constitution all on their own is a wee bit ridiculous. Should it be this way? No, but that's how it is. The average cop has only his own understanding of case law as related to him by his training and education to guide him. The average cop, like the average citizen, is not as invested in constitutional law and theory as the average Arfcommer. For better or worse, the majority of America is not like us here on this site. A substantial segment of American citizens can't even be persuaded to vote, much less to care about their constitutional rights! I don't like this fact, but I recognize that it is the reality. Fortunately, there are many cops out there that do have a decent respect and understanding of the Constitution. There are entire law enforcement agencies that go out of their way to ensure that their officers are well educated in regards to the Constitution. But that is a reflection of that agency's community. The agencies in Wyoming are probably going to have a healthier respect for the Constitution than the agencies in California and New York because the citizenry that they serve have a healthier respect for the Constitution. I will relate an interaction I had with an RCMP officer regarding a handgun I owned. Some back ground info. A former liberal Prime Minister decided that any .25 & 32 caliber hand guns or handguns with a barrel shorter then 4" were deemed to dangerous for civilians to own and changed their status from restricted to prohibited. I owned a .32 cal 5 shot revolver with a 3" barrel (double wammy) that was legally registered to me. But because I was caught in a gray area (they didn't go back far enough when they grandfathered owners and the revisions didn't make it through parliament in time) I suddenly became in possession of an illegal firearm. I appealed the firearms center decision and had to go to court. during this time frame I had an RCMP Constable show up at my house with their copy of a letter I was sent explaining the process for dealing with this situation. He explained the letter was intended for me and that he was there to deliver it and pick up the revolver in question. I was..
So..I explained how the process worked..quoting from the letter he was holding and at the end of the conversation..he apologized for wasting my time and said "why the heck did they send me out here then?". The next day he was back under the pretense that he forgot to get my phone number. and again..attempted to get me to turn over the revolver.
I know full well it wasn't him that was doing this on his own..it was RCMP brass..no doubt in Ottawa. No doubt they confiscated quite a few handguns from gun owners who didn't take the time to educate themselves on this particular situation. So..because I had a naive RCMP officer show up at my door attempting to take one of my firearms from me..do I hate all cops now? Hell no..he was doing what a supervisor no doubt told him to do..and when I explained the entire situation to him..he apologized and left..without my handgun. Does this mean I trust the entire police hierarchy. Hell no. I've been around long enough to know that some of those at the top (not all) have hidden agenda's or political aspirations. google Julian Fantino to see what I mean. But until such time as a street cop gives me a reason to not trust him..then I will. Have I had bad experiences with cops. yes a few..but my issue is with that specific cop..not all of them. So in Canada, even when they come for your guns, they say "sorry".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:06:30 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Look I like you Taft. I've always thought of you as a nice guy, great poster. Here is the deal and it proves my earlier point. If you were a truck driver and said that about a police officer instead of an attorney, you would be looking at a ban if a few of the right guys saw your post. Since Aimless is staff, he is probably going to just blow it off and not think twice about it and you will be fine. However if he were just a regular member, this would be a bad interaction with a cop when in reality he was making a very astute point about how things work in real life (which ironically is what Striker was asking from the non-leo members.) Again Aimless is an example of a pro-law enforcement guy (who has proven it repeatedly) having a bad interaction with a ARF cop. This is the problem and a huge bias doesn't allow a lot of members to even see it, including a few staff members. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You can order me to hammer someone to a cross, but I won't pick up the hammer. We're all responsible in the end for our own actions.
If a man decides to take up arms against an American for having an AR15, or for sitting in the front of a bus when a black man is supposed to sit in the back, thirty pieces of silver is no excuse. Yet lawyers do theirs for sixty pieces of silver and call it legal. You are so full of shit, just like most lawyers. Look I like you Taft. I've always thought of you as a nice guy, great poster. Here is the deal and it proves my earlier point. If you were a truck driver and said that about a police officer instead of an attorney, you would be looking at a ban if a few of the right guys saw your post. Since Aimless is staff, he is probably going to just blow it off and not think twice about it and you will be fine. However if he were just a regular member, this would be a bad interaction with a cop when in reality he was making a very astute point about how things work in real life (which ironically is what Striker was asking from the non-leo members.) Again Aimless is an example of a pro-law enforcement guy (who has proven it repeatedly) having a bad interaction with a ARF cop. This is the problem and a huge bias doesn't allow a lot of members to even see it, including a few staff members. Paper law and reality are two completely different things. Enforcement is and always has been the key. Aimless's comment was such that cops get paid to make bad decisions and lawyers don't. That is wrong on any level. Aimless has always been supportive of LEO's but his comments just struck a nerve with me today, probably because of the LEO deaths in Sacramento yesterday. I will pull back a notch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:07:48 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I used to sell software into law enforcement intel and spent quite a bit of time with seasoned cops as a result. One guy told me flat out one day that cops after a time either see everyone as a victim of circumstance or as a criminal just waiting to commit or be caught.. there are just the two camps and eventually everyone falls into them. Extrapolating from what he said it sure seemed like for that 2nd group there's your brothers in blue and there's "them" and its pretty much it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The problem with the "militarization" of the police is that, more and more, they're coming to look at average Americans as "the enemy". It's not only about equipment, though. It's a culture and mindset, too - and as standards are lowered to keep the rosters full, so too will the quality of LEO's deteriorate. Over-the-top violent cops will continue to stomp on the constitution and the good ones left will either become corrupted themselves, or become so disgusted, they'll leave LE altogether. Either way, it's not a rosy scenario and I don't see it getting better anytime soon. Oh. And I don't "hate cops". I am quite aware of what's happening, though. All you need are eyes, ears and a fucking brain. only paranoid people think that. absolutely not..... I used to sell software into law enforcement intel and spent quite a bit of time with seasoned cops as a result. One guy told me flat out one day that cops after a time either see everyone as a victim of circumstance or as a criminal just waiting to commit or be caught.. there are just the two camps and eventually everyone falls into them. Extrapolating from what he said it sure seemed like for that 2nd group there's your brothers in blue and there's "them" and its pretty much it. "this one guy I ran into one time said stuff!" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:07:48 PM EDT
[#14]
de-militarize the criminals
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:07:55 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
things are different in the US then in china. come visit sometime. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The police need that equipment for the appropriate circumstances. Problem is most cops generate revenue. Not fighting ms13 or American Taliban in quiet little towns. And yes they do view citizens as "the enemy" and will "do what needs to be done" so they "can go home at night". Which means citizens rights and lives are secondary to police. things are different in the US then in china. come visit sometime. Than. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:07:57 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I mean... ahem!...Hold on I will get you your hurt feelings report for you to fill out and give to staff. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Site staff throws out a troll thread and the threatens people. Pft. This.
I mean... ahem!...Hold on I will get you your hurt feelings report for you to fill out and give to staff. For some reason, the latter part of my argument was deleted or did not post. I went on to follow to say that the argument is not what cops wear or what gear they use but rather what laws they are asked to enforce and those laws are really the fault of the voting public and the blame lies primarily with them. I haven't the faintest idea why my post was cut and that only that portion made it up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:08:15 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As I see it, there are two camps here. Both agree that LE works under authority and can't just decide for themselves what to enforce. One group says that that authority is what their direct superiors say is The Law. The other group says that LE should exercise their own conscience and hold the Constitution as the standard and make judgements accordingly. Ah, but to become a leo did they not, every single one of them swear an oath to uphold the Constitution? the problem with "bad" leo is you have no choice (or idea which one shows up) in who you deal with..good or bad leo he is the one entering your life and he has both the power and the immunity to destroy your life..weather its deserved or not( such as a no knock on wrong address)..to the leo, its not a big deal, but if you hear them kicking your door in the middle of the night and arm yourself, theres a damn good chance you won't live thru the next few minutes ...there is no other profession in the US that can put the law abiding citizen in as much peril as a cop doing his job....especially if he isn't a good cop....We the citizen want accountability for that peril we are put in..we want to know that every cop is doing everything in his power (every minute of every day)to make sure they are doing it right..mistakes happen..but when 10 cops do a no knock on the wrong address , thats not a mistake..its incompetence or a total lack of care....every officer involved should have personally verified that he was hitting the right home..(right thru contacting the original investigator to make sure).. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:08:19 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Canadians.  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I love it when site staff kick off a shit storm in GD. And when the most senior site staffer does it, priceless!  Canadians. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:08:28 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Look I like you Taft. I've always thought of you as a nice guy, great poster. Here is the deal and it proves my earlier point. If you were a truck driver and said that about a police officer instead of an attorney, you would be looking at a ban if a few of the right guys saw your post. Since Aimless is staff, he is probably going to just blow it off and not think twice about it and you will be fine. However if he were just a regular member, this would be a bad interaction with a cop when in reality he was making a very astute point about how things work in real life (which ironically is what Striker was asking from the non-leo members.) Again Aimless is an example of a pro-law enforcement guy (who has proven it repeatedly) having a bad interaction with a ARF cop. This is the problem and a huge bias doesn't allow a lot of members to even see it, including a few staff members. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You can order me to hammer someone to a cross, but I won't pick up the hammer. We're all responsible in the end for our own actions.
If a man decides to take up arms against an American for having an AR15, or for sitting in the front of a bus when a black man is supposed to sit in the back, thirty pieces of silver is no excuse. Yet lawyers do theirs for sixty pieces of silver and call it legal. You are so full of shit, just like most lawyers. Look I like you Taft. I've always thought of you as a nice guy, great poster. Here is the deal and it proves my earlier point. If you were a truck driver and said that about a police officer instead of an attorney, you would be looking at a ban if a few of the right guys saw your post. Since Aimless is staff, he is probably going to just blow it off and not think twice about it and you will be fine. However if he were just a regular member, this would be a bad interaction with a cop when in reality he was making a very astute point about how things work in real life (which ironically is what Striker was asking from the non-leo members.) Again Aimless is an example of a pro-law enforcement guy (who has proven it repeatedly) having a bad interaction with a ARF cop. This is the problem and a huge bias doesn't allow a lot of members to even see it, including a few staff members. BS, I read that type of talk here all the time in many threads and it goes unreported or unnoticed because it's blown off as people just arguing, as it should be in most cases. As for Aimless, yes he's a good guy and is most definitely pro law enforcement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:08:46 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I base my opinion towards LEO from the interactions I've had. And the attitude of some that post here just add to it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So you base all of your thoughts about LEOs based on the comments of one cop? I base my opinion towards LEO from the interactions I've had. And the attitude of some that post here just add to it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:08:55 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Every no refusal checkpoint, every road side asset forfeiture, every no knock raid for anything other than the preservation of life is every cop involved in it saying fuck the Constitution. You can hide behind your legal rationalizations all you want, because that's all they are. Enforcing the law is, in fact and action, interpretation of the Constitution. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
...are you sure you want cops being the judges of what is Constitutional and what is not? They already do it. Badly. No they don't, and you know it. The Court system decides what is Constitutional or not, and finally the Supreme Court. Cops cannot do that. Every no refusal checkpoint, every road side asset forfeiture, every no knock raid for anything other than the preservation of life is every cop involved in it saying fuck the Constitution. You can hide behind your legal rationalizations all you want, because that's all they are. Enforcing the law is, in fact and action, interpretation of the Constitution. Throughout time there has always been men to do the job. It's been done before. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:09:11 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's Saturday. I haven't had any pants on since 5:30 yesterday afternoon. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Am I the only one with my pants off in this thread? It's Saturday. I haven't had any pants on since 5:30 yesterday afternoon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:09:19 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FIFY Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The problem with the "militarization" of the police is that, more and more, they're coming to look at average Americans as "the enemy". It's not only about equipment, though. It's a culture and mindset, too - and as standards are lowered to keep the rosters full, so too will the quality of LEO's deteriorate. Over-the-top violent cops will continue to stomp on the constitution and the good ones left will either become corrupted themselves, or become so disgusted, they'll leave LE altogether. Either way, it's not a rosy scenario and I don't see it getting better anytime soon. Oh. And I don't "hate cops". I am quite aware of what's happening, though. All you need are eyes, ears and a fucking brain. only paranoid educated people think that. FIFY
what internet site did you buy your education on? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:09:28 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I mean... ahem!...Hold on I will get you your hurt feelings report for you to fill out and give to staff. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Site staff throws out a troll thread and the threatens people. Pft. This.
I mean... ahem!...Hold on I will get you your hurt feelings report for you to fill out and give to staff. Ah, I see that you selectively edited my post to make it look other than it was. That's a bit disingenuous of you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:09:32 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In other words the concept of (ends justifies the means) as long as you win and get paid are hard coded into the profession, yet he wants to point fingers and preach about the moral pitfalls of (just following orders). 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You can order me to hammer someone to a cross, but I won't pick up the hammer. We're all responsible in the end for our own actions.
If a man decides to take up arms against an American for having an AR15, or for sitting in the front of a bus when a black man is supposed to sit in the back, thirty pieces of silver is no excuse. Yet lawyers do theirs for sixty pieces of silver and call it legal. You are so full of shit, just like most lawyers. He has a fiduciary responsibility to his guilty client. You wouldn't understand. Exactly. Even the guilty are entitled to effective legal counsel. The truth of the matter is that if a guilty man is given ineffective counsel and in turn is found guilty in spite of proseuctorial misconduct or violations of that guilty man's rights, justice has not been done. Effective counsel for defendants is necessary to ensure that justice is actually served, that the laws are followed by everyone (including the government). It forces the police and prosecutors to work harder to make solid cases. It forces them to improve the quality of their work. Remember the maxim that it is better for one hundred guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to hang? That's ensured by attorneys representing all of their clients to the best of their abilities, regardless of their client's guilt. That's also why I, as a law student, have no interest in working as a defense attorney. I'm not certain that I'd be able to represent someone that I believed to be guilty to the best of my abilities. However, I have tremendous respect for those principled attorneys that are able to do so. They are what allows our justice system to function as well as it usually does. In other words the concept of (ends justifies the means) as long as you win and get paid are hard coded into the profession, yet he wants to point fingers and preach about the moral pitfalls of (just following orders).
That's hardly what he's saying. There's a difference between doing anything and everything in order to win and providing effective legal counsel. It's possible to effectively defend a guilty client while remaining an ethical and principled person. I've seen it happen. I've squared off against those attorneys in courtrooms (under MI's student practice rule) and have tremendous respect for the work they do. One in particular was successful in getting a client off of a possession of marijuana charge in a motion hearing I argued, he later was able to defend a client successfully against a murder charge. He didn't win by being a slimeball either, he won by forcing the police to follow the law. It may seem strange, but at least in my home jurisdiction the vast majority of the cops and the defense attorneys get along very well. Each understands that the other has a job to do. The defense attorneys rarely attack the officers personally, or sling mud. But they do thoroughly examine the work that's been done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:09:46 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If NavyDoc1 said the sky was pink I would have to go outside and check. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Site staff throws out a troll thread and the threatens people. Pft. This. However, issues with law enforcement should really have nothing to do with the gear they have or clothes they wear but the laws they are enforcing. As such, the problem is with the people who vote for those laws, rather than those who enforce it. Now there is a reasonable thought. If NavyDoc1 said the sky was pink I would have to go outside and check. There is mounting evidence that we aren't voting for this anymore. State after state, voter fraud is becoming rampant, with early and absentee voting further enabling it. A leftist machine is driving this shit, and LEOs get to serve as their loyal attack dogs. Two wolves voted to have the sheep for dinner. Protect the sheep Mr. Sheepdog, instead of setting the dinner table. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:10:04 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You could start by following your own advice and getting a job at Home Depot or something. As far as I'm aware there is no lawyer draft in progress. Or you could continue to hide behind the (We have a judicial system) part of the statement which ironically is exactly the same defense used while jabbing others. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You can order me to hammer someone to a cross, but I won't pick up the hammer. We're all responsible in the end for our own actions. If a man decides to take up arms against an American for having an AR15, or for sitting in the front of a bus when a black man is supposed to sit in the back, thirty pieces of silver is no excuse. How does that righteousness mesh with the concept of working your ass off for thirty pieces of silver to make sure someone who is obviously guilty, and if your work is successful will without a doubt go on to harm others? Not to mention I turn cases down all the time ;) You could start by following your own advice and getting a job at Home Depot or something. As far as I'm aware there is no lawyer draft in progress. Or you could continue to hide behind the (We have a judicial system) part of the statement which ironically is exactly the same defense used while jabbing others. But no cop is going to say "Oh hey sarge, I'm gonna pass on executing that warrant for the guy with the 11 round magazine this afternoon" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:10:28 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
disagree the tactics and training are paramilitary in fact, if you look at the change in definition and view of LE over the past 50yrs, you will see a sharp move away from 'part of the community' to 'we are not civilians on the job'. There is very much an us vs. them mentality with LE seeing themselves as non civilians and on community members. Many internal reviews have affirmed this (at least up here). I will also add that the academy training is certainly paramilitary when it should focus on other things go ahead and do a poll for LE or visit LE web forums and pose the question; are you civilan if LE? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Site staff throws out a troll thread and the threatens people. Pft. This. However, issues with law enforcement should really have nothing to do with the gear they have or clothes they wear but the laws they are enforcing. As such, the problem is with the people who vote for those laws, rather than those who enforce it. disagree the tactics and training are paramilitary in fact, if you look at the change in definition and view of LE over the past 50yrs, you will see a sharp move away from 'part of the community' to 'we are not civilians on the job'. There is very much an us vs. them mentality with LE seeing themselves as non civilians and on community members. Many internal reviews have affirmed this (at least up here). I will also add that the academy training is certainly paramilitary when it should focus on other things go ahead and do a poll for LE or visit LE web forums and pose the question; are you civilan if LE? One should have the gear necessary to do the job, regardless if it looks military or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:11:02 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
fuck Canada!
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I love it when site staff kick off a shit storm in GD. And when the most senior site staffer does it, priceless!
Canadians.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:11:13 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For some reason, the latter part of my argument was deleted or did not post. I went on to follow to say that the argument is not what cops wear or what gear they use but rather what laws they are asked to enforce and those laws are really the fault of the voting public and the blame lies primarily with them. I haven't the faintest idea why my post was cut and that only that portion made it up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Site staff throws out a troll thread and the threatens people. Pft. This.
I mean... ahem!...Hold on I will get you your hurt feelings report for you to fill out and give to staff. For some reason, the latter part of my argument was deleted or did not post. I went on to follow to say that the argument is not what cops wear or what gear they use but rather what laws they are asked to enforce and those laws are really the fault of the voting public and the blame lies primarily with them. I haven't the faintest idea why my post was cut and that only that portion made it up. I edited it out as I wanted to make sure that that message you posted wasn't viewed as the one I was laughing at. I agreed with that part of your post. I was laughing at your agreement of Mike's post. That is all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:11:15 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We could sell tickets to this thread. It's the fight of century (or at least this Saturday afternoon...) Striker "HAMMER von Hammer" vs. Aimless "THE ALMIGHTY" Site Staff vs. Site Staff Mod vs. Mod member vs. member LEO vs. non-LEO Cats and dogs WILL live together IN ...this no holds barred, caged dead horse death match! No one get's out without a warning, timeout, or ban!!!!!!!!!!!! BE THERE....BE THERE....BE THERE....be there...be there |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:11:17 PM EDT
[#32]
this is the only thing I'm going to post in this thread considering the "warning" provided in the OP.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:11:41 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
http://www.breachbangclear.com/why-i-hate-cops/ An excellent read. I will warn the anti-cop members here..keep your posts with in the CoC or you will be shown the door. Argue the merits of this article all you want. Attack cops (including our LEO members here) because they are cops and you will be gone from the site. Oh you
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:11:43 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I base my opinion towards LEO from the interactions I've had. And the attitude of some that post here just add to it. I've read damn near every LEO thread here at one time or another I bet. It's obvious this "attitude" you really mean (simply not agreeing with you). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:12:24 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm going to reply with a few videos and then a news article that shows why political change is a huge hurdle. All of it will involve the police and politicians completely ignoring the law.  http://youtu.be/xM9RyVKV9Pk
http://youtu.be/G_9CUac5ds4
http://freebeacon.com/politics/dc-passes-restrictive-may-issue-gun-carry-law/ Not isolated incidents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:12:34 PM EDT
[#36]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:12:59 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: fuck Canada! eh Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I love it when site staff kick off a shit storm in GD. And when the most senior site staffer does it, priceless! Canadians. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:13:50 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I base my opinion towards LEO from the interactions I've had. And the attitude of some that post here just add to it. if you have had that many interactions with LEO's you are either a cop or a criminal. or maybe just victimized alot |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:14:28 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: why would you want good cops to quit and clear the way for a yes man? seems like a stupid plan for getting your rights back., Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Holy troll thread Batman Who whines like Internet cops? Jesus Christ, there are threads here constantly bitching about lawyers, union carpenters, auto mechanics, car salesmen. But you know who -sniffle-sniffle- whines and leaves the Internet like a 13 year old who got cut from the junior high cheer team? You know who. So let me know the first time a cop calls the local TV station and says "Look, I've done this for fifteen years, and really wanted to keep helping my community, but since the passage of the SAFE Act it is clear that I will be required to violate people's constitutional rights so I'm done, and I call on my fellow officers to do what's right. Sure I'm losing free dental and there are not a lot of other jobs for me to go into, but I'm not going to rationalize doing the wrong thing by saying it's okay because the legislature passed this law and I'm just following orders. I'm looking for work, please call if you have any openings." why would you want good cops to quit and clear the way for a yes man? seems like a stupid plan for getting your rights back., I don't see a difference between a person who disagrees with a law but enforces it, and one who supports it and enforces it. The net effect is the same. So what's your point?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:14:32 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Than. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The police need that equipment for the appropriate circumstances. Problem is most cops generate revenue. Not fighting ms13 or American Taliban in quiet little towns. And yes they do view citizens as "the enemy" and will "do what needs to be done" so they "can go home at night". Which means citizens rights and lives are secondary to police. things are different in the US then in china. come visit sometime. Than. dont care
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:14:37 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I edited it out as I wanted to make sure that that message you posted wasn't viewed as the one I was laughing at. I agreed with that part of your post. I was laughing at your agreement of Mike's post. That is all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Site staff throws out a troll thread and the threatens people. Pft. This.
I mean... ahem!...Hold on I will get you your hurt feelings report for you to fill out and give to staff. For some reason, the latter part of my argument was deleted or did not post. I went on to follow to say that the argument is not what cops wear or what gear they use but rather what laws they are asked to enforce and those laws are really the fault of the voting public and the blame lies primarily with them. I haven't the faintest idea why my post was cut and that only that portion made it up. I edited it out as I wanted to make sure that that message you posted wasn't viewed as the one I was laughing at. I agreed with that part of your post. I was laughing at your agreement of Mike's post. That is all. You have to take it as a whole, otherwise you miss something we know as "context." One can opine that staff posting a thread that he knows will be controversial and then put out a warning about responses to his thread is not very "cricket," without being a "cop basher." A staff member, with powers of bannation, starting such a thread would be known as "conflict of interest," and insulting a member who opines as such is pretty juvenile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:16:04 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm under no obligation to represent anyone, if some obviously guilty serial pedophile shows up in my waiting room cackling about how he's going to get off the hook and keep porking little kids I'll just toss him on the sidewalk. Like you said, there's no lawyer draft. I'm not going to go under from refusing a case. I turn people down and I had someone fire me once because I refused to do something I believed to be immoral. Before that I had a company that owned some rental properties ask me to meet the deputy for an eviction. I don't normally do that, but it was a fairly large client. I saw the shit hole the guy was being evicted from and stopped working for them. I turned down a guy who wanted to sue a major firearms manufacturer. On and on But no cop is going to say "Oh hey sarge, I'm gonna pass on executing that warrant for the guy with the 11 round magazine this afternoon" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You can order me to hammer someone to a cross, but I won't pick up the hammer. We're all responsible in the end for our own actions. If a man decides to take up arms against an American for having an AR15, or for sitting in the front of a bus when a black man is supposed to sit in the back, thirty pieces of silver is no excuse. How does that righteousness mesh with the concept of working your ass off for thirty pieces of silver to make sure someone who is obviously guilty, and if your work is successful will without a doubt go on to harm others? Not to mention I turn cases down all the time ;) You could start by following your own advice and getting a job at Home Depot or something. As far as I'm aware there is no lawyer draft in progress. Or you could continue to hide behind the (We have a judicial system) part of the statement which ironically is exactly the same defense used while jabbing others. But no cop is going to say "Oh hey sarge, I'm gonna pass on executing that warrant for the guy with the 11 round magazine this afternoon" I will say it. I have been removed from two hiring process' due to my pro CCW stance while WI was fighting for CCW. I will quit my job before I confiscate any weapon. I have no union, no insurance, and no pension/retirement. The problem is that when and if I leave they will just hire a person who will do those things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:16:11 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's hardly what he's saying. There's a difference between doing anything and everything in order to win and providing effective legal counsel. It's possible to effectively defend a guilty client while remaining an ethical and principled person. I've seen it happen. I've squared off against those attorneys in courtrooms (under MI's student practice rule) and have tremendous respect for the work they do. One in particular was successful in getting a client off of a possession of marijuana charge in a motion hearing I argued, he later was able to defend a client successfully against a murder charge. He didn't win by being a slimeball either, he won by forcing the police to follow the law. It may seem strange, but at least in my home jurisdiction the vast majority of the cops and the defense attorneys get along very well. Each understands that the other has a job to do. The defense attorneys rarely attack the officers personally, or sling mud. But they do thoroughly examine the work that's been done. While we are speaking for him "that's exactly what he's saying". Around here they all get along pretty well too but don't try to piss down my leg and tell me it's raining by somehow telling me they get out of the morality argument because a group of lawyers got together and decided that pretty much any behavior, however distasteful and dishonest, is just fine because....well they said so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:16:45 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm under no obligation to represent anyone, if some obviously guilty serial pedophile shows up in my waiting room cackling about how he's going to get off the hook and keep porking little kids I'll just toss him on the sidewalk. Like you said, there's no lawyer draft. I'm not going to go under from refusing a case. I turn people down and I had someone fire me once because I refused to do something I believed to be immoral. Before that I had a company that owned some rental properties ask me to meet the deputy for an eviction. I don't normally do that, but it was a fairly large client. I saw the shit hole the guy was being evicted from and stopped working for them. I turned down a guy who wanted to sue a major firearms manufacturer. On and on But no cop is going to say "Oh hey sarge, I'm gonna pass on executing that warrant for the guy with the 11 round magazine this afternoon" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You can order me to hammer someone to a cross, but I won't pick up the hammer. We're all responsible in the end for our own actions. If a man decides to take up arms against an American for having an AR15, or for sitting in the front of a bus when a black man is supposed to sit in the back, thirty pieces of silver is no excuse. How does that righteousness mesh with the concept of working your ass off for thirty pieces of silver to make sure someone who is obviously guilty, and if your work is successful will without a doubt go on to harm others? Not to mention I turn cases down all the time ;) You could start by following your own advice and getting a job at Home Depot or something. As far as I'm aware there is no lawyer draft in progress. Or you could continue to hide behind the (We have a judicial system) part of the statement which ironically is exactly the same defense used while jabbing others. But no cop is going to say "Oh hey sarge, I'm gonna pass on executing that warrant for the guy with the 11 round magazine this afternoon" if you dont like the types of clients you are asked to represent you should just quit! that'll show em! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:16:52 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So in Canada, even when they come for your guns, they say "sorry". Quote HistoryQuoted: Hell no..he was doing what a supervisor no doubt told him to do..and when I explained the entire situation to him..he apologized and left..without my handgun. Does this mean I trust the entire police hierarchy. Hell no. I've been around long enough to know that some of those at the top (not all) have hidden agenda's or political aspirations. google Julian Fantino to see what I mean. But until such time as a street cop gives me a reason to not trust him..then I will. Have I had bad experiences with cops. yes a few..but my issue is with that specific cop..not all of them. So in Canada, even when they come for your guns, they say "sorry". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:17:27 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm under no obligation to represent anyone, if some obviously guilty serial pedophile shows up in my waiting room cackling about how he's going to get off the hook and keep porking little kids I'll just toss him on the sidewalk. Like you said, there's no lawyer draft. I'm not going to go under from refusing a case. I turn people down and I had someone fire me once because I refused to do something I believed to be immoral. Before that I had a company that owned some rental properties ask me to meet the deputy for an eviction. I don't normally do that, but it was a fairly large client. I saw the shit hole the guy was being evicted from and stopped working for them. I turned down a guy who wanted to sue a major firearms manufacturer. On and on Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You can order me to hammer someone to a cross, but I won't pick up the hammer. We're all responsible in the end for our own actions. If a man decides to take up arms against an American for having an AR15, or for sitting in the front of a bus when a black man is supposed to sit in the back, thirty pieces of silver is no excuse. How does that righteousness mesh with the concept of working your ass off for thirty pieces of silver to make sure someone who is obviously guilty, and if your work is successful will without a doubt go on to harm others? Not to mention I turn cases down all the time ;) You could start by following your own advice and getting a job at Home Depot or something. As far as I'm aware there is no lawyer draft in progress. Or you could continue to hide behind the (We have a judicial system) part of the statement which ironically is exactly the same defense used while jabbing others. But no cop is going to say "Oh hey sarge, I'm gonna pass on executing that warrant for the guy with the 11 round magazine this afternoon"  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:17:52 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't see a difference between a person who disagrees with a law but and doesnt enforce it, and one who supports it and enforces it. The net effect is the same. So what's your point? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Holy troll thread Batman
Who whines like Internet cops? Jesus Christ, there are threads here constantly bitching about lawyers, union carpenters, auto mechanics, car salesmen. But you know who -sniffle-sniffle- whines and leaves the Internet like a 13 year old who got cut from the junior high cheer team? You know who. So let me know the first time a cop calls the local TV station and says "Look, I've done this for fifteen years, and really wanted to keep helping my community, but since the passage of the SAFE Act it is clear that I will be required to violate people's constitutional rights so I'm done, and I call on my fellow officers to do what's right. Sure I'm losing free dental and there are not a lot of other jobs for me to go into, but I'm not going to rationalize doing the wrong thing by saying it's okay because the legislature passed this law and I'm just following orders. I'm looking for work, please call if you have any openings." why would you want good cops to quit and clear the way for a yes man? seems like a stupid plan for getting your rights back., I don't see a difference between a person who disagrees with a law but and doesnt enforce it, and one who supports it and enforces it. The net effect is the same. So what's your point? FIFY |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:18:58 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm under no obligation to represent anyone, if some obviously guilty serial pedophile shows up in my waiting room cackling about how he's going to get off the hook and keep porking little kids I'll just toss him on the sidewalk. Like you said, there's no lawyer draft. I'm not going to go under from refusing a case. I turn people down and I had someone fire me once because I refused to do something I believed to be immoral. Before that I had a company that owned some rental properties ask me to meet the deputy for an eviction. I don't normally do that, but it was a fairly large client. I saw the shit hole the guy was being evicted from and stopped working for them. I turned down a guy who wanted to sue a major firearms manufacturer. On and on But no cop is going to say "Oh hey sarge, I'm gonna pass on executing that warrant for the guy with the 11 round magazine this afternoon" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You can order me to hammer someone to a cross, but I won't pick up the hammer. We're all responsible in the end for our own actions. If a man decides to take up arms against an American for having an AR15, or for sitting in the front of a bus when a black man is supposed to sit in the back, thirty pieces of silver is no excuse. How does that righteousness mesh with the concept of working your ass off for thirty pieces of silver to make sure someone who is obviously guilty, and if your work is successful will without a doubt go on to harm others? Not to mention I turn cases down all the time ;) You could start by following your own advice and getting a job at Home Depot or something. As far as I'm aware there is no lawyer draft in progress. Or you could continue to hide behind the (We have a judicial system) part of the statement which ironically is exactly the same defense used while jabbing others. But no cop is going to say "Oh hey sarge, I'm gonna pass on executing that warrant for the guy with the 11 round magazine this afternoon" Well you are the exception but it doesn't change the nature of the argument. Oh and you might want to watch that use of the word NO in that last statement because I've done exactly that (refused what I thought were immoral orders) and have the stories of the roll call yelling match with staff to prove it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:19:13 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I had surgery a Thursaday and I'm full of painkillers today, so 'm out. I can't gather my thoughts quite the way I would like and probably wouldn't have even posted, but maybe in a week or two I will type what I have been feeling about this subject...or maybe I won't. either way. I'm out of this thread right now. Hope you have a fast recovery. Thanks guys. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 4:19:45 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just seemed to be bitching about the bitching to me. Never really tried to explain "why people hate cops". Familiarity breeds contempt: 1. People now call the cops for every little thing ever. Understandably, eventually they will leave one of their interactions with a negative impression. Build a thousand bridges, but suck one cock..... 2. The internet has allowed more communication between people than ever before. While many people were subject to police abuses in the past, knowledge of those types of incidents is much more widely spread now. It may actually occur less, but we know more. 2a. We also now have to hear every officer ever defend the actions of his peers, typically with some form of "you don't know," "you don't get to say because you aren't a cop," or arcom's favorite, "at least he went home at the end of the day." We're now more familiar with the excuses, and we're tired of hearing them. 3 or 4, i guess. Personally I work with cops. This influences my opinion. I think highly of most individuals, but have seen and heard things that reflect poorly on the profession. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
