User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:33:34 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
since Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well sense people are personally attacking site staff now I will go ahead and say IBTL.  since Dammit. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:34:13 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's indeed a bit of a conundrum. But it's fun watching cops jump back and forth over the fence regarding it. Because ultimately, it's about them, and the authority they assert. They need to decide if they're "just following orders" or are actually interested in doing the right thing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They can't decide which laws are Constitutional or not. They have no authority to do that. That's kinda getting into a gray area... almost a semantic argument. "Unconstitutional" vs. "Illegal".... Like others have mentioned... cops enforcing Jim Crow laws were perfectly legal per the laws or their jurisdictions at the time. No, it's a legalistic dodge of the ethical argument. It evades the responsibility for enforcing unConsitutional laws by taking the populist view that just because it's the law, it's right. Most people are best only for doing what they're told. 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. It's indeed a bit of a conundrum. But it's fun watching cops jump back and forth over the fence regarding it. Because ultimately, it's about them, and the authority they assert. They need to decide if they're "just following orders" or are actually interested in doing the right thing. no it's really not a conundrum if they speak up and force their union to fight it. These laws only get passed with le union nod just like CT and NY. In both states the Gov's discussed at length, police enforcement with the union before passing. If unions say NO, these laws don't get passed because no Gov is gonna push against the police unions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:34:19 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[div style='font-size: 11.1111116409302px;']We could sell tickets to this thread. [div style='font-size: 11.1111116409302px;'] [div style='font-size: 11.1111116409302px;'] It's the fight of century (or at least this Saturday afternoon...) [div style='font-size: 11.1111116409302px;'] [div style='font-size: 11.1111116409302px;']Striker "HAMMER von Hammer" vs. Aimless "THE ALMIGHTY" [div style='font-size: 11.1111116409302px;'] [div style='font-size: 11.1111116409302px;']Site Staff vs. Site Staff [div style='font-size: 11.1111116409302px;']Mod vs. Mod [div style='font-size: 11.1111116409302px;']member vs. member [div style='font-size: 11.1111116409302px;']LEO vs. non-LEO [div style='font-size: 11.1111116409302px;']Cats and dogs WILL live together IN [div style='font-size: 11.1111116409302px;'] [div style='font-size: 11.1111116409302px;']...this no holds barred, caged dead horse death match! No one get's out without a warning, timeout, or ban!!!!!!!!!!!! [div style='font-size: 11.1111116409302px;'] [div style='font-size: 11.1111116409302px;'] BE THERE....BE THERE....BE THERE....be there...be there [div style='font-size: 11.1111116409302px;'] [div style='font-size: 11.1111116409302px;'] 
Lets do this again tomorrow so we can say: SUNDAY!.....SUNDAY!.....SUNDAY! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:35:01 PM EDT
[#4]
Op be trolling
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:35:23 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't recall the last toddler flash-banged by a squad of attorneys..... 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. I don't recall the last toddler flash-banged by a squad of attorneys..... No, they just sue the hell out of people and companies for crazy shit, forcing them to pay to defend themselves against worthless lawsuits. Or, if they are defense attorney's they go after the cops personally instead of defending their client based on the case itself. Pitchess motions are a clasic example. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:35:36 PM EDT
[#6]
I love it when site staff kick off a shit storm in GD.
And when the most senior site staffer does it, priceless!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:36:06 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jfSWmlC6iA8/TpCR5-pdqSI/AAAAAAAAJYs/wsFr96jsY0E/s320/Jaws_079Pyxurz.jpg Click-click-click........................ Click...click... 
You win tha internez today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:36:07 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well okay, that's good to know. I am sure that like me, you consider the restriction against machine guns to be un-Constitutional. When will you post a thread about how you have manufactured one because the law is unconstitutional? Because "It is every man's duty to determine honestly what the founders meant when they formed the nation and act accordingly". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. 
It is every man's duty to determine honestly what the founders meant when they formed the nation and act accordingly. Well okay, that's good to know. I am sure that like me, you consider the restriction against machine guns to be un-Constitutional. When will you post a thread about how you have manufactured one because the law is unconstitutional? Because "It is every man's duty to determine honestly what the founders meant when they formed the nation and act accordingly". All men self determine what level of rule they will live under. At what point a man will go "overt" with his defiance is his own choice. To a rational man, there is no need to be suicidal in dissent or disobeyance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:36:22 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought the best part of the read was the authors bio. The rest was your typical "they have a hard job for not great pay, deserve the right tools for the job, theirs bad apples in every organization.... Hardly a revolutionary piece of prose. I'm not a cop basher nor hater. But my opinions have changed over my 40 something years. I've gone from very easily giving the benefit of the doubt to police in questionable situations to what I think is a very healthy skepticism and wanting to know all of the information. How did I get from there to here? It changed gradually over 40 something years from mostly casual contact with LEO. Mostly it changed in the last 10 years. And it was changed by the police themselves. Why are we seeing all of the " cop hate " in social media? Are ALL are those post based on lies and paranoia? Are all of the abuses posted on this forum examples of angelic police officers being misunderstood? I guess I am another example of paranoid. My lying eyes tell me there is a widening "us vs. them mentality on both sides. My lying eyes tell me this has exacerbated the perception that the public is seen as the enemy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:36:39 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 3:37:21 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He has a fiduciary responsibility to his guilty client. You wouldn't understand. 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. He has a fiduciary responsibility to his guilty client. You wouldn't understand. I completely understand after 36 plus years in the legal system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:38:24 PM EDT
[#12]
Am I the only one with my pants off in this thread?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:38:27 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:38:35 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
they go after the cops personally instead of defending their client based on the case itself. Pitchess motions are a clasic example. If the arresting/investigating officers have done nothing wrong, what do they have to fear from the defense attorney? Isn't that how it goes? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:39:00 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I gave up after the author tried to cite the 2nd Amendment as to justification for LEOs having military equipment. The Bill of Rights isn't about what the government can have. cops are citizens too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:39:38 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 3:40:15 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yet lawyers do theirs for sixty pieces of silver and call it legal. You are so full of shit, just like most lawyers. Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. A model ad hominem - attacks the character of the speaker without addressing the meat of the argument. Textbook, good sir. Textbook.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:40:18 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, they just sue the hell out of people and companies for crazy shit, forcing them to pay to defend themselves against worthless lawsuits. Or, if they are defense attorney's they go after the cops personally instead of defending their client based on the case itself. Pitchess motions are a clasic example. Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. I don't recall the last toddler flash-banged by a squad of attorneys..... No, they just sue the hell out of people and companies for crazy shit, forcing them to pay to defend themselves against worthless lawsuits. Or, if they are defense attorney's they go after the cops personally instead of defending their client based on the case itself. Pitchess motions are a clasic example.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:40:26 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you see the irony in posting an article called "Why I hate cops", And then capping it off by saying "attack Cops because they are Cops and you will be shown the door"? Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Do you see the irony in posting an article called "Why I hate cops", And then capping it off by saying "attack Cops because they are Cops and you will be shown the door"? Have a story or personal experience with a bad cop..post away and tell us the story..be prepared to provide proof and back up your claim... Start a thread with the title that I did and fill it with general derogatory comments, cop bashing,etc and you stand a very good chance of getting booted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:40:35 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
cops are citizens too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I gave up after the author tried to cite the 2nd Amendment as to justification for LEOs having military equipment. The Bill of Rights isn't about what the government can have. cops are citizens too. I like the one guy who tried to use websters as his reference that cops aren't civilians.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:40:53 PM EDT
[#21]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:40:54 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Am I the only one with my pants off in this thread? You are now. I have to get some tortillas for supper. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:41:29 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He has a fiduciary responsibility to his guilty client. You wouldn't understand. 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:42:15 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
cops are citizens too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I gave up after the author tried to cite the 2nd Amendment as to justification for LEOs having military equipment. The Bill of Rights isn't about what the government can have. cops are citizens too. With our immigration policy being what it's been for the last few decades.... are we sure about that?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:42:57 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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., |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:43:29 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the arresting/investigating officers have done nothing wrong, what do they have to fear from the defense attorney? Isn't that how it goes? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
they go after the cops personally instead of defending their client based on the case itself. Pitchess motions are a clasic example. If the arresting/investigating officers have done nothing wrong, what do they have to fear from the defense attorney? Isn't that how it goes? Nothing, my cops are quite good at what they do and have "zero" citizen complaints. I have a great crew. I have a problem when lawyers think they can make their case by mucking up the waters by mud slinging at the cop instead of just defending their client, as they should, based on the evidence. They do it under the guise of "if I flick enough mud, something will stick" routine. It is complete bullshit and a waste of the courts time and availablibity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:44:52 PM EDT
[#27]
The problem is two fold in my opinion. A natural human tendency to drift towards a tyrannical government, even if it is only soft tyranny and an apathetic population.
I don't get why people bitch about the police having cargo pants, armored vehicles, and EBR's. My thoughts on how a police force should be armed should be the decision of the respective police force's tax payers. What I do have a problem with is government that participates in infringing on civil liberties. While police can be/are only a small part of the problem they are where the rubber meets the road. I don't have any respect for anyone who enforces unconstitutional gun laws, non border check points, stop and frisks without RS of a crime and RS that the person is armed, etc... I'm far too apathetic or maybe even selfish anymore to care. There was a time I would donate money to legal defense funds, write congress critters, and participate in local government where policy was easily affected. Now like most people I do little more than bitch about it on the internet. So in that respect that makes me and others like me part of the problem as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:45:22 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Am I the only one with my pants off in this thread? Nope... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:47:16 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:48:24 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nothing, my cops are quite good at what they do and have "zero" citizen complaints. I have a great crew. I have a problem when lawyers think they can make their case by mucking up the waters by mud slinging at the cop instead of just defending their client, as they should, based on the evidence. They do it under the guise of "if I flick enough mud, something will stick" routine. It is complete bullshit and a waste of the courts time and availablibity. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
they go after the cops personally instead of defending their client based on the case itself. Pitchess motions are a clasic example. If the arresting/investigating officers have done nothing wrong, what do they have to fear from the defense attorney? Isn't that how it goes? Nothing, my cops are quite good at what they do and have "zero" citizen complaints. I have a great crew. I have a problem when lawyers think they can make their case by mucking up the waters by mud slinging at the cop instead of just defending their client, as they should, based on the evidence. They do it under the guise of "if I flick enough mud, something will stick" routine. It is complete bullshit and a waste of the courts time and availablibity. absolutely happens and makes me sick |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:48:42 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"If you say cops shouldn’t have access to “military” style equipment, then you might as well just say “lets cancel the Second Amendment.” " OK, then when the 2nd doesn't apply to citizens, is it also fair to apply those same standards to police? Bullet buttons and 7 rounds mags for LE in those respective states, also. Good point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:48:52 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:49:25 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:49:54 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I completely understand after 36 plus years in the legal system. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. I completely understand after 36 plus years in the legal system. I think he meant financial. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:50:17 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now there is a reasonable thought. 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. Now there is a reasonable thought. If NavyDoc1 said the sky was pink I would have to go outside and check. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:50:23 PM EDT
[#36]
NVM
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:50:27 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have a problem when lawyers think they can make their case by mucking up the waters by mud slinging at the cop instead of just defending their client, as they should, based on the evidence. They do it under the guise of "if I flick enough mud, something will stick" routine. It is complete bullshit and a waste of the courts time and availablibity. So there's a subset of a group involved in the criminal justice system that is known to use legal but reprehensible tactics, abuse its authority and stretch the limits of what it's allowed to do in order to make its job easier? Isn't that kinda what the "cop-bashers" are complaining about?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:50:31 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Am I the only one with my pants off in this thread? Actually...no. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:51:44 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course they should. But they are sworn to enforce the laws of the land, as passed by the Legislatures and ruled Constitutional by the Court system. They can't decide which laws are Constitutional or not. They have no authority to do that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Enforcing the law is, in fact and action, interpretation of the Constitution. That's the silliest thing I've ever seen you post. You are posting with emotion, not logic.
The Court system decides what is Constitutional or not, not policemen. Are you saying cops should not have or use discretion?  Of course they should. But they are sworn to enforce the laws of the land, as passed by the Legislatures and ruled Constitutional by the Court system. They can't decide which laws are Constitutional or not. They have no authority to do that. My middle school education tells me that the government consistes of three branches all set against each other. But you seem to be suggesting that the Executive branch has no obligation other than to do what they are told. If the Executive branch has no choice but to execute the laws as created by Legislature and approved by the Courts, then why did the founders set the executive branch against the other two? What is the purpose of an Executive branch that just "does what they are told"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:52:02 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:52:08 PM EDT
[#41]
Article complete misses, or more likely intentionally ignores, why many people hate and fear the police. Not criminals, just ordinary people with legitimate reasons to feel the way they do.
Hard to believe someone actually wasted their time writing that piece...unless they were paid to by a bunch of cops. But hey, that couldn't happen, could it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:54:20 PM EDT
[#42]
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? Firefighting is a paramilitary organization to... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:55:06 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My middle school education tells me that the government consistes of three branches all set against each other. But you seem to be suggesting that the Executive branch has no obligation other than to do what they are told. If the Executive branch has no choice but to execute the laws as created by Legislature and approved by the Courts, then why did the founders set the executive branch against the other two? What is the purpose of an Executive branch that just "does what they are told"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Enforcing the law is, in fact and action, interpretation of the Constitution. That's the silliest thing I've ever seen you post. You are posting with emotion, not logic.
The Court system decides what is Constitutional or not, not policemen. Are you saying cops should not have or use discretion? Of course they should. But they are sworn to enforce the laws of the land, as passed by the Legislatures and ruled Constitutional by the Court system. They can't decide which laws are Constitutional or not. They have no authority to do that. My middle school education tells me that the government consistes of three branches all set against each other. But you seem to be suggesting that the Executive branch has no obligation other than to do what they are told. If the Executive branch has no choice but to execute the laws as created by Legislature and approved by the Courts, then why did the founders set the executive branch against the other two? What is the purpose of an Executive branch that just "does what they are told"? game set match agree that the sharp rise in anti police views over the past 2 decades is something to consider and watch. I find it hard to believe that the vast majority of these people are somehow picking on a singular profession. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:55:38 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Assuming the "good" cop knows the "bad" cop is commiting a crime and actually has the probable cause to justify the arrest, he should. That said the "good" cop cant read minds and doesnt know the reasons for the "bad" cops actions. He most likely wasnt even there for much of the developing situation. This is why EVERY use of force is investigated by a supervisor in progressive departments. Including interviewing the officers, suspect, reviewing audio and video footage, ect. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not a cop basher at all, but why doesn't the author address those states where LEO get special exemptions from gun laws? Where the equipment they carry is a felony for non LEO to own? Agree. There are other issues that weren't mentioned. One issue is cops who don't arrest other another cop when that cop commits a crime in the first officer's presence. Assuming the "good" cop knows the "bad" cop is commiting a crime and actually has the probable cause to justify the arrest, he should. That said the "good" cop cant read minds and doesnt know the reasons for the "bad" cops actions. He most likely wasnt even there for much of the developing situation. This is why EVERY use of force is investigated by a supervisor in progressive departments. Including interviewing the officers, suspect, reviewing audio and video footage, ect. The specific instance I thought of was in south Florida, IIRC Broward County. Cop rear-ended a car at an intersection. Cop approached the driver and realized that she was over the limit - DUI. He then wrote a report claiming that she backed into him. He did this in the presence of another cop. The rectal searches in Texas and New Mexico (?) are another example. If some cop wants to stick his finger up somebody's ass to search fro contraband, he'd better have a warrant and one hell of a lot of probable cause. Even with the warrant, it chocks the conscience. The war on drugs is supposed to protect society from a scourge, but rectal penetration is a far worse scourge. What rational man thinks he improves the world with this? This should not be limited to a discussion of police departments as examples of government power gone wrong. For a vivid example of a megalomaniac with government authority, take a look at U.S. Postal Censor Anthony Comstock. Comstock was proud of the suicides of people faced with his ridiculous prosecutions. This was at a time when publishers were afraid to mail medical textbooks because Comstock might deem the anatomical plates to be obscene. Such individuals have always existed and will always exist. The task of free people is to ensure there are limits on the amount of damage that these looney-toons can effect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:55:57 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Firefighter are a paramilitary organization to... 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. 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? Firefighter are a paramilitary organization to... respectfully, go back 50years and look at the change in definition and you will see what I'm saying |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:57:14 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quite the staff boot licker today, ain't ya Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Site staff throws out a troll thread and the threatens people. Pft. not impressed 
i recall _A nother person got booted for that Hold on I will get you your hurt feelings report for you to fill out and give to staff. Quite the staff boot licker today, ain't ya Yes, but in all reality it is just about all staff members whose boots I lick. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:57:52 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:58:15 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yet lawyers do theirs for sixty pieces of silver and call it legal. You are so full of shit, just like most lawyers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:58:49 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Are you new here? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2014 3:59:42 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
absolutely not..... 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 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. |
|
|
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.
