Cops and concealed carry

[Partsproduction]

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.

Everything I posted was in response to your assertion that what I said was not true. The point you may have forgotten is that when police say "For your safety and mine" it is a grievous infringement of the second amendment that most police have sworn to defend and protect, and more to the point, it is laughably illogical based on statistics. I'd like you to show me statistics that show that permit holders are dangerous to police!

There is no justification for it in my opinion, not for a traffic stop. I genuinely feel threatened when a policeman approaches me because I know what the statistics say. They do not say that I, as a permit holder, am dangerous to police, they clearly show the obverse, that the chances are much greater that I will be shot, armed or not, and worse, that the policeman will get off scott free and that my name will be besmirched over it in the press.

If there is any justification for police disarming citizens then the case can clearly be made that mere citizens shouldn't be armed in the first place. When you say that you have reason to disarm me during a traffic stop you are making a statement about what you think of the second amendment.

 

[the puma]

Everything I posted was in response to your assertion that what I said was not true. The point you may have forgotten is that when police say "For your safety and mine" it is a grievous infringement of the second amendment that most police have sworn to defend and protect, and more to the point, it is laughably illogical based on statistics. I'd like you to show me statistics that show that permit holders are dangerous to police!

There is no justification for it in my opinion, not for a traffic stop. I genuinely feel threatened when a policeman approaches me because I know what the statistics say. They do not say that I, as a permit holder, am dangerous to police, they clearly show the obverse, that the chances are much greater that I will be shot, armed or not, and worse, that the policeman will get off scott free and that my name will be besmirched over it in the press.

If there is any justification for police disarming citizens then the case can clearly be made that mere citizens shouldn't be armed in the first place. When you say that you have reason to disarm me during a traffic stop you are making a statement about what you think of the second amendment.

Maybe you have me confused with someone else. I didn't question your posts, even though I may have thought it. You're picking a few words out of my posts and taking them out of context. I expect that really.

I have NEVER said, in general, that CHL permit holders are "dangerous to police." I've been very, VERY clear that an overwhelming majority of CHL holders are average, upstanding citizens, but it seems the people I'm arguing with don't want to accept that. I also stated that just because someone has a CHL, it's no gaurantee and I gave a few examples showing that the CHL isn't a gaurantee. I also said I usually don't take anyone's gun during a traffic stop. I have a few times, but I almost always don't. I was also very clear that I don't favor having CHLs, and believe it's unconsitutional. If someone is legal to own a gun, they should be legal to carry it however they see fit.

If you dare get back to the OPs post, the situation was a lot different than a traffic stop. It was a reported possible burglary in progress where two of the involved parties were armed, and it was a domestic disturbance too. All of those are huge red flags, and I think the officers were prudent in doing what they did given the potential for problems.

The point in me responding to your very long post was to take issue with the "statistics" you presented. I think there are a lot of very serious flaws with that information. We will just have to agree to disagree. Because I believe those statistics to be seriously flawed, the conclusions are therefore flawed, as are your own conclusions based on flawed statistics.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

If you have a break in and a shoot situation that you can handle or have already handled, do NOT call 911. Call your lawyer and have him/her call 911, explaining the situation as an interested 3rd party. This is partly to protect you physically since a lawyer is calmly calling for you, explaining who and what and how so that the cops will better understand what has happened and who the good guys are. Partly so that you do not provide anything verbally that can be used against you in a court of law

Many innocent homeowners have been shot by trigger-happy or nervous cops. Fact, not cop bashing. Be smart and do not give evidence against yourself by making a 911 call. A small lawyer's retainer fee paid in advance is priceless in this situation

 

[the puma]

Good advice, minus the "trigger happy" jab you couldn't resist

 

[Partsproduction]

Maybe you have me confused with someone else

Probably right, I apologize.

I also said I usually don't take anyone's gun during a traffic stop. I have a few times,

Sounds like you understand the second amendment, thanks.

If you dare get back to the OPs post, the situation was a lot different than a traffic stop

You are correct, however, that is no excuse for taking a legally carried firearm. The supposition is that the CHL holder can't control his weapon

The point in me responding to your very long post was to take issue with the "statistics" you presented.

If you read any of the professor's site in <broken link removed> you know that those who are dishonest with stats are the police and those who cover for them. Not all police, but so many, way too many, police shoot unarmed and innocent citizens, and then get off, and they twist stats or ignore them for their own purposes.

One of the myths that the police perpetuate is that they hold the moral high ground, but if that's true why not show all the figures? Read the article.

Not only am I afraid of police because of all I've seen and read about innocent people getting shot and killed but I'm positive that many of the statistics are being selected to suit an agenda.

It's clear to me that some police should not carry firearms, much less take them from others. I don't know how to tell a good cop from the rare bad cop.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Good advice, minus the "trigger happy" jab you couldn't resist

Can you with a straight face say there haven't been some of those cases? You're in LE, I get it. No offense intended but you're biased in this. I might be too if I were a cop. But I'm not, I'm one of the regular guys out here somewhat concerned about police over reactions and some outright murders that have not been punished. Most of my interactions with cops have been at least somewhat pleasant even while getting a ticket or two over the years, so it's nothing personal here and I have no chip on my shoulder

 

[the puma]

Can you with a straight face say there haven't been some of those cases? You're in LE, I get it. No offense intended but you're biased in this. I might be too if I were a cop. But I'm not, I'm one of the regular guys out here somewhat concerned about police over reactions and some outright murders that have not been punished. Most of my interactions with cops have been at least somewhat pleasant even while getting a ticket or two over the years, so it's nothing personal here and I have no chip on my shoulder

In my 12+ years on the street, I've not worked with any officer that I thought wanted to shoot someone. I've heard from other officers that told me they weren't surprised when a particular officer was in a shooting. I'm sure there are cops out there that may want to get in a shooting, but I don't want to work around them. I'm probably biased, but you are too. Using insulting adjectives indicates you are more than a "regular guy that is somewhat concerned." To me, you come across as fairly hostile and a bit confrontational, but it's hard to discern someone's 'tone' by reading text. I understand there are people that just don't like the police, or like what the police represent. It may be because of a personal bad experience(s), the experiences of friends/loved ones, what's portrayed in the media, etc....

 

[the puma]

You are correct, however, that is no excuse for taking a legally carried firearm. The supposition is that the CHL holder can't control his weapon

There are legitimate excuses for taking a legally carried firearm, and if, after I explain yet again, you still don't agree, then we'll just differ on this. If I respond to a possible burglary in progress involving two armed people, and add to the mix that it's a domestic disturbance, I will treat the situation accordingly. I will seperate the parties and disarm folks until I know what's going on. That is completely within my rights under that circumstance, and it's the safest thing for me. People do crazy things when hopped up on emotion, and it's rediculous to think otherwise.

If you read any of the professor's site in <broken link removed> you know that those who are dishonest with stats are the police and those who cover for them. Not all police, but so many, way too many, police shoot unarmed and innocent citizens, and then get off, and they twist stats or ignore them for their own purposes.

Personally, I think an overwhelming majority of groups the publish "statistics" are twisting it for their own gain, regardless of who they are. Did you know that 83% of stats are made up on the spot?

One of the myths that the police perpetuate is that they hold the moral high ground, but if that's true why not show all the figures? Read the article.

It's tough to lump "the police" into one group. I don't think "the police" have a moral superiority, but we are held to a different standard much of the time. Some here think we can do whatever we want with impunity, but I see a different situation. I have no problems living my life to a certain degree because I'm charged with enforcing the laws.

Not only am I afraid of police because of all I've seen and read about innocent people getting shot and killed but I'm positive that many of the statistics are being selected to suit an agenda.

It's clear to me that some police should not carry firearms, much less take them from others. I don't know how to tell a good cop from the rare bad cop.

I'm not afraid of getting shot by the police, and it's not because I'm a cop. When I travel, it's never crossed my mind, because if I get caught up in something I'll just do what I'm told. Like most folks, I really don't like being told what to do, but I can control myself in order to get through such situations.

I'm not telling anyone they have to like, or even respect the police. Nothing I say here will likely change anybody's mind. I know that. I am saying, however, that how a person behaves is usually directly related to the outcome of a police encounter. Yes, there are bad cops out there, and some that shoot/kill innocent people. For the most part, these are not acts of "cold blood" where the officer just decides to shoot someone for the **** of it. These are almost all cases where the officer makes a series of mistakes which is compounded by the mistakes and behavior of the person the officer is dealing with. Sometimes it's just a mistake, sometimes not. I don't believe it's indemic like some folks here think.

The Seattle thing.....based on everything I've seen and read....that was 100% bad. No excuses. Other local incidents, however, don't fit into this mold for me.

 

[Partsproduction]

I'm not afraid of getting shot by the police, and it's not because I'm a cop. When I travel, it's never crossed my mind, because if I get caught up in something I'll just do what I'm told. L

That's what's really scary about it, you don't have to do anything to deserve it, some people are just so nervous and scared that they shouldn't carry guns, and neither a uniform nor a permit can weed those folks out, I wish they could.

For the record, my attitude is summed up by Romans 13, Paul was under the most corrupt cruel despicable leader that the world has ever known, and Roman soldiers were known for their cruelty and arbitrary actions, yet Paul said to respect and honor them (Including Nero, who later killed him.). The difference is that we live in a country where people have the right, and even the duty, to speak out against injustice. That's what I'm trying to do.

 

[Riot]

Maybe you have me confused with someone else. I didn't question your posts, even though I may have thought it. You're picking a few words out of my posts and taking them out of context. I expect that really.

I have NEVER said, in general, that CHL permit holders are "dangerous to police." I've been very, VERY clear that an overwhelming majority of CHL holders are average, upstanding citizens, but it seems the people I'm arguing with don't want to accept that. I also stated that just because someone has a CHL, it's no gaurantee and I gave a few examples showing that the CHL isn't a gaurantee. I also said I usually don't take anyone's gun during a traffic stop. I have a few times, but I almost always don't. I was also very clear that I don't favor having CHLs, and believe it's unconsitutional. If someone is legal to own a gun, they should be legal to carry it however they see fit.

If you dare get back to the OPs post, the situation was a lot different than a traffic stop. It was a reported possible burglary in progress where two of the involved parties were armed, and it was a domestic disturbance too. All of those are huge red flags, and I think the officers were prudent in doing what they did given the potential for problems.

The point in me responding to your very long post was to take issue with the "statistics" you presented. I think there are a lot of very serious flaws with that information. We will just have to agree to disagree. Because I believe those statistics to be seriously flawed, the conclusions are therefore flawed, as are your own conclusions based on flawed statistics.

Prejudice cannot be reasoned with. Just as some cops don't want any citizen to have a firearm, some citizens just hate cops...just do what I do with people like the above and add them to your ignore list. Don't let the filth of the forum ruin how good NWFA can be!

 

[Blitzkrieg]

In my 12+ years on the street, I've not worked with any officer that I thought wanted to shoot someone. I've heard from other officers that told me they weren't surprised when a particular officer was in a shooting. I'm sure there are cops out there that may want to get in a shooting, but I don't want to work around them. I'm probably biased, but you are too. Using insulting adjectives indicates you are more than a "regular guy that is somewhat concerned." To me, you come across as fairly hostile and a bit confrontational, but it's hard to discern someone's 'tone' by reading text. I understand there are people that just don't like the police, or like what the police represent. It may be because of a personal bad experience(s), the experiences of friends/loved ones, what's portrayed in the media, etc....

I make no apologies for the truth even if it is taken as hostile. I already stated that most of my interactions with the cops have been neutral or positive, but I am not going to grovel in happiness about it like a dog. I am a free man

I remember Ruby Ridge

I remember Waco

I remember many other less well known but outright murders of innocent citizens

I can never forget that any more than I can forget that a California HWY Patrolman saved my wife's life at age 19. I never met the man but he has my eternal thanks

The wonder should not be that I remember all that but that we as a people have already redressed the issue of murders that are unpunished. A land that does not redress murder is ripe for judgment

 

[the puma]

I make no apologies for the truth even if it is taken as hostile. I already stated that most of my interactions with the cops have been neutral or positive, but I am not going to grovel in happiness about it like a dog. I am a free man

I remember Ruby Ridge

I remember Waco

I remember many other less well known but outright murders of innocent citizens

I can never forget that any more than I can forget that a California HWY Patrolman saved my wife's life at age 19. I never met the man but he has my eternal thanks

The wonder should not be that I remember all that but that we as a people have already redressed the issue of murders that are unpunished. A land that does not redress murder is ripe for judgment

It's not about truth, it's about honesty and sanity, both of which I find lacking in your posts. You've stated you have no chip on your shoulder, but you do. Based on links you've posted and things you've said, I believe you to subscribe to the sovereign movement or similar type ideology. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not. We shall part ways here. Cheers.

 

[Partsproduction]

It's not about truth, it's about honesty and sanity, both of which I find lacking in your posts. You've stated you have no chip on your shoulder, but you do.

Ruby Ridge and Waco are exactly the kinds of things I think about when I think about injustice from government, now that's truth, that's honesty, and that's the reason I, for one, exercise my God given right to free speech. You said earlier that you don't stand up for exactly the kinds of things mentioned by Blitz when you said

The Seattle thing.....based on everything I've seen and read....that was 100% bad. No excuses.

There is little done by police agencies that is less excusable than Ruby Ridge and Waco. Just the mention of those names makes me feel afraid of police, and no good police officer should side with those agencies. But I guess some here don't want it mentioned, and I can understand why.

 

[22many]

Did I just read that on the Internet?

As stated in my earlier posts, I don't care if people believe me or not.

On a better note, I unsubscribed from this thread days ago just because it will go on and on and on. Some people just don't wanna see things in a different light.

 

[the puma]

Ruby Ridge and Waco are exactly the kinds of things I think about when I think about injustice from government, now that's truth, that's honesty, and that's the reason I, for one, exercise my God given right to free speech. You said earlier that you don't stand up for exactly the kinds of things mentioned by Blitz when you said

There is little done by police agencies that is less excusable than Ruby Ridge and Waco. Just the mention of those names makes me feel afraid of police, and no good police officer should side with those agencies. But I guess some here don't want it mentioned, and I can understand why.

I hope you can discern the difference between a local police agency and a large federal LE agency. To lump 500,000 to 800,000 LE (depending on what you define as LE) into one mold is more than problematic. I question the motives and ethics of most federal agencies, and think the federal government is about 90% too big. I would love to get rid of the EPA, NEA, BATFE, and any number of wasteful and useless groups. You may think we are all the same, but I don't. Honestly, I haven't studies Ruby Ridge and Waco, but I still think they were all kinds of f**ked up. Again, I work for a city agency, not the FBI. I'm not hiding from anything, and I dare anyone to prove otherwise.

I'm not sure what you mean by:

You said earlier that you don't stand up for exactly the kinds of things mentioned by Blitz.....

..... I think he's nuts.

 

[the puma]

Some people just don't wanna see things in a different light.

pot, meet kettle

 

[22many]

Lol. With so few words I posted on my last post you found some way to to spin it around didn't you. Ahhh...... It must suck to always be right huh......

 

[mjbskwim]

HEY

I got a little can of gas here.

If the guy on Ruby Ridge had kept himself out of the public eye and not on the Watch list,he probably wouldn't have been visited by all those LEO

Same for Waco You do stupid bubblegum and get people watching you,then take the consequences.

I would guess there are plenty people in both situations, right now,living in the USA that are smart enough to keep their mouths shut and NOT talk to the wrong people,and they do just fine.
No swat teams,no dead teens,no dead families,because they didn't bring themselves to the light of the powers that be.
They are a little smarter than the folks at Ruby Ridge and in Waco.

Still WAY too much LEO bashing and tin foil around here

Sorry,I see both of those as a lot of stupid on both sides.

 

[Misterbill]

I would have temporarily disarmed them as well under the circumstances described.

1. Call of burglary in progress with two suspects, both armed.
2. Arrival at the scene confirms two people, both armed, evidence of breaking into the house

Sorry, I don't care if you have a permit or not, that's a potentially VERY explosive situation.

3.upon investigation it becomes clear that this is a domestic disturbance and ongoing dispute between family, one of whom is a felon. Resolve issue, make sure no crime has been committed, return guns. No one hurt, no one detained for any length of time, no harm done.

Domestics are the most dangerous and volatile situations out there. Not having people armed for a brief time while the situation is investigated is safer for everyone, most particularly the civilians.

 

[buick455]

I would have temporarily disarmed them as well under the circumstances described.

1. Call of burglary in progress with two suspects, both armed.
2. Arrival at the scene confirms two people, both armed, evidence of breaking into the house

Sorry, I don't care if you have a permit or not, that's a potentially VERY explosive situation.

3.upon investigation it becomes clear that this is a domestic disturbance and ongoing dispute between family, one of whom is a felon. Resolve issue, make sure no crime has been committed, return guns. No one hurt, no one detained for any length of time, no harm done.

Domestics are the most dangerous and volatile situations out there. Not having people armed for a brief time while the situation is investigated is safer for everyone, most particularly the civilians.

this was my thought, I'm not exactly a big fan of the LEO's but I think in this situation the officers did exactly what we pay them to do

with no history an officer has no idea if a comment from the dirtbag would send the seemingly calm folks into a violent frenzy. So with no apparent need for more protection than the dirtbag detained and officers on site, holding on to their guns while they move their stuff dosen't seem unreasonable

The cops were not disarming the citizens for control...... shouldn't be a second ammendment issue nor an issue for the lawyers. If the gustapo comes to my house to take my guns THEN we have a second amendment issue