| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/11/2013 10:45:28 PM · #26 |
| Just curious - how many crimes have been committed by someone open carrying? Seems to me that someone open carrying is the least likely person to be engaged in criminal activity. |
|
|
|
08/11/2013 10:52:12 PM · #27 |
Ok, I went and watched it. Guy was totally cool, and within his rights.
More people need to do this to the police. And in fact, more people ARE doing this to the police. Good for them, and GREAT on them for sharing. It's one thing to hear that you have these rights, but most people fold under the pressure of authority. The cops were wrong, but sounded authoritatively right. That's enough to get most people to do whatever you wish. Frankly, videos like this help people to see that if you DO actually stand up for yourself, then the police will eventually back off. I do think the guy made a small error in telling them which vehicle was his - he didn't have to answer that question either.
In the end, the police weren't overreacting, they were doing what they've been trained to do. The problem is that their training is in direct conflict with citizen's rights. They are taught to circumvent the law at every opportunity, and to bully suspects/citizens and are often either mistaken about what they are saying, or are outright lying. Neither inspires great confidence not speaks of true integrity.
Like it or not, the police have been trained to overreact to every situation... They wanted to talk to a guy with a gun, so they called four units and a helicopter. I think it's amazingly clear that this is an overreaction - but I don't blame the officers, I blame those folks who are training these officers, and those who are training the trainers. The US police culture is rotten - the men are almost universally good men, but the organization demands they act like thugs. A shame really, and there have been several recent threads on the subject. |
|
|
|
08/11/2013 10:55:04 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Just curious - how many crimes have been committed by someone open carrying? Seems to me that someone open carrying is the least likely person to be engaged in criminal activity. |
Unless, of course, they're an active shooter, you're totally correct. And this whole obsession with photos... FFS- like the guy said - Google Earth has better quality reconnisance photos than an individual could ever hope to get - and even if a person WAS up to something, would they be there in the middle of the night, or would they show up in the day, when there is traffic and they're much less likely to be noticed.
..
Of course, the police aren't exactly known for their intelligence.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2013 11:14:37 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Ok, I went and watched it. Guy was totally cool, and within his rights.
More people need to do this to the police. And in fact, more people ARE doing this to the police. Good for them, and GREAT on them for sharing. It's one thing to hear that you have these rights, but most people fold under the pressure of authority. The cops were wrong, but sounded authoritatively right. That's enough to get most people to do whatever you wish. Frankly, videos like this help people to see that if you DO actually stand up for yourself, then the police will eventually back off. I do think the guy made a small error in telling them which vehicle was his - he didn't have to answer that question either.
In the end, the police weren't overreacting, they were doing what they've been trained to do. The problem is that their training is in direct conflict with citizen's rights. They are taught to circumvent the law at every opportunity, and to bully suspects/citizens and are often either mistaken about what they are saying, or are outright lying. Neither inspires great confidence not speaks of true integrity.
Like it or not, the police have been trained to overreact to every situation... They wanted to talk to a guy with a gun, so they called four units and a helicopter. I think it's amazingly clear that this is an overreaction - but I don't blame the officers, I blame those folks who are training these officers, and those who are training the trainers. The US police culture is rotten - the men are almost universally good men, but the organization demands they act like thugs. A shame really, and there have been several recent threads on the subject. |
Always good to know we can rely on your expertise and knowledge in how the US police operate... |
|
|
|
08/11/2013 11:34:41 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Leo:
Originally posted by Cory:
Ok, I went and watched it. Guy was totally cool, and within his rights.
More people need to do this to the police. And in fact, more people ARE doing this to the police. Good for them, and GREAT on them for sharing. It's one thing to hear that you have these rights, but most people fold under the pressure of authority. The cops were wrong, but sounded authoritatively right. That's enough to get most people to do whatever you wish. Frankly, videos like this help people to see that if you DO actually stand up for yourself, then the police will eventually back off. I do think the guy made a small error in telling them which vehicle was his - he didn't have to answer that question either.
In the end, the police weren't overreacting, they were doing what they've been trained to do. The problem is that their training is in direct conflict with citizen's rights. They are taught to circumvent the law at every opportunity, and to bully suspects/citizens and are often either mistaken about what they are saying, or are outright lying. Neither inspires great confidence not speaks of true integrity.
Like it or not, the police have been trained to overreact to every situation... They wanted to talk to a guy with a gun, so they called four units and a helicopter. I think it's amazingly clear that this is an overreaction - but I don't blame the officers, I blame those folks who are training these officers, and those who are training the trainers. The US police culture is rotten - the men are almost universally good men, but the organization demands they act like thugs. A shame really, and there have been several recent threads on the subject. |
Always good to know we can rely on your expertise and knowledge in how the US police operate... |
Interestingly, I do have some pretty good knowledge about that. Expertise? No.
Although, would you attribute the commonality of this type of behavior to 'bad apples' - individuals who are going against what they've been taught, or do you think this is a systemic issue that originates much higher in the chain of command?
Here. Just watch this, it's only a little bit of the story, but it's a good start. The police do lie, they are trained to pull dirty tricks, etc. But like I said, in the end, the individual cop is not to blame, and for the most part are good and honest people who simply want to do what's right. Or at least, that's what I think... Of course, I think most people are good and honest, and want to do what's right - and almost everyone thinks what they are doing IS right, otherwise they wouldn't do it.. (rationalizations and justifications used may not be sound, but they think they are right)...
And that's only the beginning, the militarization of the civil forces is a worrying trend, so much so that the ACLU is looking into it. Tell me, how many SWAT callouts were there fifteen years ago? How about last year? Have criminals gotten THAT much more effective and violent?
Anyway. Don't rely upon my knowledge and 'expertise'. I think it's better for you to research the issue and come to your own conclusions, although I'm pretty sure you already have. I can't say for sure, but your username is an acronym that is short for Law Enforcement Officer, and you have a good number of pictures of police - I'd lay my bets that you're somewhat invested into a position that is in conflict with my own - at the very least you have friends in law enforcement, or perhaps you may be an officer yourself.
One of the major reasons I've never joined the force is effectively conscientious objector status... I think it'd be a great job, but there's too many conflicts with what I feel is right and ethical. So don't think I'm simply blindly against the police - I'm just extremely uncomfortable with certain aspects of the policies which are currently in place.
Message edited by author 2013-08-11 23:54:56. |
|
|
|
08/12/2013 09:28:49 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Leo:
Originally posted by Cory:
Ok, I went and watched it. Guy was totally cool, and within his rights.
More people need to do this to the police. And in fact, more people ARE doing this to the police. Good for them, and GREAT on them for sharing. It's one thing to hear that you have these rights, but most people fold under the pressure of authority. The cops were wrong, but sounded authoritatively right. That's enough to get most people to do whatever you wish. Frankly, videos like this help people to see that if you DO actually stand up for yourself, then the police will eventually back off. I do think the guy made a small error in telling them which vehicle was his - he didn't have to answer that question either.
In the end, the police weren't overreacting, they were doing what they've been trained to do. The problem is that their training is in direct conflict with citizen's rights. They are taught to circumvent the law at every opportunity, and to bully suspects/citizens and are often either mistaken about what they are saying, or are outright lying. Neither inspires great confidence not speaks of true integrity.
Like it or not, the police have been trained to overreact to every situation... They wanted to talk to a guy with a gun, so they called four units and a helicopter. I think it's amazingly clear that this is an overreaction - but I don't blame the officers, I blame those folks who are training these officers, and those who are training the trainers. The US police culture is rotten - the men are almost universally good men, but the organization demands they act like thugs. A shame really, and there have been several recent threads on the subject. |
Always good to know we can rely on your expertise and knowledge in how the US police operate... |
Three cop cars (at least) and a helicopter with spotlight isn't over-reacting? I suppose it might not be if the police were an occupying army and not a police force. |
|
|
|
08/12/2013 01:01:24 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Three cop cars (at least) and a helicopter with spotlight isn't over-reacting? I suppose it might not be if the police were an occupying army and not a police force. |
If this is an over-reaction, and a lone cop ignorng the situation (guy walking around at 3am with a gun) is an under-reaction, what do you propose as the "just right" reaction? |
|
|
|
08/12/2013 01:30:54 PM · #33 |
I agree it was an over-reaction.
The helicopter was over kill and they could have responded with 2 cop cars and that would have been a big plenty.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2013 01:31:16 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Three cop cars (at least) and a helicopter with spotlight isn't over-reacting? I suppose it might not be if the police were an occupying army and not a police force. |
If this is an over-reaction, and a lone cop ignorng the situation (guy walking around at 3am with a gun) is an under-reaction, what do you propose as the "just right" reaction? |
What "situation" would the lone cop be ignoring? A guy doing absolutely nothing illegal? Is that a "situation" worthy of overwhelming police response? My neighbor letting his dog crap on my yard without picking it up is more worthy of that kind of police action.
How about waiting until he did something even borderline illegal before wasting taxpayer's resources?
You interpret simply open carrying a gun as worthy of such a response...it's not. The law there says open carry is perfectly legal. Your approval of this kind of action is simply your irrational bias against guns talking.
At most, it was worth a cruiser stopping by to casually ask him what he was doing, not a tactical response team swooping in from all over.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2013 01:42:32 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Three cop cars (at least) and a helicopter with spotlight isn't over-reacting? I suppose it might not be if the police were an occupying army and not a police force. |
If this is an over-reaction, and a lone cop ignorng the situation (guy walking around at 3am with a gun) is an under-reaction, what do you propose as the "just right" reaction? |
What "situation" would the lone cop be ignoring? A guy doing absolutely nothing illegal? Is that a "situation" worthy of overwhelming police response? My neighbor letting his dog crap on my yard without picking it up is more worthy of that kind of police action.
How about waiting until he did something even borderline illegal before wasting taxpayer's resources?
You interpret simply open carrying a gun as worthy of such a response...it's not. The law there says open carry is perfectly legal. Your approval of this kind of action is simply your irrational bias against guns talking.
At most, it was worth a cruiser stopping by to casually ask him what he was doing, not a tactical response team swooping in from all over. |
I'm genuinely curious what your response would have been if it was just a cruiser stopping by to talk and suddenly he open fired and went on to do more damage. Maybe then you would be saying the police didn't do enough?
The reactionary approach is almost always less effective than the preventative approach. |
|
|
|
08/12/2013 01:44:08 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
At most, it was worth a cruiser stopping by to casually ask him what he was doing, not a tactical response team swooping in from all over. |
I wasn't disagreeing that four cars plus chopper was an over-reaction, I was simply using that as one terminus of the gradation of responses from that to none at all, and asking your opinion on where on that continuum the "proper" response would lie (as you did above).
The above is all the answer you needed -- the rest is your projection or speculation. I don't believe I expressed an opinion as to either what the "proper" response would be in this situation, or on open-carry laws in general. |
|
|
|
08/12/2013 01:52:25 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by giantmike:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Three cop cars (at least) and a helicopter with spotlight isn't over-reacting? I suppose it might not be if the police were an occupying army and not a police force. |
If this is an over-reaction, and a lone cop ignorng the situation (guy walking around at 3am with a gun) is an under-reaction, what do you propose as the "just right" reaction? |
What "situation" would the lone cop be ignoring? A guy doing absolutely nothing illegal? Is that a "situation" worthy of overwhelming police response? My neighbor letting his dog crap on my yard without picking it up is more worthy of that kind of police action.
How about waiting until he did something even borderline illegal before wasting taxpayer's resources?
You interpret simply open carrying a gun as worthy of such a response...it's not. The law there says open carry is perfectly legal. Your approval of this kind of action is simply your irrational bias against guns talking.
At most, it was worth a cruiser stopping by to casually ask him what he was doing, not a tactical response team swooping in from all over. |
I'm genuinely curious what your response would have been if it was just a cruiser stopping by to talk and suddenly he open fired and went on to do more damage. Maybe then you would be saying the police didn't do enough?
The reactionary approach is almost always less effective than the preventative approach. |
At the point someone draws their weapon and brandishes it for no reason, they are breaking the law and an increased police response is justified.
Any driver going down the street has the potential to pull onto the sidewalk and mow down dozens of pedestrians, do you also think the police should scramble a few squad cars and a helicopter for every car driving down a busy street? |
|
|
|
08/12/2013 01:53:29 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
At most, it was worth a cruiser stopping by to casually ask him what he was doing, not a tactical response team swooping in from all over. |
I wasn't disagreeing that four cars plus chopper was an over-reaction, I was simply using that as one terminus of the gradation of responses from that to none at all, and asking your opinion on where on that continuum the "proper" response would lie (as you did above).
The above is all the answer you needed -- the rest is your projection or speculation. I don't believe I expressed an opinion as to either what the "proper" response would be in this situation, or on open-carry laws in general. |
You've expressed yourself on guns, self defense and carry laws plenty of times before. Have you since changed your mind? |
|
|
|
08/12/2013 02:07:55 PM · #39 |
| Any state that would pass laws allowing "open carry" or concealed carry is basically saying F U to their police. They have decided that the "human right" of carrying a person-killing-machine is more important than public safety. |
|
|
|
08/12/2013 02:08:58 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
You've expressed yourself on guns, self defense and carry laws plenty of times before. Have you since changed your mind? |
I would rather there were fewer guns around, but I don't remember discussing the issue of open-carry specifically.
All in all, if someone is going to have a gun in a public space, I guess I'd rather open-carry was required, and concealed-carry much more severely-restricted -- at least if I can see someone is openly armed I can try and avoid them ... |
|
|
|
08/12/2013 02:15:03 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Any state that would pass laws allowing "open carry" or concealed carry is basically saying F U to their police. They have decided that the "human right" of carrying a person-killing-machine is more important than public safety. |
The police aren't in the business of preventing crime. They will intervene, IF they happen upon a crime in progress, but that's a rarity, especially when response times even for violent crimes (at least around here) can be up to an hour. The police are there to document what happened and maybe go catch the criminals after the fact. Even the police who objected to the carry laws initially acknowledge that it's a good thing. |
|
|
|
08/12/2013 02:40:14 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
The police aren't in the business of preventing crime. |
I highly disagree, and so do many many many police departments. |
|
|
|
08/12/2013 02:50:06 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Any driver going down the street has the potential to pull onto the sidewalk and mow down dozens of pedestrians, do you also think the police should scramble a few squad cars and a helicopter for every car driving down a busy street? |
I fail to see how that is an accurate comparison. A more accurate comparison would be "Do you also thing police should scramble a few squad cars and a helicopter for a car with highly tinted windows parked outside of a government building?" In your example, you are describing an every day occurrence. In my example, I'm talking about something out of the ordinary that may require some investigation.
You are falling into the logical fallacy trap that many fall into when making arguments. If you notice, I never said if I agree or disagree with you on the police overreacting. I was trying to get your opinion on the "what if" situation.
Message edited by author 2013-08-12 14:50:29. |
|
|
|
08/12/2013 02:56:20 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Any state that would pass laws allowing "open carry" or concealed carry is basically saying F U to their police. They have decided that the "human right" of carrying a person-killing-machine is more important than public safety. |
Are you kidding me. Open carry and concealed carry are a benefit to the police. Police can not be everwhere at all times. If a normal citizen can keep a crime from happening or solve the situation before the police get there. It is for the best. Let me ask...how long is the response time for the police. Here it can range from 10 min to around 20 min depending on location
|
|
|
|
08/12/2013 04:18:42 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by giantmike:
Originally posted by Spork99:
The police aren't in the business of preventing crime. |
I highly disagree, and so do many many many police departments. |
Really?
They may claim that they're preventing crime by providing a deterrent in the form of punishment, but that's all after the damage has been done.
If someone breaks into your house, the police aren't magically going to appear and stop them. In all likelihood, the police will show up after you get home and call them. They'll come, tell you everything will be OK, that they'll do their best to catch the bad guys and where to get the police report for insurance and maybe ask for descriptions of what was stolen. But they don't prevent it from happening. It's not so bad if it's a burglary while you're away, but if you or a loved one is home and gets their head bashed in, well that's a different story.
When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
Message edited by author 2013-08-12 16:24:11. |
|
|
|
08/12/2013 04:23:13 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by giantmike:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Any driver going down the street has the potential to pull onto the sidewalk and mow down dozens of pedestrians, do you also think the police should scramble a few squad cars and a helicopter for every car driving down a busy street? |
I fail to see how that is an accurate comparison. A more accurate comparison would be "Do you also thing police should scramble a few squad cars and a helicopter for a car with highly tinted windows parked outside of a government building?" In your example, you are describing an every day occurrence. In my example, I'm talking about something out of the ordinary that may require some investigation.
You are falling into the logical fallacy trap that many fall into when making arguments. If you notice, I never said if I agree or disagree with you on the police overreacting. I was trying to get your opinion on the "what if" situation. |
The point is that a car driving down the street has as much or more destructive potential than a pistol carried on the hip of a pedestrian on the sidewalk. Both are entirely legal and valid activities. Neither deserve an aggressive police response, certainly not 3 squad cars and a helicopter.
Using that destructive potential in a way contrary to the law does deserve a police response. |
|
|
|
08/12/2013 04:34:35 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Any state that would pass laws allowing "open carry" or concealed carry is basically saying F U to their police. They have decided that the "human right" of carrying a person-killing-machine is more important than public safety. |
Are you kidding me. Open carry and concealed carry are a benefit to the police. Police can not be everwhere at all times. If a normal citizen can keep a crime from happening or solve the situation before the police get there. It is for the best. Let me ask...how long is the response time for the police. Here it can range from 10 min to around 20 min depending on location |
10-20 minutes? That's FAST.
The highest priority 911 calls in Detroit take an average of 58 minutes
That means from the time you call to report someone breaking into your house, you get to spend nearly an hour of quality time with them. More than enough time for them to bash in your head, take your stuff and make a clean getaway.
Message edited by author 2013-08-12 16:39:49. |
|
|
|
08/12/2013 04:57:30 PM · #48 |
Sorry Spork, but what I see from you is still more logical fallacies in your arguments. For example, arguing that police are not in the business of preventing crime because it takes them "too long" to respond. These two things are unrelated, and cannot be used to prove each other.
FYI, this is a good resource as a reminder for how logical fallacies work (well, don't work). It's a fun read. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
---
For what it's worth, I do agree with many of your points, including the fact that the police were unnecessarily heavy handed in this case. But I believe they were within their rights to do so (based on their lack of knowledge as to what he was doing), just as much as the guy was within his rights to take photos of the building while carrying. |
|
|
|
08/12/2013 05:01:09 PM · #49 |
Just a few points:
1. Calling a gun a "Human-killing machine" is akin to calling a camera a "Pornography creation device"
2. Scrambling a helicopter and squad cars to 'deal' with a person who is following the law to the letter is extremely questionable, as others have pointed out, the potential to do harm exists with everyone, all the time, potential isn't sufficient reason.
3. Having open carry laws is in no way detrimental to the police - what would you suggest for the folks here who own an operate ranches and NEED guns for various reasons? What about our member here who's a woman, lives alone, and is quite literally 1/3 of a mile from her closest neighbor, and many miles from the closest police officer? Do you also think that giving citizens drivers licences is a bit of an FU to public transit workers? Seems more directly harmful to me really, and certainly costs many, many more lives than open carry laws. (yes, silly, but I'm illustrating the point here)
4. Open carry makes a hell of a lot more sense than concealed carry. The ONLY reason concealed carry is even sensible is because of the HHHHUGGGEEE number of people who feel compelled to attempt to start trouble with anyone who is openly carrying. (You wouldn't believe the number of incidents, people will literally go out of their way to attempt to start an altercation with an armed individual - amazing really).. And of course, it's a 'comfort' issue - the public has been trained to think that everyone who owns a gun shoots four people a week.
5. The laws in a city and the laws in the country could reasonably be expected to differ, but for those of you who didn't grow up in the vast wide open spaces of the west, with a gun in your hands, honestly, you simply don't understand, and I don't know that you ever can - you understand the world in a completely different way when it comes to this issue - and that's OK, but cease with your silly belief that the world works the same everywhere, it doesn't. Even a couple of miles can make a huge difference in terms of culture and what is proper and what is not. |
|
|
|
08/12/2013 05:04:40 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by giantmike:
Sorry Spork, but what I see from you is still more logical fallacies in your arguments. For example, arguing that police are not in the business of preventing crime because it takes them "too long" to respond. These two things are unrelated, and cannot be used to prove each other.
FYI, this is a good resource as a reminder for how logical fallacies work (well, don't work). It's a fun read. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
---
For what it's worth, I do agree with many of your points, including the fact that the police were unnecessarily heavy handed in this case. But I believe they were within their rights to do so (based on their lack of knowledge as to what he was doing), just as much as the guy was within his rights to take photos of the building while carrying. |
Hmm.
They were within reason, because they had a lack of knowledge as to what he was doing? That is really your argument here? Have you called the police today and told them what you're up to? Might want to think about it before they send a SWAT team to rip off your doors so they can feel more comfortable about their level of knowledge about your activities today.
Sorry man, but I feel pretty strongly that the police have zero right to swoop down on a law abiding citizen like this simply for curiosity's sake. Not knowing what someone is doing is a poor reason to assume they are a criminal who needs to have a helicopter and several squad cars scrambled to 'deal' with them.
..
Also, the constitution free zone is a shitty deal, but that's a different conversation. |
|
