B.S. In Bend

[jim97701]

Any LEO should not have more rights than ordinary citizens, retired, out of state, or current employed. Being an LEO does not make you special or above the law.

One would think that is the case BUT....

http://www.ktvz.com/news/vallejo-calif-investigating-officers-bend-incident/28363250

Seems current and ex LEO's are above the law and can do whatever fhe thuck they want!

 

[3MTA3]

Make it a point to let the City of Vallejo how much you appreciate how Sgt. Michael Kent Tribble represented them in a neighboring state

Joseph Kreins
Police Chief
111 Amador Street
Vallejo, CA 94590
[email protected]

Police Complaint Form: http://www.formstack.com/forms/cityofvallejo-complaintform

Mayor and City Council
Osby Davis Mayor
[email protected]
(707) 648-4377


Vice Mayor Bob Sampayan
[email protected]
(707) 648-4130

Council Member Jesus 'Jess' Malgapo
[email protected]
(707) 648-4131

Council Member Robert McConnell
[email protected]
(707) 648-4135

Council Member Katy Miessner
[email protected]
(707) 648-4133

Council Member Rozzana Verder-Aliga
[email protected]
(707) 648-4134

Council Member Pippin Dew-Costa
[email protected]
(707) 648-4132 -

 

[The B]

I definitely agree that LEOs should be subject to the same laws as all Americans, and/or members of their respective states... however let's not ignore the reason for the law: it's generally assumed that cops are never "off duty." Wouldn't it be a shame (and has been- hence the law) if an LEO were in another state and encountered a situation he could fix with a gun, but was unarmed due to retarded gun laws?

When something is BS, the solution should never be to spread the BS to as many people as possible. Sulkily, spitefully trying to rain the same smelly crap on everyone equally. The response should always be to attack the BS directly, and do one's damnest to undo the BS.

 

[Stomper]

What say all of you who think "only the police should have guns"?

 

[Norm0931]

I definitely agree that LEOs should be subject to the same laws as all Americans, and/or members of their respective states... however let's not ignore the reason for the law: it's generally assumed that cops are never "off duty." Wouldn't it be a shame (and has been- hence the law) if an LEO were in another state and encountered a situation he could fix with a gun, but was unarmed due to retarded gun laws?

When something is BS, the solution should never be to spread the BS to as many people as possible. Sulkily, spitefully trying to rain the same smelly crap on everyone equally. The response should always be to attack the BS directly, and do one's damnest to undo the BS.

And this sounds all well and good to idiot politicians at face value. The problem is, this law was enacted to further the "police will protect you" agenda. Technically, any citizen can stop a crime in progress. Furthermore, despite being allowed to concealed carry, they are still bound by the non-location specific carry laws of that state. Including "Menacing."

Honestly, i still think the cop is lucky he didn't get shot and this is a perfect example of why you should always carry; You never know when some drunk power hungry SS officer from the communist republik of northern mexico will attack you with a gun.

 

[ak56]

I definitely agree that LEOs should be subject to the same laws as all Americans, and/or members of their respective states... however let's not ignore the reason for the law: it's generally assumed that cops are never "off duty." Wouldn't it be a shame (and has been- hence the law) if an LEO were in another state and encountered a situation he could fix with a gun, but was unarmed due to retarded gun laws?

When something is BS, the solution should never be to spread the BS to as many people as possible. Sulkily, spitefully trying to rain the same smelly crap on everyone equally. The response should always be to attack the BS directly, and do one's damnest to undo the BS.

Wouldn't it be a shame (and has been) if any person were in another state and encountered a situation he could fix with a gun, but was unarmed due to retarded gun laws?

 

[balaperdida]

If for nothing else, Dubya can definitely be blamed for the LEO "Safety" Act.

 

[The B]

Wouldn't it be a shame (and has been) if any person were in another state and encountered a situation he could fix with a gun, but was unarmed due to retarded gun laws?

Fact of the matter is, most gun owners are poorly equipped to fix any problem with any gun.

More power to anyone who can when the opportunity presents itself, but most gun owners are just like most everyone- not tactically savvy.

 

[The Heretic]

When something is BS, the solution should never be to spread the BS to as many people as possible. Sulkily, spitefully trying to rain the same smelly crap on everyone equally. The response should always be to attack the BS directly, and do one's damnest to undo the BS.

Obviously I disagree.

As I said, the law should apply equally to everybody.

No special classes of people should be exempt.

In the case of firearms, I think this would result in much less support for gun control by LEOs.

It would also make it much harder for such bills to pass because it would point out the inherent problems with gun control.

You have to remember that people who support "gun control" and gun "bans" who say that "all guns should be banned" are usually not talking about LEOs or the military or their private body guards.

They want you and me to not have firearms, but they want the police and military to continue to have firearms. Their "utopia" is that they want to concentrate power in the hand of the government, which they control.

Power grows out of the barrel of a gun, and they know that.

 

[jim97701]

Does this surprise anyone? What a friggin load!.

http://www.ktvz.com/news/da-no-charges-against-calif-officer-who-pulled-gun/29198946

I cant help but feel that this would end MUCH differently if it was a non LEO that had pulled a gun!.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

You have to remember that people who support "gun control" and gun "bans" who say that "all guns should be banned" are usually not talking about LEOs or the military or their private body guards.

While I agree with most of this post, the fact is that their Executive Protection detail is subject to exactly the same laws and restrictions imposed on all other non-commissioned citizens; there's no exemption in the RCW's that overrides I-594 for professional security people, for example, nor in any other firearm statute of which I'm aware.

If Balmer and Gates succeed in imposing more restrictions, let's say, with a Washington State version of the AWB, chances are about 100% that their details would lose the ability to either carry or obtain those weapons.

To sum up, private security people/EP/Bodyguards do not enjoy any special exemptions under these laws now, nor do I expect there will be any in future ones. They are essentially hampering their own security details with this nonsense.

I was talking about this very topic with some Tacoma police last weekend, and they didn't seem to give a dang; the issue did not resonate with them- which is typical for humans, we are interested in that which affects our own group, so I don't blame them, really.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

Double-tap post, disregard.

 

[salmonriverjohn]

This pc o crap should loose not only his job, but his freedom to walk the streets for a few years as well. Getting into a defensive situation is one thing, kicking the *&^%! out of someone who is unconsious goes way beyond defensive, and then to pull a handgun and place it to the head of the fallen and the person he's with? Come on, someone defend that please?

He's very lucky that some unknowing citizen didn't blow him away for it,,, thats within the law, to aid and assist another that is facing deadly assualt, especially with a weapon which was clearly was taking place.

I have many LEO friends and several close relatives that are also, and I'm sure not one of them would behave like this fool, and if they did in my company, big problems would arise between us.

 

[Norm0931]

While I agree with most of this post, the fact is that their Executive Protection detail is subject to exactly the same laws and restrictions imposed on all other non-commissioned citizens; there's no exemption in the RCW's that overrides I-594 for professional security people, for example, nor in any other firearm statute of which I'm aware.

If Balmer and Gates succeed in imposing more restrictions, let's say, with a Washington State version of the AWB, chances are about 100% that their details would lose the ability to either carry or obtain those weapons.

To sum up, private security people/EP/Bodyguards do not enjoy any special exemptions under these laws now, nor do I expect there will be any in future ones. They are essentially hampering their own security details with this nonsense.

I was talking about this very topic with some Tacoma police last weekend, and they didn't seem to give a dang; the issue did not resonate with them- which is typical for humans, we are interested in that which affects our own group, so I don't blame them, really.

That's why they typically hire cops who moonlight for them.

 

[Gunguy45]

Uh, I didn't say drinking, I said drunk. As in intoxicated to the point where you are impaired. If you have a beer or two over the course of a few hours, you aren't drunk (Well some people might be, but most won't).

That is no different than getting behind the wheel of a car while drunk.

Sorry, but that's ridiculous.
Have you ever been drunk? Were you suddenly murderous or took actions which put others in danger just because you were drunk?

Seriously, this is the whole guns in bars idea again. Punish BEHAVIOR that INJURES someone in some concrete way.

Merely being drunk and having a gun on you is no inherent threat. -Unless you're in the habit of committing murder every time you drink?

And frankly, drunk or sober, you have the right to defend yourself against a deadly attack. So when you're drunk, I guess no free speech rights either?

 

[Mongo1]

The people involved should contact their state Representative if the local police give this guy a pass. They could also complain to his department. Get the Vallejo CA press invoved. Write letters. Do not allow this to be kept quiet. He is liable to want to move here and californicate Oregon. He was obviously too intoxicated to carry.
I 594 is not involved here.

 

[WillametteWill]

LEOSA (that allows officers, active and retired, to carry in other states) does not apply if you are under the influence:
"Is not under the influence of alcohol or drugs."
Is one of the specific conditions for both active and retired. Gun powder and alcohol don't mix...and if they do it tastes horrible, which is why you don't do it.