Cops and concealed carry

[Cougfan2]

I will expound a little on Puma's comments about the landlord tenant laws. In my neighborhood we used to have a guy who lived two doors down from us that was constantly throwing loud drunken parties in his front yard at all hours of the morning. We would go over and ask him politely to quiet it down and his response would range from no response at all to trying to get us to fight him. After about the third time I had called the cops on this hillbilly, I caught the RO as he was leaving and asked to talk to him. I knew the house was a rental and we had written his landlord to see if they could do anything, but got no response. The RO told me that while the landlord/tenant laws in Oregon weighed very heavily on the side of the tenant we could place pressure on the landlord by calling the police and asking for an officer to respond EVERY SINGLE TIME this guy was causing a problem in the neighborhood. I forget what frequency he mentioned, but he said that if his PD (Hillsboro) got more than X number of disturbance calls in a certain period of time, the city would start billing the landlord for every call they had to respond to at that address. This gave the landlord all the ammunition he needed to evict. We had him out of there in one year.

 

[HollisOR]

Hmm, sounds like a good reason to do away with CHL requirements. Open carry or concealed should be every citizen's right, as in AK or Vermont. Since you know, you can't tell if they're really a good guy or bad guy by just a background check.

As for the "war on cops" propaganda being floated about lately, here is a link to Cato's botched police raids map:

Botched Paramilitary Police Raids

It is not just good guys VS bad guys. Even good guys can do bad things (just as bad guys can do good things). Most of us just do not have the contact that the police have with different people in those type of situations. Police ROE has been developed over time and will continue to develop as our society changes. Maintaining a safe environment is important for all concerned. As it has been mentioned, our past experience seems to govern how we will act or perceive others in the future. The cops that I know, do not care for bad cops. The few that there are, ruins the public opinion of cops as a whole. Stereotyping is a famous human pass time. Human nature, every body wants a cop when someone is trying to break into your house and no one wants a cop when his patrol car is following yours.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Actually I don't need a cop when someones are trying to break into my house.. been there, done that. Yes I know some people need this service, I am simply not one of them

 

[the puma]

Hmm, sounds like a good reason to do away with CHL requirements. Open carry or concealed should be every citizen's right, as in AK or Vermont. Since you know, you can't tell if they're really a good guy or bad guy by just a background check.

As for the "war on cops" propaganda being floated about lately, here is a link to Cato's botched police raids map:

Botched Paramilitary Police Raids

I'll disregard the tone of your post (it's hard to tell by exactly what's written, but it seems a bit on the hostile side).

Personally, I don't believe in CHL requirements and believe it's a violation of the 2A. I believe in constitutional carry. I don't believe laws prevent crime. They are written to punish those who break them. What good are CHL laws really? It's a way of documentation only. Nothing about the CHL laws assure someone is competent to handle a firearm, nor are there any basic skill requirements. A criminal will carry a gun regardless of CHL laws, so this is another law that punishes the average law abiding citizen. Honestly, if someone is legally allowed to own a handgun, they should pass the CHL (rudimentary) background check, so let everyone exercise their God given 2A rights.

 

[22many]

The puma, yes, I want actual facts! I have been asking if you can back up your claims from my first posting! We are in the legal/political part of the forum. It is not uncommon for people to post a link to back up their claims. I'm asking yet one more time, can you post a actual link to support your claims?

Apparently, your not understanding my question I have asked over and over.

 

[the puma]

How do you suggest I provide a link to a plate I ran a few years ago, or even a report I wrote? There is nothing online. How am I supposed to fulfill your damands? You know full well the chances of me finding this stuff is impossible.

How about you answer my questions? The times I asked if you believe all CHL holders are above reproach? You believe I'm lying because I'm a cop or because we don't believe the same things? Woul you care to back up your statements with verifiable links? I get it that you hate the police, and therefore you don't like me. I have no doubts you would still find reason to discredit whatever I say regardless of any "proof."

 

[22many]

As far as not liking you because your a cop, that's not the case. As I stated, 70 percent have been aholes. Maybe your in that 30 percent, I don't know. I wanted a actual link to your findings. If you can't provide them then fine. If not then i guess those are your findings and not the actual.

Do I believe that all chl holders are responsible unstanding citizens? For me the answer yes would be a poor judgement call on my part. Nobodys perfect and you of all people should know how broken our system is.

As far as discrediting you on your findings, if you Find a actual link to your findings then please post it. I would like to see it. If your wrong then your wrong. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong. I really don't care as I just want to see the percentage of people that carry
and have had problems.

Baada, before you call people trolls I think you need to actually know what a troll is. Look at my join date!

 

[el gringo loco]

I wanted a actual link to your findings. If you can't provide them then fine. If not then i guess those are your findings and not the actual.

Do I believe that all chl holders are responsible unstanding citizens? For me the answer yes would be a poor judgement call on my part. Nobodys perfect and you of all people should know how broken our system is.

As far as discrediting you on your findings, if you Find a actual link to your findings then please post it. I would like to see it. If your wrong then your wrong. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong. I really don't care as I just want to see the percentage of people that carry
and have had problems.

After reading several of your posts asking the same thing over and over, I felt the need to: (1) re-read the puma's comments to make sure I remembered them correctly and (2) try to explain his comment to you so that you would quit asking the impossible.

The first quote contains a statement that you yourself agree with (in blue above) and should require no evidence to back up. One would have to be incredibly naive and unnaturally optimistic about the true nature of the human animal to think that, of the thousands of Oregonians with CHLs, there are not a few bad apples. I'll go as far as to wager that no one who owns or carries guns for self defense could possibly have that rosy of an opinion of his fellow man. Furthermore, doctors, police officers, fire fighters, and any number of other groups of people go through background checks and more rigorous classroom work to secure their positions than any CHL holder does to obtain his permit. There are a small percentage of those groups that are later found to be bad apples. It would figure that there would be, at the very least, as many less than stellar humans in any group of CHL holders.

Furthermore, having a CHL in Oregon doesn't mean you're a "good guy" or have good intentions. It means you passed a certain background check or haven't been caught yet.

The puma goes on to make a statement in which he does not cite any study or report, but makes clear it is from his own anecdotal evidence (in red). No other person on this forum is required to cite evidence to prove assertions of personal experience. Let's review the really onerous and stringent requirements to obtain a CHL. In brief, they are: a little cash, a short class, no convictions for certain crimes, no pending cases for such crimes, and a few weeks worth of patience.

I personally know of outlaw motorcycle gang members and street gang members that have Oregon CHLs, so forget the notion that having a CHL means you're above reproach. Generally, though, CHL people are fine upstanding citizens, but not always.

And, again, the puma provides anecdotal evidence (in red):

The most recent case was a full patch wearing Outsider. I ran his plate and saw he had a valid CHL, so I called the CHL coordinator for Multnomah County. She told me specifically that affiliation with a motorcycle gang wasn't a disqualifying factor in granting CHLs in Multnomah County. I dealt with a black gangster a number of years ago (6-8?) and he had a valid CHL. He was fairly new to the gang (I can't remember if it was the Bloods or the Crips, or what subset it was..sorry) and he still had his CHL.

Perhaps an analogy will better express my point:

I once had a doctor misdiagnose me with Parkinsons. I later found out (six months later) that I did not have Parkinsons. Therefore, I know that not all doctors make correct diagnoses all of the time. As I had never before been and not once since been misdiagnosed, nor have I personally known anyone to have been misdiagnosed by a doctor, I can say that I believe most doctors diagnose disease correctly most of the time.

Will you take my statement about doctors, based on my own anecdotal experience, as true, or do I have to cite studies, link websites, and scan in my own medical records?

 

[Buddhalux]

You do know that doctors kill more people than guns in the US right?

 

[spreck]

yes, you should all def. carry in hospitals, as those places is were the real SHTF.

 

[dmancornell]

War on cops? Try war on homeowners and woodcarvers:

YouTube - Radley Balko on the 3 Worst Cases of Police Abuse in 2011

Two clear cut murders, no charges filed. Entire video of the Todd Blair shooting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV6Bq8xeQrU

The second case is the John T. Williams shooting which has been discussed in this forum already.

 

[22many]

El gringo loco, As I originally stated, is there a link that can back up those claims?

Let me rephrase the question so maybe someone will understand what I'm asking. Is there a link or website where I can find out the actual percentage of problematic chl holders? So far I haven't found anything on the web on this issue.

If that's the puma experience on this issue then good for him. As I originally stated in one of my earlier posts, I tend not to believe people on the Internet, especially on a online forum. Do you?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Two clear cut murders, no charges filed. Entire video of the Todd Blair shooting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV6Bq8xeQrU

That video is hard to watch. By the time they manage to mutter the words "get on the ground", he had already dropped to the ground from two shots center mass and one to the head.

As I originally stated in one of my earlier posts, I tend not to believe people on the Internet, especially on a online forum. Do you?

Personally, I get my hard facts from the "did you know?" section on the back of some cereal boxes.

 

[tattoo]

The OP did what he was told. Good . He kept his cool, and that helped influence how he was treated by the LEO. Good. No one went to jail. Good. No one got beat up. Good. No one got shot. Good.
See where this has gone? Good. Do as you are told and if you have a legitimate complaint, go through the right steps after the incident and pursue it then. YOU have a lot to do with the outcome.
Not every outcome is the same, but you have a better chance if you don't approach things with an attitude. But then there are some out there that just like to bitc- about everything.
Dave

 

[MA Duce]

It seems to me that if a high percentage of encounters with any group of people is unsatisfactory, then the problem may lie with you. When I was directly involved with the public in law enforcement activities I encountered a wide spectrum of personality types. I would say 80% , (and before anyone asks. NO I do not have a link) were, while not happy to see me, at least polite and respectful. The balance seemed predisposed to be anti-authority or trying to hide something. If I got the slightest bit of push back from these folks they met the full extent of my legal authority. This might have seemed like "bullying" but it is actually a technique to control the dynamics of the situation to prevent it from escalating.

 

[the puma]

Let me rephrase the question so maybe someone will understand what I'm asking. Is there a link or website where I can find out the actual percentage of problematic chl holders?

I NEVER stated anything about a percentage of problematic CHL holders, nor did I even imply it was anything other than a very small percentage. I don't know when you got the idea anyone stated anything otherwise.

 

[Partsproduction]

Partsproduction: Post a link to those stats. I'll be honest and say I don't believe you. That's a pretty ripe allegation.

I can't find the exact stats now, but the findings were that 350 citizens were wrongly shot by police during the year that about 35 police were shot on duty, but I can't find it now. Whether the ratio is exact or not you know there is no justification to disarm a legally carrying citizen on the basis of "your safety and mine" The likelihood that the policeman will shoot and kill the citizen is much greater than the other way around if the citizen is innocent of any criminal activity.

But here are some related stats that might be considered embarrassing by police if they were more widely known. "In many cases of police brutality that the FBI investigates, only a small fraction ever receive indictments, and even fewer result in a conviction. In 1996, the FBI reviewed 10,129 civil rights cases, and only 0.2% were filed for prosecution. The prosecution rate for police abuse cases is less than 1% of those investigated. So even if a complaint makes it to the FBI, it is very unlikely to lead to a conviction. This is a classic scenario of 'the wolf guarding the fox that's guarding the hen house.'

Is it dangerous to be a cop? FBI reports show that in 2000, 51 police officers were killed in the United States. Out of the hundreds of thousands of law enforcement personnel, this means less than 1/10 of 1% are at risk, thereby making law enforcement personnel one of the safest class of citizens in the United States. On the other hand, nearly one in two civilian women in the United States has either been raped, assaulted, or beaten during domestic violence during their lives. Court records show police officers are four (4) times more likely to commit acts of domestic violence, than any other group -- however, they rarely are arrested because their friends respond to the scene of the crime.

According to the Department of Labor, the on-the-job fatality rate for police is lower than that for gardeners, electricians, truck drivers, garbage collectors, construction workers, airline pilots, timber cutters, and commercial fisherman. In fact, fishermen have an occupational fatality rate that is fifteen times higher than that for cops, but rarely do we hear those who provide us with an endless supply of mahi-mahi described as heroes. (See Selling the Police: Reflections on Heroism and Hype in America,Tim Wise; <broken link removed>) " <broken link removed>

The following site expresses the obvious fact that statistics are often carefully crafted to favor police; <broken link removed>

Armed Citizens Make Fewer Mistakes Than Police

Don't think that just because the police are trained in the use of firearms that they are less likely to kill an innocent person. A University of Chicago Study revealed that in 1993 approximately 700,000 police killed 330 innocent individuals, while approximately 250,000,000 private citizens only killed 30 innocent people. Do the math. That's a per capita rate for the police, of almost 4000 times higher than the population in general. OK, that is a little misleading. Let's just include the 80,000,000 gun owning citizens. Now the police are down to only a 1200 times higher accidental shooting rate than the gun-owning population in general.

That still sounds high. So let's look at it in a different light. According to a study by Newsweek magazine, only 2% of civilian shootings involve an innocent person being shot (not killed). The error rate for police is 11%. What this means is that you are more than 5 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. But, when you consider that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as do police every year, it means that, per capita, you are more than 11 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. That is as low as I can get that number. GUNS - The Untold Truth

I really believe that the evidence that does get past the filters shows clearly that if anyone should be disarmed during a common traffic stop it should be the police. Of course it's a ridiculous idea, but so is the idea that the policeman is going to take the citizens gun "for your safety and mine", because, after all, if the CCW holder shoots the cop all heck will break forth upon him, while if the cop shoots the CCW holder he will, statistically, get off scott free!

I am aware that some people automatically call people like me cop bashers, it's so much easier than thinking the matter through in an unbiased manner. I'm convinced that a fair analysis of statistics (If they can be found) will show that police are much more dangerous to non criminals than the other way around.

 

[the puma]

I can't find the exact stats now, but the findings were that 350 citizens were wrongly shot by police during the year that about 35 police were shot on duty, but I can't find it now. Whether the ratio is exact or not you know there is no justification to disarm a legally carrying citizen on the basis of "your safety and mine" The likelihood that the policeman will shoot and kill the citizen is much greater than the other way around if the citizen is innocent of any criminal activity.

It's quite a reach to say there is "no justification", and even more of a stretch to say that policeman will kill the citizen. What you fail to cover is that the police are usually entering volatile, rapidly evolving and inherently dangerous situations when the 'bad shoots' happen. If regular citizens were called to intervene or otherwise participate in law enforcement actions, the number of 'bad shoots' would undoubtedly be higher than they are now. If you were to provide studies that showed 'bad shoots' of off-duty police vs. regular Joe Blow, I'd like to see it.

But here are some related stats that might be considered embarrassing by police if they were more widely known. "In many cases of police brutality that the FBI investigates, only a small fraction ever receive indictments, and even fewer result in a conviction. In 1996, the FBI reviewed 10,129 civil rights cases, and only 0.2% were filed for prosecution. The prosecution rate for police abuse cases is less than 1% of those investigated. So even if a complaint makes it to the FBI, it is very unlikely to lead to a conviction. This is a classic scenario of 'the wolf guarding the fox that's guarding the hen house.'

So your fault lies with the FBI, and you're assuming more ALLEGED cases should be prosecuted. Perhaps, but without looking at the cases themselves, it's pretty hard to tell. I will be the first to tell you that the police do get away with things that they shouldn't, but I don't believe it's as drastic as you make it out to be.

Is it dangerous to be a cop? FBI reports show that in 2000, 51 police officers were killed in the United States. Out of the hundreds of thousands of law enforcement personnel, this means less than 1/10 of 1% are at risk, thereby making law enforcement personnel one of the safest class of citizens in the United States. On the other hand, nearly one in two civilian women in the United States has either been raped, assaulted, or beaten during domestic violence during their lives. Court records show police officers are four (4) times more likely to commit acts of domestic violence, than any other group -- however, they rarely are arrested because their friends respond to the scene of the crime.

There were 51 police officers murdered in that year, but 84 more were killed in traffic crashes, and a smattering more died from other causes. The "51" number is misleading. How many fishermen were murdered because of their work? The study you reference also says over 56,000 police were assaulted on-duty. You then compare the artificially low "51" with how many women are victimized during their lives. Not a very comparative example. I would bet (sorry 22many, no stats...just my anecdotal experience) that at least 75% of police are assaulted in the line of duty during their careers. That's a little better comparison.

I will quickly and openly agree that there are way too many cases of domestic violence, and many go unreported. Recently, a Clackamas County sergeant, after getting away with DV, murdered his estranged wife and one of her friends before killing himself. I know of a former corrections officer who was assaulted by her ex-husband (also a corrections officer), and he was never charged. I HATE that, and I don't know of any cop that I work with that is comfortable with that.

According to the Department of Labor, the on-the-job fatality rate for police is lower than that for gardeners, electricians, truck drivers, garbage collectors, construction workers, airline pilots, timber cutters, and commercial fisherman. In fact, fishermen have an occupational fatality rate that is fifteen times higher than that for cops, but rarely do we hear those who provide us with an endless supply of mahi-mahi described as heroes. (See Selling the Police: Reflections on Heroism and Hype in America,Tim Wise; <broken link removed>) " <broken link removed>

Again, how many truck drivers are murdered because they are truck drivers? The danger level of my job is not that bad, and I would be the first to tell you that being a crab fisherman is many, many times more dangerous, however the potential risk is greater in my job. I don't like the term "hero" to describe any civilian occupation (police are civilians), and I would bet most of my co-workers would agree. It's a media/politician thing IMO.

The following site expresses the obvious fact that statistics are often carefully crafted to favor police; <broken link removed>

Just like your post has been carefully crafted to not favor police

Armed Citizens Make Fewer Mistakes Than Police

Don't think that just because the police are trained in the use of firearms that they are less likely to kill an innocent person. A University of Chicago Study revealed that in 1993 approximately 700,000 police killed 330 innocent individuals, while approximately 250,000,000 private citizens only killed 30 innocent people. Do the math. That's a per capita rate for the police, of almost 4000 times higher than the population in general. OK, that is a little misleading. Let's just include the 80,000,000 gun owning citizens. Now the police are down to only a 1200 times higher accidental shooting rate than the gun-owning population in general.

That still sounds high. So let's look at it in a different light. According to a study by Newsweek magazine, only 2% of civilian shootings involve an innocent person being shot (not killed). The error rate for police is 11%. What this means is that you are more than 5 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. But, when you consider that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as do police every year, it means that, per capita, you are more than 11 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. That is as low as I can get that number. GUNS - The Untold Truth

Again, this is comparing apples to oranges. If you were to put everyday citizens in the situations police face every day, the numbers would be dramatically different. We hold 'citizen academies' from time to time, and always invite the media. In more cases than not, the people going through this 'academy' are quicker to resort to deadly force than police. Just comparing raw numbers is disingenuous at best, and deceitful at worst.

I really believe that the evidence that does get past the filters shows clearly that if anyone should be disarmed during a common traffic stop it should be the police. Of course it's a ridiculous idea, but so is the idea that the policeman is going to take the citizens gun "for your safety and mine", because, after all, if the CCW holder shoots the cop all heck will break forth upon him, while if the cop shoots the CCW holder he will, statistically, get off scott free!

nice editorial, but using flawed and biased 'stats' to claim this is laughable.

I am aware that some people automatically call people like me cop bashers, it's so much easier than thinking the matter through in an unbiased manner. I'm convinced that a fair analysis of statistics (If they can be found) will show that police are much more dangerous to non criminals than the other way around.

Too bad it's not unbiased.

You know, the police make mistakes all the time. We are human. It's unreasonable to expect perfection, yet that is what we strive for. I strive for it, as to the people I work with. We make split-second decisions that sometimes mean life or death. It's an unfortunate part of the job. I have never said the police are perfect or don't f**k up. When something bad happens, the only FAIR thing to do is to judge the decision that was made, using the information the officer should have had, or actually had at that time, not a month later after information surfaces that the officer didn't know. Sometimes bad things happen, and it's not someone's fault. People may try to do everything right, but there are too many variables to take in to account. And yes, there are bad cops out there, and bad cops that get away with horrible stuff. I want them gone more than you do.

I really don't expect you to accept anything I've posted here because you have your opinion, but I cannot let faulty 'stats' condemn me and my profession unanswered.

 

[RallySoob]

I see no problem in letting the police have your guns but you could have asked them if it were an option to keep them on yourselves instead... I personally like to cooperate and be as easy going as possible. It's not like you need your gun to defend yourself at that point and anything you can do to make the officer realize you are the good guy is a plus. I think you did the right thing. Being cooperative is huge! If the cops don't like you for whatever reason they can make your life ****. All you can do as a citizen is obey, be polite and if they make a fault you can pursue it in court later, maybe get yourself a lawsuit and a new shiny car if they really screw up

 

[bigger hammer]

Me? I have no record. Not a single day or night in jail.

I tend not to believe things I read on the Internet without actual facts or stats.

Did I just read that on the Internet?