Law enforcement question?

Originally posted by enkidu
No they are not. Policemen (active and retired) have MANY priviledges with regard to weapon registration, testing, and ownership which are denied non-policemen.
Click to expand...


Are you entirely sure about that?

Unless you can persuade me otherwise, there are Military Personnel, and there are Civilians.

Cops are Civilians.

Just like me.

I am open minded. Show me evidence to the contrary, and I shall reconsider immediately.

Regards,

Brian
 
LEOs are civilians. In CA the only thing that seperates out a LEO is that the LEO has the powers of PC832 (powers of arrest). This does not stop him from being a civilian. Anyone can go and enroll in a private acadamy and fund thier own way through. If you can them get hired by a department you will also be 832. You do not sign away your rights as a private citizen and you can quit at any time. That is called a civilian.

With many jobs come special powers that those without the training and certification do not have. Only lawyers can practice law, only doctors can practice medicine, only pilots can fly planes ect. Does this mean that they are not civilians.

You only stop being a civilian if you are active military.

If your going to bash cops at least get your facts straight!:rolleyes:
 
Hi Ron! I apologize if I sounded like I was bashing anybody. I felt I was just pointing out the state of the law (federal and state) and how the law differentiates between LEO's and non-LEO's. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if there is a constitutional/legal definition of civilian and whether that definition (if it exists) is regarding active military status, active law enforcement status or otherwise.

But it is a fact that the priviledges afforded Law Enforcement Officers extend beyond their "official duties". Retired LEO's no longer arrest people but still retain many of the ownership/licensing/training exemptions afforded active LEOs. And that does differentiate the rights of LEO's and retired LEO's from the rights of non-LEO's.
 
Private Citizens have the Unalienable RKBA. Just because socialists pass regulations to infringe on the RKBA does not mean those rights do not exist.
 
With regards to police enforcement of unconstitutional laws, saying "I'm just doing my job" doesn't make it right. Folks are justified to be somewhat resentful towards the police because they are the ones enforcing all the nonsense laws and infringing on people's rights daily.
 
I think much of the confusion on my part is around the term "civilian". In reviewing many of the posts, it seems that most people define civilian as anybody who is not in the military (ie part of the chain of command extending from the President through the Sec. of Defense on down). This leaves FBI, BATF, and all of the federal, state and county law enforcement officers not under said command defined as civilian. Fine by me, henceforth: Civilian <-> !Military.

However, it is quite clear to me that the law does afford many people in that second group (and retired members of the first and second group) with rights and priviledges with regard to keeping and bearing arms not afforded those not in any of those groups (military, retired military, LEO, retired LEO). When I implied that cops aren't civilians, I guess I was trying to point out that, in the eyes of the law, LEO's and former LEO's receive preferential treatment regarding RKBA which were originally enjoyed by all.

I'm not bashing LEO's or military personnel. I'm grateful for their service and salute them for it. I'm just stating the facts of the law as I see them. I guess that's my point. I apologize for the confusion caused by my misapplication of the term civilian.

In conclusion: I withdraw my original statement that cops aren't civilians. I submit another statement: LEO's (and retired LEO's) are afforded priviledges extending beyond their duties which are denied non-LEO's.
 
Enkidu, I totally agree and it totally sucks. It always gets me that, as a Officer with the DOD, I had the power to carry loaded firearms onto federal airfields (not even the MPs at this base had that power) to protect about a billion dollars in combat aircraft. I was considered capable of performing that job. However, since I left the DOD, I am no longer considered resposible enough to carry a firearm to protect my own family.:mad:

I fully understand LEOs being waved through background checks for gun purchases (hey, they have already been through the tuffest background check around). I can even agree with the waving of the firearm safety course, after all they already know how to handle a firearm, RIGHT. :rolleyes: (hey I can insult cops :D some of the worst shots I have ever seen were in acadamy). But I can not agree with the idea they LEOs have extended rights to firearm ownership and carry that is not afforded to normal non-bonded civilians.

Just for the record. LEOs have officer discetion (in CA at least) on all crimes except child abuse and domestic violance. Those are the only times when a officer has to make an arrest. In all other cases, even capital crimes, the officer is not required by law to take action. So any LEO who says he has to do something that is in violation of civil rights is lying.
 
This is BS! What type of Jack-booted thug came up with this law? It us just as stupid as saying a knife clipped to a guy's right pocket is concealed because you are looking at his left side. First, you violate the 2nd Amendment and then you keep looking for as many loopholes as you can to bust people who think they are following your statist policies. Do you really wonder why people are trusting cops less and less these days?
Click to expand...

Police don't make the laws, just enforce them.. Actually be mad at yourself and others that elected the politicians into their office to make these ridiculous laws.

Just for the record. LEOs have officer discetion (in CA at least) on all crimes except child abuse and domestic violance. Those are the only times when a officer has to make an arrest. In all other cases, even capital crimes, the officer is not required by law to take action. So any LEO who says he has to do something that is in violation of civil rights is lying.
Click to expand...

Actually this is not 100% true. Federal law (18 U.S.C. 242, as an example) defines what an officer can and cannot do which will place him in violation of your civil rights. If we fail to take action, we can be held civily and criminally liable for our actions. Thats right...10 years and $100,000 fine for using our "descretion." Now how do you think that makes us feel out on the road. You come out at 3am and make a split descision, knowing that you may have to answer for that descision. "If I let him go, am I liable" comes up all the time.

And these are federal laws, not state laws. Want to look them up?

18 U.S.C. 241 Conspiracy Against Rights
18 U.S.C. 242 Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law

And the civil laws are under Title 42 of the US code...
 
Don't lecture me on Federal Law. I was a Federal Officer!

Just because you are liable for your actions does not change the fact that you have the discretion to make the choice. My statement was 100% accurate.
 
But I can not agree with the idea they LEOs have extended rights to firearm ownership and carry that is not afforded to normal non-bonded civilians.
Click to expand...
I can't tell if you don't like the fact that LEO's have rights denied non-LEO's or if you don't think that that is the case. I think it is the former. And yes, it does suck.

In the end, I think that we can all agree that the current state of federal and state law with regard to our RKBA is sub-optimal and has been continuing to become more sub-optimal. Of course, there have been a few exceptions, recently and maybe things will stop getting worse and eventually start getting better. Vote!

edit: rephrase last sentences of first paragraph. edit 2: rephrase first sentence of first paragraph. Shoulda previewed more carefully :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by ReconTech
Police don't make the laws, just enforce them.. Actually be mad at yourself and others that elected the politicians into their office to make these ridiculous laws.
Click to expand...

I have no reason to be mad at myself. I am not responsible for any of this insanity:

1. Most of these idiotic laws were written before I was old enough to vote and many even before I was born, so I can't be responsible for them.

2. I always vote for a conservative or Libertarian, and they don't pass anti-RKBA laws.

3. If you looked at my information on the "author" section of my post you'd see that I live in Arizona where we have sane laws. I do travel and how the hell am I supposed to vote for people in states I don't live in?

Someone claiming he can't see a folder clipped to a pocket is simply being a vindictive JBT and is responsible for his totalitarian actions. People who write, pass, enforce, and prosecute laws are equally responsible for any evil they may inflict.
 
Boy, do I feel silly. I have been around the forums for a while, and I still fall into this quagmire. I should have just passed on by.

In my state (MI) Peace Officers have many powers and obligations. One goes with the other. Accountability, liability, oh, and yeah, power. Pretty much in that order....

Discretion to decide how & when certain law violations are to be dealt with are usually restricted to minor offenses. In my shop, felony offenses with known suspects MUST be referred to the prosecutor's office for THEIR discretion. Some departments use other standards, or may have none at all.

Just to clarify my earlier statement, a legal-knife carried in a motor vehicle by an otherwise law-abiding citizen is of only passing interest to me (or most of my co-workers). Where we get focusing on someone is when they have other "issues" which have come to light. I gave up jack-boots a long time ago...not very comfortable, and they cut down on blood supply to the intellect.
 
RW, what is/are the CA penal code section(s) that support your statement?

Others, yes, there are good men that aren't cops and there are bad men who are cops - the world ain't perfect, not by a LONG shot.

It's VERY easy to bitch and moan and second guess.

What's stopping you from "being part of the solution"? You don't have to be full-time - you can be a reserve (LE or military).

IMO, the vast majority of the whiners have never made an effort to effect change or done something productive for society or his/her fellow man.
 
Originally posted by R.W.Clark
I fully understand LEOs being waved through background checks for gun purchases (hey, they have already been through the tuffest background check around).
Click to expand...

I sure hope you're kidding, but I didn't see any indication of sarcasm.

Washington D.C. is KNOWN to have hired even those with violent criminal convictions to be police officers -- because it is not "P.C." to discriminate, and they were DESPERATE to hire...uhm,... "underpriviledged" people to become cops.

Don't EVER kid yourself that cops are screened so that only righteous, upstanding people are hired to be them. There are loads of examples of the best and WORST characters becoming police officers. I remember watching an "America's Most Wanted" about a guy who was a cop, who used his position to arrest a woman on a traffic stop, took her to a remote area, raped her and killed her. He is still on the loose, and aided in his evasion of arrest by the fact that he knows how the police investigate and pursue. He knows what not to do!

Here in Florida, five corrections deputies (Sheriff's office officers) are being investigated because they were found to be running a drug ring importing COCAINE into the prison right here in my town! Real upstanding folk.


I can even agree with the waving of the firearm safety course, after all they already know how to handle a firearm, RIGHT. :rolleyes: (hey I can insult cops :D some of the worst shots I have ever seen were in acadamy). But I can not agree with the idea they LEOs have extended rights to firearm ownership and carry that is not afforded to normal non-bonded civilians.
Click to expand...

Ahh, glad to see you got back on track about the realistic expectations we should have about cops. But I disagree with your last point. It is well-known that in many jurisdictions, ex-LEOs are extended the right to carry concealed weapons even just by virtue of the fact that they used to be cops, and even in places where normal civilians are denied carry permits. (Check Suffolk County, NY, for example.)

It is worth mentioning that anti-gun billionaire dickhead NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg HAS STATED THAT HE FEELS EX-LEOS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CARRY GUNS.

Now, I personally don't have a problem with them carrying guns -- I have a problem only with denial of NON-LEOs to have permits to carry guns. I guess I think that generally if cops were okay to carry while they were cops, they are okay to carry afterward.

But Bloomberg has made clear that he just "doesn't understand" why anyone would want to carry a gun. I guess having dozens of people around you carry for YOUR protection will eventually rob you of that understanding... But talk about your sickening anti-self-defense attitudes! The guy just will not give credence to the average citizen -- even retired police officers -- having the means to defend against violence with the best and most effective means available.

Can you say elitist liberal scumbag?

---Jeffrey
 
csp20108:

Yes, thats exactly what I said. I stopped them on the roads for civil infractions in my presence [ they were violating some statute ]. Thats the job.

Yes, I let them go as stated when they knew what they had done wrong and admitted it.

In Ma. there are two types of laws.
May laws and shall laws.
I may charge or I shall charge.
Traffic laws, most of them, were may laws.
I had the deiscretion to ticket them for the offense. I wasn't in the habit of making money for the insurance industry.

Must have saved people aggregately at least a couple hundred thousand in fines and insurance increases. I had that choice.

And I initially stopped them for violating the laws [ thats parrt of the job ]. I didn't know if I would be writing the ticket or not when I pulled them over, there was discretion for either based on my feelings about the violation.

I thought I was being fair, I know I do not like being stopped and ticketed anymore than the next person.

Benjamin Liu: Minors having sex in the cars in the cemetery were approached, determinations made about what the vehicle was doing there at that hour [ thats part of the job ], and then asked to leave after addressing both parties seperately at the scene.

Officers have discretion in many things on the street. They use that discretion and make decisions based on their past experiences as well as their training.
Where personalities are involved, you of course get different responses from officers.


Chuck428: To blame the officer for enforcing the laws [ which he is sworn to do ]. Don't kill the messenger as it were right?

Brownie
 
I mentioned the sex thing since it is a crime that happens a LOT and does cause extreme social and economic problems like teen pregancies and higher taxes for welfare. Yet enforcement is VERY lax. I'm not saying that you should start stalking proms, I'm just pointing out that you DO have the choice over which laws you want to enforce. Why go after a guy with a folder that is "concealed" because he is sitting in his car?
 
Brownie, if the laws are unconstitutional, I'll blame everyone involved with them. Everything in life is a choice. When you choose to use your power to infringe on the rights of others, you are wrong.
 
Chuck428:

The laws come from legislators making the rules. The enforcement of the laws is only a job, like any other job. You either do your job well or you do not, and suffer the same fate as any other job when you do not follow the guidelines of the company you work for.

Easy enough to blame those who enforce the laws, just as easy to praise them when they catch the BG breaking into your business, your home, getting the druggies of the streets so you live safer than if they were not doing their job.

Let me get this correct--you would blame me for enforcement of a law? Wouldn't it be more productive to attempt to get involved with the law making process to effect some change of a law you deem unconstitutional than to whine about the enforcement of the law? Whining about law enforcement doesn't get laws rescinded, it creates animousity toward those who enforce them, and apparently you have much of it toward. Blame trasferrance to LE's for an unjust law only creates resentment on both sides of the fence. These same laws you feel unjust I enforce [ by law ] may be the same I feel are unjust.

So you are suggesting I ignore my duty to enforce, and subsequently lose my job? Though I may feel the same exact way about a law as you, I have the responsibility [ by mandates ] to enforce them. Now before you go and tell me to change professions, remember that that suggestion would result [ if LE's were to listen to that advice ] in no LE on the streets in your scenario.

Hey, any law thats deemed unjust and enforced? Kill the messenger is the answer? Hardly. You'll need to change how you attempt to affect change of unjust laws, as whining about the enforcement of same won't get you to the goal of changing the laws which should be the goal to attain your desired result.

BTW, we do not have power to infringe others rights, in fact we uphold the rights of the citizenry through enforcement. When we infringe on someones rights we [ LE's ] are charged accordingly and suffer the consequences.

There will never be a law written that someone does not take issues with as a violation of some perceived right they have. You can't please all the poeple all the time, so your suggestion is to have no law enforcement at all?

The best good cops can do is use discretion where they are allowed to, when they do not have the choice they must follow the laws guidelines.


Benjamin Liu: I have discretion in some laws and others there is no discretion. If I have the discretion [ by law ] then it is up to me to make the decision of charging or releasing them. I think I have done my part to bring some people good will by not charging them when I had the discretional option per statute.

I don't get to decide where that discretion can be used, there are statutes that dictate what I may or shall do in given instances.

I can tell you that all those who spout off about the cops and how they enforce the laws have never been vocal at the time of the stop to me. I'm sure they certainly thought I was a JBT but they didn't say it to my face. Easy to have disdain and remark about LE's actions here in never never land, how many that do it here actually tell the street officer they are JBT's or have an attitude with them at that time of the stop?

Brownie
 
Brownie,
Just a question; don't you think that after a some time as a LEO (and I am not one, just to clear that up!), it's common to slip into an "us and them" condition and view "citizens" as another kind of people?
I am in no way insinuating that LEO's look down on or think less of non-LEO's, but I just assume it's easy to adobt a view like that.
I have felt it quite a few times here (Denmark).
Over a period of two months, I was stopped six times in my car (completey regular boring Opel Vectra) for no reason at all!
I hadn't gone too fast, broken any traffic laws and I don't even think I had bad breath! :)
All the officers were nice and professional, but stopping a citizen for no reason is (imho) misuse of the job.
I asked them all why I was stopped, but none of them would comment apart from "just a routine stop!"

Recently I bought two Busse Assault Shakers from the US and had all kinds of problems getting them into the country even though they are perfectly legal to import and own.
An officer called my wife and scared the s*it out of her, then he called me and told me I might get charged with possesion of an illegal weapon(!) and when I finally got to speak with an officer who knew the law and had some common sense, they had "misplaced" my knives!
They turned up a week later and I had to collect them at the police station - where I had to jump discuss with two officers to get my knives since they had very little knowledge of danish weapons laws!

This is absolutely no attack on you, just a couple of examples on what I'd call bad police work and misuse of my tax money!

What strikes me here, is that these officers were acting like they were desperately trying to find something to accuse an innocent man of!
And I'll tell you; had I complained at the time (which would have been the right thing to do, I admit that), I would have faced half hour delays and in the last incident, possible confiscation of my property.
FYI, Denmark is supposed to be a democracy, not a police state!:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top