Carry permit. Would traffic stop make police be more cautious? yea or nay?

[Sigarms]

Most people are also smart enough to know that, since police officers are humans, there are both good and bad, and even good ones can make mistakes at times just like the rest of the humans.

+1

Our local LEO's will hang out at the gas station and actually talk with people. You don't see that everywhere. The same guys will also bust you for doing 20 miles over the posted speed limit, which they should do IMO.

Did have to laugh a couple years ago. When we had the local sheriffs office do a bike training day for our cub scouts (every year, either the sheriffs office or local PD will work with both the Boy and Cub scouts) my one boy asked the sheriff if his AR had a Mr. Happy switch when he saw it in his cruiser.

 

[Garandman]

And that is EXACTLY why one should understand and know their rights when dealing with ANY LEO.

 

[Garandman]

Our local LEO's will hang out at the gas station and actually talk with people. You don't see that everywhere. The same guys will also bust you for doing 20 miles over the posted speed limit, which they should do IMO.

Boston Police try to be “Community Police.” There are recreational facilities run by the Police Athletic League, and they sponsor all kinds of programs.

The BPF got a grant for bicycles and the bicycle officers are very popular. Much easier to engage in conversation, highly mobile, highly visible, and stealthy when they need to be. Great program.

 

[ovrszd]

Yup.... That's the attitude I expected.

It's "societies" fault & problem.
Police officers are not & never have been at fault for anything.

No use talking to you, nothing will convince you of anything other then the heroic value of anyone that wears or ever wore a uniform.

The LEO, you and I are all members of society. It's our responsibility to look for improvement.

I Back the Blue.

 

[TemporaryKubotaOwnerMark]

Or must've ?

That'll work. :laughing:

 

[TemporaryKubotaOwnerMark]

Most people are also smart enough to know that, since police officers are humans, there are both good and bad, and even good ones can make mistakes at times just like the rest of the humans.

Hmmm. Not sure about "most".

True, though. And there are differences between departments. Some departments have a bad attitude, and it filters down from the top. Some are great. Some places are pretty corrupt. Others are pretty clean. Oddly enough, it varies. One size does not fit all.

In my Army Reserve outfit many moons ago, most of our unit were LEOs of one form or another in their civilian life. Everything from a rookie at the L.A. County jail to a Deputy Federal Marshall, and you did not ask him about his work. I think we even had an FBI guy in one section. Vice cops, beat cops, detectives. They ran the gamut.

None of these guys were sissies. Most were combat vets (Viet Nam), and they maybe didn't mind a combative prisoner falling down the stairs at the station once in a while. Not a bunch of limp-wristed goody-two-shoes.


To a man, they despised the L.A.P.D. for their unnecessary brutality. (This was pre-Rodney King days.) It wasn't every cop, but it did characterize the department in those days.

I Back the Blue.

If you back it blindly, you are part of the problem.

 

[Deere Dude]

Good video.

Just say one word; lawyer
and don't sway from that conviction. Cops are not your friend when they are clocked in, generally. Although I had one come out when someone shot my dog that was very sympathetic.

 

[ovrszd]

If you back it blindly, you are part of the problem.

I don't recall saying anything that would indicate blindness. I also don't recall blaming anyone specifically for the problem. If my memory serves me right I've always said it's a society issue.

So to your statement, I am truly part of the problem. So are you. As well as everyone else that's posted on this thread. We all share in this.

I choose to Back the Blue.

 

[Sigarms]

I choose to Back the Blue.

I choose to back those who show that they are right in thier actions and not assume that the actions taken are "just" only for the fact that they wear a police uniform.

Look at the guy who arrested the nurse in Utah for refusing to take a blood draw. The reality is that there were multiple officers wearing "blue" in that room when the "arrest" was made, yet not ONE man in uniform spoke out warning the arresting detective that he may be overstepping his authority.

 

[ovrszd]

I choose to back those who show that they are right in thier actions and not assume that the actions taken are "just" only for the fact that they wear a police uniform.

And who decides righteousness in their actions? You the perpetrator?

Upon initial contact someone must be in charge. Who should that be?

Your story of being stopped late at night and the LEO shining his light throughout your vehicle is a classic example. If roles were reversed you would have done the same thing. But you turned it into a story of you having to put the LEO in his place by questioning his actions and because of that he let you go.

My story of the LEO getting shot 6 times happened because he did not do that. He respected the man's privacy and didn't take a good look in the vehicle. He simply told the man he couldn't sleep there and then allowed him the privacy to get out of his sleeping bag and drive away by walking back to his patrol car. The first round hit him in his left arm shattering the elbow as he was walking back to his car. If he had acted in the manner you found so distasteful in your example he wouldn't be a cripple today.

I Back the Blue.