What to Say to the Police?

[Sep]

I was stopped by a Utah state trooper on I-80 after one of my tail lights went out. I was perfectly honest and civil yet he became rude and belligerent when I refused to answer his questions about where I was coming from and where I was traveling to. That information was simply none of his business. He wasn’t accustomed to a “civilian” refusing to answer any question he cared to ask. He must have wasted twenty minutes trying to intimidate me and find some specious pretext to search my vehicle. My only real “offense” was a tail light bulb stopped working. To the trooper, however, my “offense” was I wasn’t sufficiently obsequious and willing to behave as his serf.

Last year, I watched a fascinating seminar on the Internet consisting of a law school professor and a senior police detective; both of whom strongly advised never saying anything to a LEO beyond simple identification. The detective gave numerous examples how wholly innocuous remarks could be (and are) used to convict and imprison people who never committed any crime.

If you think refusing to tell an officer where you've been and where you're going in a car is not a hostile attitude and simply avoidance of "serfdom", then you're bringing it to yourself.

Sure he probably has no right to ask, but really, how many times have you got into trouble with the law for telling him where you're going and where you're from?

It's not always simply a matter of right or wrong, because humans are not robots who can think only in terms of either 0 or 1. Many, many times I got out of trouble simply because I chose to be a nice guy, and many, many times I got exactly what I wanted simply because I chose to play nice. Am I sacrificing my integrity by being nice, I really don't think so, because to me being nice is important in any case.

If you want to be a paranoid and cite all the bad examples, then fine. If I choose the paranoid lifestyle, I would have a lawyer on speed dial, a rifle in every room, and three month supply of non perishable food, but I don't. You have certain rights (including being obnoxious), and other people have the right to be obnoxious back to you (like the police officer). Just don't complain about it.

Why don't you give us some of those examples where supposedly innocuous comments are putting innocent people in jail?

So a "scruffy looking guy" guilty of "loitering" is acceptable prey for American police officers willing to betray their sworn oath by arresting a person for merely peaceably possessing a knife? Thanks for explaining that. I'll be careful to wear spiffy attire and avoid loitering.

I'm not sure where you have lived so far, but I'd like to visit your planet because it must be a perfect world. Mine surely isn't.

Where I'm from, people complain loud and clear (and rightly so) when a grandma in a wheelchair is subjected to one of those "random" searches at the airport. Because the searches are totally randomized, it will eventually nab a grandma or two, yet people complain because it shows a total lack of discretion. Where I'm from judges and district attorneys and cops have the power to exercise discretion, and generally are expected to.

can this discretion be abused? Certainly. Is it abused MOST of the time? Absolutely not. Are we better off with it or without it? I say our system is good enough that in most cases discretion means that we can nab the bad guys fairly easily, while sparing the good guys.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

This may be difficult for you to understand, but there actually are some Americans who deplore a government agency whose primary purpose is to abrogate an unalienable individual liberty expressly "guaranteed" in the Second Amendment. I have a problem with legislators and government employees who swear an oath to adhere to our supreme law of the land and then spend careers betraying that oath in pursuit of a pension or votes. I'm just funny like that.

if that's what you think, then you have no idea what i did as a probation officer.

The "point" was an attempt to inform folks such as (jeff) of facts which they're apparently unaware of. When I see a person say something which I believe to be incorrect (as when you stated the Navy issued CRK Green Beret knives to graduates of BUD/S, rather than the reality of the Army issuing them to graduates of the SF Q-Course), I attempt to correct such misinformation. Chalk it up as a personality flaw of mine.

a mistake which i corrected and apologized for. i guess you didn't check. i intended to email you to apologize more personally, but you dont have any contact info available.

If my goal was to create a "hostile environment here" I wouldn't have waited nearly three years after joining this board before posting on it.



1. When I was employed as a federal LEO (not with the BATF), I recognized I was a "civilian."

2. Private citizens don't swear an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and aren't committing the crimes you referred to under the color of official authority and at taxpayers' expense. I expect violent criminals to behave as they do. I expect government employees to adhere to their sworn oath, refuse to enforce overtly unconstitutional statutes, and not perpetrate misdeeds or passively condone those by their peers. When I was on active duty, whether as an enlisted man or a commissioned officer, I refused to carry out illegal orders even when my peers cravenly did. Whether a person is a military officer or a cop, a legislator or a federal agent, I expect them not to abuse their position or violate their oath of office. It’s lamentable if you consider my opinions to be unreasonable.

where did i ever say any of your opinions was unreasonable?

3. The fact you regard the examples I cited (only a handful out of thousands) as mere "exceptions" is part of the problem. The "exception" in the torture of Lester Siler is that the LEOs were actually prosecuted and convicted, and then only because of a hidden tape recorder. Did you miss the fact over 300 LEOs urged a judge to give deputies who viciously tortured a handcuffed man for two hours little or no punishment? Would you care to tell us how many LEOs wrote the court urging severe sanctions for these heinous acts? Brett Darrow never broke any law yet he was the victim of threats and various crimes committed against him by several police officers. When a single LEO was fired (but not prosecuted) after a videotape of his misdeeds was released on the Internet, how did the law enforcement community react? Darrow was subjected to further police harassment and his life threatened on a St. Louis area LEO forum. Kindly identify a single LEO who said, “Hey, this guy is perfectly innocent; leave him alone.” The typical reaction was, “This smart-ass punk got one of our brothers fired.” Smart-ass punk = a young man who violated no law but infuriated police simply because he politely asked them why they were accosting him.



I wouldn't want to be accused of using facts and reason to "derail a thread." I'll leave the thread in the good hands of you and joe-bob.



I was stopped by a Utah state trooper on I-80 after one of my tail lights went out. I was perfectly honest and civil yet he became rude and belligerent when I refused to answer his questions about where I was coming from and where I was traveling to. That information was simply none of his business. He wasn’t accustomed to a “civilian” refusing to answer any question he cared to ask. He must have wasted twenty minutes trying to intimidate me and find some specious pretext to search my vehicle. My only real “offense” was a tail light bulb stopped working. To the trooper, however, my “offense” was I wasn’t sufficiently obsequious and willing to behave as his serf.

Last year, I watched a fascinating seminar on the Internet consisting of a law school professor and a senior police detective; both of whom strongly advised never saying anything to a LEO beyond simple identification. The detective gave numerous examples how wholly innocuous remarks could be (and are) used to convict and imprison people who never committed any crime.



So a "scruffy looking guy" guilty of "loitering" is acceptable prey for American police officers willing to betray their sworn oath by arresting a person for merely peaceably possessing a knife? Thanks for explaining that. I'll be careful to wear spiffy attire and avoid loitering.

so just some trolling then? how is anything you posted in either of your rants relevant to the discusion in this thread?


there are millions of police contacts yearly. your examples are certainly exceptions. are you really going to suggest they are the rule?

i made no comment on your specific examples, yet you feel it necessary to label me some sort of apologist. non sequitur

i never denied they happened, nor defended any police misconduct. i simply questioned their relevance (which i still believe is non existent), and you lost it.

 

[MORIMOTOM]

sep,

a word of advice: types like abn post here and in political all the time.

there is no point in citing any counter examples, because he just won't pay any attention. he will continue to attack me here for some perceived slight.

whatever his biases are, they aren't going to be changed by anything i post. reacting simply feeds his ego and provides an avenue to vent his pent up frustrations.


read my post, #97, and his response. a little out of proportion?

 

[shootist16]

Lets try and keep it civil guys. This can be a worthy discussion, but if it degenerates into a pissing match I'll have to lock it.

 

[Sep]

sep,

a word of advice: types like abn post here and in political all the time.

there is no point in citing any counter examples, because he just won't pay any attention. he will continue to attack me here for some perceived slight.

whatever his biases are, they aren't going to be changed by anything i post. reacting simply feeds his ego and provides an avenue to vent his pent up frustrations.


read my post, #97, and his response. a little out of proportion?

I know. I promise you that I will give up when it becomes a pissing contest.

If this forum provides him a release, then I think it's a good thing. It's better for him to let out some steam here than out on the street.

 

[AbnInfantry]

If you think refusing to tell an officer where you've been and where you're going in a car is not a hostile attitude and simply avoidance of "serfdom", then you're bringing it to yourself.

Sure he probably has no right to ask, but really, how many times have you got into trouble with the law for telling him where you're going and where you're from?

If you want to be a paranoid and cite all the bad examples, then fine. If I choose the paranoid lifestyle, I would have a lawyer on speed dial, a rifle in every room, and three month supply of non perishable food, but I don't. You have certain rights (including being obnoxious), and other people have the right to be obnoxious back to you (like the police officer). Just don't complain about it.

I've always been civil in any contact I've ever had with LEOs, even when they resorted to using needless obscenities, threatened to arrest me for the "crime" of feeding a hungry, crippled duck, and threatened to arrest me on false charges after refusing to sell them firearms at gun shows at San Jose, CA and Anchorage, AK. By what rational interpretation of the English language does politely refusing to answer questions totally unrelated to a defective tail light remotely constitute "obnoxious" or "hostile" behavior? Saying, "Sir, I won't answer that question" is being "obnoxious" and "hostile"? Do you normally concoct your own definitions for words? How many times do I have to call a police officer "sir" and comply with all appropriate requests to make you happy?

The only person at the traffic stop I cited who was obnoxious and hostile was the Utah state trooper. I'm sorry I don't have a video or audio recording of the event; a simple Google search will give you the video of one of the Missouri police officers who threatened to arrest Brett Darrow on false charges and "ruin his life." My experience was about one notch better than Mr. Darrow's (at least I had a tail light out, Darrow was merely sitting in his car in a public parking lot).

You seriously believe police officers have a "right to be obnoxious" to any person who refuses to answer any question they ask? :barf: If anyone wonders why so many LEOs are confident they can get away with what they do (especially if it's unrecorded), Sep is Exhibit A.

"Paranoid"? The legal instructor for my class at the FBI Academy (NAC 83-14), Special Agent/Attorney John Hall, stated no one should ever make any statements to a LEO other than identification and never, under any set of circumstances, agree to a "consent search." We were regaled with examples of people who were only arrested because they were needlessly cooperative when dealing with police instead of keeping their mouth shut.

Why don't you give us some of those examples where supposedly innocuous comments are putting innocent people in jail?

Are you incapable of independent research or doing a Google search? I’m not accustomed to doing favors for people who insult me, but I’ll make an exception (there’s that word again) in your case. Henry Holmes is a small, meek guy; very “nice” to use your term. He was employed as a cook aboard a commercial fishing boat in Alaska. He was savagely attacked in the vessel’s galley by a drunken Eskimo twice his size and far more powerful. As Henry was lying on the floor being choked to death, his hand touched a kitchen knife which had been knocked off a table. Henry stabbed his assailant until he stopped choking him; the wannabe murderer died. Henry was sentenced to 40 years in prison (a lenient sentence in Alaska for murder; the normal sentence is 99 years) for what IMHO was an obvious case of self-defense. Henry was convicted because: (1) The mad dog female prosecutor assigned to his case doesn’t believe in the concept of self-defense (as the mayor of Palatine, IL once said, “Self-defense is still a violent act”); (2) Like many people, Henry couldn’t afford a really competent defense counsel; (3) The clueless jurors couldn't grasp why more than a single stab with the knife was necessary; and (4) He made what he thought were innocuous remarks when he “cooperated” with police. Professor Duane (see link below) explains exactly how this routinely happens.

Here’s a different type of example for you to reflect on: H. Beatty Chadwick, a 73 year-old, cancer-stricken, former attorney, has served 14 years in prison; he’ll almost certainly die there. Chadwick has never been accused, charged with or convicted, of any crime. 14 years ago, a judge held Chadwick in civil contempt for failing to turn over money related to a civil action; funds Chadwick contends do not exist. A few months ago, a 3-judge federal appellate panel dismissed Chadwick’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the remarkable grounds that if he were permitted to challenge his detention he would go free, and thus will have "beaten the system."

Chadwick’s case is far from unique. Ten years ago, Martin A. Armstrong, was cited for civil contempt for failing to turn over assets he claims he doesn’t have. Despite not being charged with any crime, let alone being convicted, Armstrong has already served more incarceration than had he been convicted of the securities fraud the government alleges, yet refuses to prosecute him for. I have no idea whether Chadwick and Armstrong are scoundrels or saints; I am sure our Founding Fathers never dreamed their descendants could possibly be incarcerated indefinitely (even for decades) without ever having a trial or even being charged with a crime.

Here are links to the seminar I mentioned previously. James Duane, professor at Regent Law School, appears in the first link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

Here's Detective George Bruch of the Virginia Beach PD. Sep, please be sure and tell him about your "paranoid," "obnoxious" and "hostile" notions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=related

I'm not sure where you have lived so far, but I'd like to visit your planet because it must be a perfect world. Mine surely isn't.

I've visited, lived in or was stationed at 38 countries; none were "perfect" nor did I expect them to be. I don't think it requires "perfection" for a government employee to adhere to his oath of office. I'm a long ways from being perfect (I even keep a wife handy to remind me of that fact) yet I somehow managed to avoid ever betraying my oath as a soldier, LEO or when I held elective office. If you have any cogent reason why Americans shouldn't expect government employees to scrupulously adhere to their oath of office, let alone not abuse their position, you neglected to mention it.

if that's what you think, then you have no idea what I did as a probation officer.

What possible connection is there between my comments clearly directed at BATF agents and your former employment as a probation officer?

i guess you didn't check.

You "guessed" wrong. You're remarkably consistent in making incorrect guesses and slurs against me.

i intended to email you to apologize more personally, but you don’t have any contact info available.

Why would you feel a need to make a personal apology to me for your mistake regarding the Navy (rather than the Army) issuing CRK Green Beret knives? I'm not affiliated with Chris Reeve Knives, am a graduate of the SF Ops course not the Q course, and left active duty long before the "Yarborough" was invented. I'll settle for you ceasing your petty insults and attempts at amateur psychoanalysis. I recognize insults and obfuscations are easier for many people than reasoned discourse but I submit it's not ethical behavior.

where did I ever say any of your opinions was unreasonable?

Oh, please; don't be disingenuous. Here are some examples where you did exactly that:

i don’t see any purpose to it other than to create a hostile environment here.

just ranting?

so just some trolling then? how is anything you posted in either of your rants relevant to the discusion in this thread?

you lost it

types like abn post here and in political all the time. there is no point in citing any counter examples, because he just won't pay any attention. he will continue to attack me here for some perceived slight. whatever his biases are, they aren't going to be changed by anything I post. reacting simply feeds his ego and provides an avenue to vent his pent up frustrations.

You claim you never said any of my opinions were unreasonable while simultaneously asserting they're just "rants," "trolling," etc. No, no logical inconsistencies there.

You neglected to cite where I "attacked" you. That was just an oversight, right?

The way to successfully change my opinions is to use facts and reason to demonstrate where I'm intellectually and/or morally incorrect. You and Sep might give that a try. It works much better than gratuitous insults, false assertions and evasion.

For merely citing facts and expressing opinions you disapprove of, you accused me of "trolling" and "rants" while also saying you never claimed any of my opinions were "unreasonable." Do you customarily accuse people of "ranting" and "trolling" when they write posts containing reasonable opinions? How can my posting reasonable opinions "create a hostile environment here"?

For simply refusing to answer questions by a state trooper wholly unrelated to the purpose of his traffic stop, according to Sep I'm guilty of being "obnoxious," "hostile" and "paranoid." Years ago, I prepared dozens of appellate briefs in cases where defendants were convicted as a consequence of being "nice" (more accurately, servile) when interrogated by LEOs. Evidently, the justices on the Alaska Supreme Court are "paranoid" and/or aren't "nice" because they recently threw out convictions on arrests made by a police officer with a self-professed history of asking irrelevant questions at every traffic stop, which Sep has no problem with.

you feel it necessary to label me some sort of apologist. non sequitur

I never "labeled" you as anything, let alone "some sort of apologist." The only member being labeled here is me. A "troll" by you and "obnoxious, hostile and paranoid" by Sep.

i simply questioned their relevance (which I still believe is non existent), and you lost it.

Try to follow along: When joe-bob wrote, "When a person is found to be innocent...there is no criminal record," I provided specific facts refuting his erroneous statement.

When (jeff) wrote, "If you are nice, honest, and respectful, police officers will treat you the same way," I identified Americans who behaved exactly as he described yet were killed, viciously attacked or threatened with arrest on fictitious charges by LEOs. I could have listed thousands of examples ... or "exceptions" as you prefer to call them. Unlike your specious assertion, I never stated or implied such conduct was the rule by LEOs. (jeff) made a false, blanket statement regarding all interactions with police which I refuted with facts.

When TOM1960 wrote, "Unfortunately, this is a trap, because even though a convicted felon can demand his/her FID after 5 years from conviction/end of sentence, they would still be FEDERALLY prohibited from owning a firearm/ammunition. Why this is, who knows?" I merely answered his question with detailed information including case law on point.

That, sir, is the "relevance" of my posts. I directly responded to comments/questions by other members in this thread, just as I am in this post. How much more "relevant" could I be? Unlike you and Sep, I did so without attacking another member's character, mental functions or attributing behavior to them which they never engaged in.

If you can spare a moment from denigrating me, I'd welcome any coherent remark from you (or any other LEO) explaining why the words, "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" don't mean precisely what they say and what the Framers said they meant. In short, how LEOs morally rationalize enforcing anti-gun/knife statutes which are overtly unconstitutional.

there are millions of police contacts yearly. your examples are certainly exceptions. are you really going to suggest they are the rule?

I never remotely suggested the examples I cited "are the rule." You have a really bad habit of attributing beliefs/behavior to me which I don't hold or practice. However, while doing research for a U.S. District Court brief, I easily discovered thousands of what you call "exceptions." In the vast majority of these instances, despite having committed various crimes and sometimes even killing innocent people, the LEOs were never punished in any way, let alone prosecuted. Had lowly private citizens engaged in identical conduct, they'd be incarcerated for years, some even rotting in death rows.

What is not an "exception," however, as extensively documented, including by police commissions in major cities (e.g. the Knapp Commission), is the widespread practice of LEOs either engaging in illegal conduct ranging from DUIs to corruption to felonies and most of their peers passively condoning it. As Dateline NBC repeatedly documented in the mid-1990s, all it takes to have your vehicle and money stolen by LEOs in Louisiana, without breaking any law, is to have out-of-state license plates. In 1997, at a Sioux City, IA gun show, I discussed the Dateline NBC reports with a vacationing Louisiana LEO. His attitude was “so what?” Police steal (excuse me, asset forfeit) cash and expensive vehicles from innocent people (so long as they live out-of-state so it would be more difficult to go to court), no charges filed—with the proceeds split between the police, prosecutor and judge (per LA law)—and “so what?” As regards the practice of LA LEOs planting drugs in the vehicles of innocent persons (as NBC proved) so not only were their assets seized, they were falsely charged with felonies, he merely regarded that as “a little overzealous.”

It's better for him to let out some steam here than out on the street.

Yes, paranoid folks with my employment history routinely become deranged and run amok on the streets. There's just no fooling you and MORIMOTOM.

 

[AbnInfantry]

Among MORIMOTOM's incorrect guesses/assumptions about me was the one about my having read this entire thread; I hadn’t. When browsing BF, I used to spend nearly all my time in the General Discussion, Spyderco and (now sadly defunct) Kershaw forums. I've now read through this thread from the beginning and found some real gems by him. I’ll just address a couple here:

i would bet dirt for dollars that the relative number of "knuckleheads" in law enforcement jobs is far lower than any other profession.

I’ll take that bet! The two professions I’ll put up against law enforcement for having fewer “knuckleheads” are medicine and public accounting. I will further bet the average IQ scores of MDs and CPAs are at least one, and possibly two, standard deviations above that of LEOs. One of my Accounting professors at Cal Poly would have a fit at law enforcement being called a profession rather than an occupation as it doesn't qualify under the definition of "profession" as that word once meant. However, over time, words and phrases tend to change their earlier meanings. "Shall not be infringed" surely doesn't mean what it used to.

first, there are no quotas that i am aware of. pure urban legend.

Was that an attempt at levity on your part? The following are just a few links to articles on the subject. I'm a little fuzzy why Police Chief Jon Greiner of Ogden, Utah got a bill blocked in the state legislature which would have prohibited traffic ticket quotas if such quotas are just "pure urban legend." Why did some Utah legislators want to ban something which you assert doesn't exist and why would a chief of police lobby to prevent them from doing so?

Numerous states have enacted legislation barring traffic ticket quotes (even though such statutes are often ignored). Why would legislators pass laws against a "pure urban legend"? I'm also perplexed why some law enforcement officers have filed civil actions against being forced to comply with such quotas if they don't exist?

http://www.motorists.org/blog/if-you-didnt-believe-ticket-quotas-existed-before-you-will-now/

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/west-virginia-legislature-concludes-ticket-quotas-exist/

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/05/587.asp

http://wcbstv.com/seenat11/parking.ticket.blitz.2.246533.html

http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/355335/officers_fault_policeticket_quotas/

http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/12/27/12272008wachubbardlawsuit.html?imw=Y

 

[MORIMOTOM]

Why would you feel a need to make a personal apology to me for your mistake regarding the Navy (rather than the Army) issuing CRK Green Beret knives? I'm not affiliated with Chris Reeve Knives, am a graduate of the SF Ops course not the Q course, and left active duty long before the "Yarborough" was invented. I'll settle for you ceasing your petty insults and attempts at amateur psychoanalysis. I recognize insults and obfuscations are easier for many people than reasoned discourse but I submit it's not ethical behavior.

the reason i wanted to send you an email is because i posted something in correct which you pointed out, and you are invested in that community. i didn't like having mixed up the two branches. had nothing to do with chris reeve knives, necessarily. if you feel that would have been inappropriate, that's fine.

as for the rest, believe of me what you will.

it doesn't really matter.

 

[zignal_zero]

Original Poster -

if anything you do (or carry) is questionable. fold a copy of the statute up and keep it in your wallet. a polite way to point out a cops mistake would be something like.

"Sir (good word), i'm not trying to be argumentative, but i do have a copy of the statute on me if you would like to read it."

if it's already established that your tools ARE legal and a cop wants an explanation WHY you carry them. a suitable response, but one that will not make you any friends, is: "Sir, i mean no disrespect, but unless these items are illegal, i do not feel obligated nor compelled to explain why i have them"

if you leave out the "sir" or the little disclaimer after it, these responses will be taken ENTIRELY the wrong way.

 

[Sep]

I've always been civil in any contact I've ever had with LEOs, even when they resorted to using needless obscenities, threatened to arrest me for the "crime" of feeding a hungry, crippled duck, and threatened to arrest me on false charges after refusing to sell them firearms at gun shows at San Jose, CA and Anchorage, AK. By what rational interpretation of the English language does politely refusing to answer questions totally unrelated to a defective tail light remotely constitute "obnoxious" or "hostile" behavior? Saying, "Sir, I won't answer that question" is being "obnoxious" and "hostile"? Do you normally concoct your own definitions for words? How many times do I have to call a police officer "sir" and comply with all appropriate requests to make you happy?

The only person at the traffic stop I cited who was obnoxious and hostile was the Utah state trooper. I'm sorry I don't have a video or audio recording of the event; a simple Google search will give you the video of one of the Missouri police officers who threatened to arrest Brett Darrow on false charges and "ruin his life." My experience was about one notch better than Mr. Darrow's (at least I had a tail light out, Darrow was merely sitting in his car in a public parking lot).

You seriously believe police officers have a "right to be obnoxious" to any person who refuses to answer any question they ask? :barf: If anyone wonders why so many LEOs are confident they can get away with what they do (especially if it's unrecorded), Sep is Exhibit A.

I use the word "hostile" as in "uncooperative". Read hostile witness.I didn't just conjure up the concept out of thin air. Being hostile and being polite is not mutually exclusive. Exchanges in court are almost always polite, yet they are unmistakably hostile.

I have no compunction to act hostile when the need arises. I have challenged police officers too, all the way to court, but only when it's necessary. While I would freely surrender innocuous information like where I'm going, where I'm from or where I work, I would turn hostile (but polite) when they ask for consent to search.

Now that I think of it, cops never failed to ask where I'm going and where I'm from when they stopped me. Not once did I get into trouble for surrendering that information. Not even your videos show that surrendering that particular piece of information can get you in trouble.

Do I think police officers have the right to be obnoxious? Yes, as much as you and I have the right to be obnoxious. You have every right to be hostile and obnoxious to anyone because it's not illegal, otherwise half of New York City would be in jail.

You giving me anecdotal examples? I can give you anecdotal examples too, as long as we're clear that they are not empirical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRRTlrfTw0s

If police departments only look at the worst incidents (lethal traffic stops), they would have made it part of their procedure to draw guns for all traffic stops. Yet they don't, do they?

"Paranoid"? The legal instructor for my class at the FBI Academy (NAC 83-14), Special Agent/Attorney John Hall, stated no one should ever make any statements to a LEO other than identification and never, under any set of circumstances, agree to a "consent search." We were regaled with examples of people who were only arrested because they were needlessly cooperative when dealing with police instead of keeping their mouth shut.

I draw a distinct line between traffic stops and requests for "interview". If I know I'm speeding or otherwise violating any other little stuff that broke local laws, the ONLY way to get out of a ticket is by hoping for leniency from the officer. The ONLY way you get leniency is by being cooperative. Unlike in criminal cases, when a cop stops you for speeding or any other thing, he typically has enough evidence to write you a ticket.

When you treat every traffic stop as criminal investigation interview, you are being paranoid.

Are you incapable of independent research or doing a Google search? I’m not accustomed to doing favors for people who insult me, but I’ll make an exception (there’s that word again) in your case. Henry Holmes is a small, meek guy; very “nice” to use your term. He was employed as a cook aboard a commercial fishing boat in Alaska. He was savagely attacked in the vessel’s galley by a drunken Eskimo twice his size and far more powerful. As Henry was lying on the floor being choked to death, his hand touched a kitchen knife which had been knocked off a table. Henry stabbed his assailant until he stopped choking him; the wannabe murderer died. Henry was sentenced to 40 years in prison (a lenient sentence in Alaska for murder; the normal sentence is 99 years) for what IMHO was an obvious case of self-defense. Henry was convicted because: (1) The mad dog female prosecutor assigned to his case doesn’t believe in the concept of self-defense (as the mayor of Palatine, IL once said, “Self-defense is still a violent act”); (2) Like many people, Henry couldn’t afford a really competent defense counsel; (3) The clueless jurors couldn't grasp why more than a single stab with the knife was necessary; and (4) He made what he thought were innocuous remarks when he “cooperated” with police. Professor Duane (see link below) explains exactly how this routinely happens.

Here’s a different type of example for you to reflect on: H. Beatty Chadwick, a 73 year-old, cancer-stricken, former attorney, has served 14 years in prison; he’ll almost certainly die there. Chadwick has never been accused, charged with or convicted, of any crime. 14 years ago, a judge held Chadwick in civil contempt for failing to turn over money related to a civil action; funds Chadwick contends do not exist. A few months ago, a 3-judge federal appellate panel dismissed Chadwick’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the remarkable grounds that if he were permitted to challenge his detention he would go free, and thus will have "beaten the system."

Chadwick’s case is far from unique. Ten years ago, Martin A. Armstrong, was cited for civil contempt for failing to turn over assets he claims he doesn’t have. Despite not being charged with any crime, let alone being convicted, Armstrong has already served more incarceration than had he been convicted of the securities fraud the government alleges, yet refuses to prosecute him for. I have no idea whether Chadwick and Armstrong are scoundrels or saints; I am sure our Founding Fathers never dreamed their descendants could possibly be incarcerated indefinitely (even for decades) without ever having a trial or even being charged with a crime.

Here are links to the seminar I mentioned previously. James Duane, professor at Regent Law School, appears in the first link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

Here's Detective George Bruch of the Virginia Beach PD. Sep, please be sure and tell him about your "paranoid," "obnoxious" and "hostile" notions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=related

The principle that holds true in the free world is that when you make an assertion, you have the burden of proof. You can say that unicorn exists, but since you're the one saying it, you are the one who needs to back it up. You're the one who said that the mere act of talking to the police can get people in trouble, not me, so you're the one who has to present the evidence when challenged, not me.

When a prosecutor makes an accusation that a person has committed a criminal act, he is the one who has to present the evidence. He can't turn around and tell the suspect to look for the evidence.

I've visited, lived in or was stationed at 38 countries; none were "perfect" nor did I expect them to be. I don't think it requires "perfection" for a government employee to adhere to his oath of office. I'm a long ways from being perfect (I even keep a wife handy to remind me of that fact) yet I somehow managed to avoid ever betraying my oath as a soldier, LEO or when I held elective office. If you have any cogent reason why Americans shouldn't expect government employees to scrupulously adhere to their oath of office, let alone not abuse their position, you neglected to mention it.

In a perfect world the way people dress or act has absolutely nothing to do with the probability of them committing a certain type of crime. Unfortunately in my flawed world they do. Does this mean I advocate discriminating people? Absolutely not. I just don't believe that police officers have to "blind" themselves of context.

The word "probable" is another magic item, as in "probable cause". The police does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person has broken the law (it's the court's job), he only has to prove that there's a good probability of it. Are you saying by following this well established legal principle he somehow has broken his oath of office?

I don't doubt that you have met some patently bad police officers, I just disagree with the notion that the majority of them act that way. I got out of many, many traffic tickets even though the police could have just as easily written them. With the exception of 1 case, they were all polite and treated me fairly. The majority treated me better than fair and let me off with a warning.

Now to tie this back to the knife topic, you better hope for maximum lenience when you're carrying a knife, because the laws in many states are intentionally vague on this subject. I used to live in Georgia and the law there specifically prohibits carrying any knife for defensive or offensive purposes. Now what the hell does that suppose to mean? Any knife can be used for offensive or defensive purposes. As long as you carry a knife in Georgia, you're at the mercy of the LEO.

You want somebody to blame? Blame the lawmakers for making stupid laws.

 

[AbnInfantry]

if anything you do (or carry) is questionable. fold a copy of the statute up and keep it in your wallet. a polite way to point out a cops mistake would be something like.

"Sir (good word), i'm not trying to be argumentative, but i do have a copy of the statute on me if you would like to read it."

I wonder why that's never worked for me? My first contact with a LEO was at age nine. I walked into the Salinas, CA PD and asked the officer behind the counter if it was legal to shoot BB guns alongside the Salinas River (located miles outside the city limits). I knew plenty of people shot BB guns and .22 rifles there but I was so "law abiding" and deferential to authority at that age I wanted to be certain it was OK. The police officer, in a not very friendly manner, told me BB guns were illegal in California.

I knew that wasn't true. I walked a few blocks to the law library at the Monterey County Courthouse and paid to have photocopies made of the relevant sections of the CA Penal Code (I got the impression I was the law library's first nine year-old visitor). Returning to the police station, I politely asked the officer to show me where in the statutes that BB guns were illegal. This officer evidently shared Sep's belief that LEOs (despite being public servants) have a "right to be obnoxious" to citizens as he surely was when he summarily told me to get lost.

For years I used to carry a pocket size copy of the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Even when shown Congress was never delegated any authority in Article I, Section 8 to enact the statute in question, even provisions in the Bill of Rights which expressly prohibit specific legislation, it's never made the slightest difference to any legislator, judge, prosecutor or LEO I've encountered.

I use the word "hostile" as in "uncooperative".

I use words based on their commonly-accepted definitions as found in dictionaries; it makes for much easier mutual understanding (BTW, you might want to get a handle on what the word "empirical" means). By no rational interpretation of the English language have I ever been "hostile" or "obnoxious" to any LEO — even while being threatened, cursed and/or lied to by them. Despite repeatedly having to throw myself out of the way of motorcycles or automobiles driven by police on our local jogging/bicycle trail in order to avoid being run over, I never said a harsh word to them. I realize they have a difficult, dangerous job ensuring no scofflaws attempt to feed waterfowl alongside the adjacent river or throw a frisbee to an unleashed dog.

When you treat every traffic stop as criminal investigation interview, you are being paranoid.

Good luck explaining that to my criminal law instructors in college and at the Academy (all of whom were either cops or special agent/attorneys) and judges in appellate courts who know better. The vast majority of examples we were taught where people were arrested after being “nice” and "cooperative" occurred at traffic stops, not ongoing criminal investigations. The Alaska Supreme Court recognized this fact when they recently threw out convictions because a police officer routinely asked the questions you think are just swell. I encourage you to blather all you want when you’re stopped for speeding in an attempt to cajole your way out of a ticket. My technique for avoiding such encounters is to obey speed limits no matter how ridiculous they may be. I haven’t found a surefire method of preventing a tail light from going out, though.

One guy I know avoided a speeding ticket in Nebraska because of his pro-Republican Party bumper sticker. I’m confident my “Enough is enough, vote Libertarian” bumper sticker won’t save me.

When a prosecutor makes an accusation that a person has committed a criminal act, he is the one who has to present the evidence. He can't turn around and tell the suspect to look for the evidence.

In case it escaped your attention, this is an Internet forum, not a criminal court so your "burden of proof" standard doesn't apply (it's not much of a "burden" in many courts these days). In my experience dealing with other humans, people who make gratuitous insults and accuse others of nonexistent acts are in an exceedingly poor ethical position.

In criminal courts in contemporary America, with many jurors predisposed to assume any person charged with a crime must be guilty, many defendants effectively have to prove they're innocent if they want to avoid jail or prison (I could give you a perfect "anecdotal example" of this). It’s not just many jurors who assume a defendant must be guilty (while refusing to admit this during voir dire). When he was U.S. Attorney General, Edwin Meese said anyone who was arrested must be guilty. On Larry King’s radio show in November 1993, Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell declared anyone who’d ever been arrested should be prohibited from purchasing a handgun. I'm confident not one American out of a hundred could correctly articulate why the Founding Fathers regarded trial by jury to be so crucial or are aware how judges (thanks the 1895 Sparf decision) are allowed to prevent jurors from being informed of their proper duties and powers.

they would have made it part of their procedure to draw guns for all traffic stops. Yet they don't, do they?

My petite, docile wife has never been present at a traffic stop when she didn't wind up staring down the muzzles of firearms held by excited, foul-mouthed police. I started to detail these "anecdotal examples" then decided it would be futile.

The word "probable" is another magic item, as in "probable cause". The police does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person has broken the law (it's the court's job), he only has to prove that there's a good probability of it. Are you saying by following this well established legal principle he somehow has broken his oath of office?

There you go again. When did I ever raise the subject of probable cause in any of my previous posts or suggest any such ludicrous notion?

Try to follow along: The U.S. Constitution is our supreme law of the land. Any statute which violates that document is unconstitutional. Any anti-gun/knife statute is a blatant violation of the Second Amendment and similar language in many state constitutions. Most of the federal legislation enacted since the reign of FDR violates Article I, Section 8 since Congress wasn't delegated authority to ban switchblades, impose a mandatory retirement scheme, welfare system, coerce states into setting speed limits and drinking ages, spend one penny on education, pay farmers not to grow crops or imprison them for planting certain crops without government permission, build the Lawrence Welk museum and endless other pork barrel projects, etc. Whether it's members of Congress who enacted the misnamed PATRIOT Act which guts the Fourth Amendment like a fish or LEOs who arrest people for merely peaceably exercising an unalienable individual liberty expressly guaranteed in the Second Amendment, such miscreants are betraying their oath of office.

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. — Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. — 16A American Jurisprudence 2d § 203 at 90-91 (1998)

When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen’s constitutional rights it acts lawlessly, and the citizen can take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all. — U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

Also, it is not "the court's job" to prove anything in criminal cases, that's the role of prosecutors (a "role" made easier when they seize a defendant's assets in order to prevent him from being able to hire competent counsel and/or file a motion in limine for a court order prohibiting a defendant from mentioning certain key topics at trial).

I just disagree with the notion that the majority of them act that way.

How many times do I have to say I never suggested a majority of LEOs behave as in the more egregious examples I cited? I don't believe most Tennessee LEOs viciously torture handcuffed prisoners as in the Siler case. However, what no LEO has been willing to explain is why over 300 of their peers urged such malefactors receive little or no punishment while not a single cop wrote the judge condemning their misdeeds. IMHO each of those 300+ LEOs is morally unfit to wear a badge ... along with the sheriff who "hated" to have to fire his deputy-torturers and the TBI officers who initially refused to even investigate what happened to Siler.

All I ever hear is the "few bad apples" excuse. In case after case where even scores of police break the law and go unpunished, few if any will testify against the offenders for fear of being ostracized or worse by their peers. The supervisor of my class at Quantico said we wouldn't be trusted by other agents at our first field office until they "had some dirt" on us. Call me naive, but I wanted to puke when I heard that. I've had discussions with several LEOs on Internet forums who piously profess to be "good apples." It's like pulling teeth but eventually I elicit the fact they arrest people who violate anti-gun/knife laws while still claiming (falsely) to support the "right" to bear arms. That makes them "rotten apples" IMHO.

You want somebody to blame? Blame the lawmakers for making stupid laws.

I'm not nearly as concerned about "stupid laws" as I am unjust, immoral and unconstitutional ones. There are three parties to "blame":

1. Legislators who routinely betray their oath of office by enacting unconstitutional statutes (and presidents/governors who sign them into law).

2. A slack-jawed, dull-witted electorate which displays a degree of abject ignorance of history, government, law, morality, etc. which should embarrass a reasonably bright ten year-old and consistently places unprincipled scoundrels in positions of power.

3. LEOs who place a job and pension ahead of their oath to support and defend the Constitution. The fact venal politicians enact unconscionable/unconstitutional statutes in no way absolves LEOs of moral responsibility for their own actions, not for German police and Gestapo agents in 1940 or their American counterparts today. I expect to encounter your unicorn before I meet a LEO who refuses to enforce overtly unconstitutional anti-gun/knife laws. Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Carolyn McCarthy and their ilk could pass all the despicable laws they wanted and it wouldn't matter one whit if there wasn't a horde of men and women with guns, badges and defective consciences willing to enforce them and ruin the lives of Americans "guilty" of nothing more than exercising an unalienable individual liberty. I didn't flee my native California's oppressive anti-gun/knife laws; I fled the CA LEOs willing to arrest, imprison and even kill me for nothing more than exercising a fundamental human right.

Many of the worst laws are enacted because police officials/groups lobbied for them. I had the misfortune to be elected to a minor county office in California in 1974. Despite being an impoverished 22 year-old college student at the time, it brought me into contact with various state legislators and our district's U.S. representative. The CA legislature increased the waiting period on handgun purchases from 3 to 15 days. I was incensed, especially when I discovered the conservative Republican state senator who sponsored the bill was from my district. I cornered the rascal and all he could do was stammer, "but the police want it, the police want it." To hell with the Second Amendment and the RKBA. I told the reprobate there's a name for a place where laws are passed based on what police want; it's called a "police state."

Here's an "anecdotal example" for you. In September 1973, I received my first honorable discharge from the Army. As I signed out in the orderly room of the 512th Military Police Company at Fort Huachuca, AZ, the supply sergeant gave me a battered, surplus $1.29 billy club as a souvenir. I pitched it onto the back seat of my car then drove to my hometown in California. A few months later, I bought a Bianchi aluminum baton to carry on my job as a security officer at a sugar refinery. A couple years later, while studying Criminal Law in college, I discovered it’s a felony in California for a lowly private citizen to possess a billy club.

The notion merely possessing a piece of wood or metal with a handle on it could constitute a crime, let alone a felony, was beyond my comprehension. Sporting goods stores in Alaska sell a small wooden club called a “fish billy” for use on halibut and king salmon. Possession of a fish billy in California is a felony; no criminal intent required. At sentencing, judges love to say, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” even when they were totally unaware of the statute before a case reached them. It was only a fluke I wasn’t arrested for unwittingly committing multiple felonies every day for nearly two years and my life ruined at an early age. How did merely possessing a billy club or "martial arts" weapons become a felony in California? The "police wanted it."

 

[tom19176]

Abn, I have been reading your well written statements for the last few days. I will first give you credit for being well spoken and factually informed. For many of my younger years, I shared a similar view of the Second Amendment. I viewed any requirement to obtain a permit as a restriction that was barred by the wording of the Second Amendment. For years I was opposed to most weapons laws. I grew up in NYC which has always had a restrictive attitude towards weapons. I early on was interested in law enforcement and knife/gun collecting. I have always followed the laws as I feared the consequences of not doing so. I went through 16 years of normal eduction, two years of law school, and a acadamey, but it took a few years of real time on the streets to understand that the world that existed in the late 1700s does not exist today, and perhaps we should recall and rewrite the Second Amendment just a bit. The primary function of law enforcement is the protection of life and the safety of the community at large. In today's world, there has been far to many changes in our morals and cultural make up to have the weapon freedoms of years gone by. I am not saying that we should ban guns, but I do believe we need certain laws in effect that control to some degree the free access to firearms. As for you thoughts on law enforcement officers, I can only gather that you did not deal directly with the true low level criminals that I had the pleasure of spending quality time with. They change your attitude towards anyone who you have to deal with on a enforcement level. As for the "normal" person pulled over for a traffic violation, well if they are not giving you a roll call of every LEO they know, they are telling you they did not do the offense you informed them of. I have never had anyone admit they did any crime no matter how guilty I knew the were. This does not give an officer the right to be rude, but it does allow for the officer to fend off converstaion that is not relavant to the issue at hand. As for asking questions during a stop that you may feel is not relevant, well often times there is a wealth of information that can be gathered that way. You may not like it, but that is a standard police practice. As for your quote about the billy club being illegal, I totally agree that many laws are written with the intent to ban one item, but their wording allows many similar items to be banned. The hope is the Courts will clear up the law by their rulings, but in NY at least, this has not been the case.
Finally, I have seen some very bad things done by officers, but that has been less than 1% of the time, and often the result of the fact that the people wearing those uniforms are humans and not machines. There have been very few truly bad officers that I have seen, and they have all suffered for their actions.

 

[Sep]

Just because we're on the internet then logic doesn't apply? Are you gonna say because we're on the internet then 2+2 does not equal 4?

When You make a statement, you present the proof, especially when challenged. Well, unless you never meant to engage in a discussion and simply want to sound off. If that's the case, I'll get out of your way and let you have the soap box.

Apparently you and yours have more than a fair share of experience with bad cops, which explains your hostility toward them. You finally claim that you never think the majority of cops are that way, yet you still blame them as a whole for not being proactive enough in culling their bad apples.

I have never in my entire life seen an organization where members don't have any sense of loyalty toward each other. Am I supposed to recoil in horror to the idea that cops look after their own? Team work (and the associated loyalty) are values drilled into men and women tasked to protect us, because it makes them more effective in performing their job.

Again, can this loyalty be abused? Sure. But is there anything in this world that's immune from abuse? What's your solution then? Disband the police force? Prohibit them from forming unions? Require them to be celibate? What?

 

[AbnInfantry]

For many of my younger years, I shared a similar view of the Second Amendment. I viewed any requirement to obtain a permit as a restriction that was barred by the wording of the Second Amendment. For years I was opposed to most weapons laws. I grew up in NYC which has always had a restrictive attitude towards weapons. I early on was interested in law enforcement and knife/gun collecting. I have always followed the laws as I feared the consequences of not doing so. I went through 16 years of normal eduction, two years of law school, and a acadamey, but it took a few years of real time on the streets to understand that the world that existed in the late 1700s does not exist today, and perhaps we should recall and rewrite the Second Amendment just a bit. The primary function of law enforcement is the protection of life and the safety of the community at large. In today's world, there has been far to many changes in our morals and cultural make up to have the weapon freedoms of years gone by. I am not saying that we should ban guns, but I do believe we need certain laws in effect that control to some degree the free access to firearms.

tom19176, I suspect you're a really nice guy (when not seeking to abrogate other humans' unalienable rights), don't beat your wife, kick your dog or intentionally do anything you consider to be morally wrong. The views you reflect are representative of most LEOs I've met or researched ... which is precisely the problem. Contrary to what many people think, the Second Amendment did not create the RKBA; it merely recognized that right and forbade the newly-created federal government from infringing it.

Those who call for the repeal of the Second Amendment so that we can really begin controlling firearms betray a serious misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, such that its repeal would legitimately confer upon government the powers otherwise proscribed. The Bill of Rights is the list of the fundamental, inalienable rights, endowed in man by his Creator, that define what it means to be a free and independent people, the rights which must exist to ensure that government governs only with the consent of the people. — Jeffrey R. Snyder, “A Nation of Cowards,” 113 Pub. Interest 40 (1993)

The right to possess arms is a fundamental human right... The right has two purposes: It allows individuals to protect themselves from criminals when the government is unable to protect them. Even more importantly, the right exists so that individuals can protect themselves from the government when it unjustly attacks them. — Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, Constitutional Chaos (2004)

Your notion, albeit a popular one among the ethically-impaired, that people today should have fewer individual rights than centuries ago based solely because some miscreants abuse them is so dangerous and amoral that only a person of little wit may excuse you. The sole legitimate function of any government is to preserve and protect individual liberty; that was the moral basis behind creation of the USA. You and your chums seek to abrogate all humans' unalienable individual liberties ostensibly to make them "safer." There are few schemes more pernicious than the one you advocate ... even for what you think are good reasons. You do not make people "safer" by disarming them; you only make them easy prey. Your beliefs only lead in one direction ... tyranny.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. — William Pitt, 18 November 1783

If it's any comfort to you, there hasn't been "free access to firearms" under federal law since 1934 and in numerous states long before that. SCOTUS didn't begin to enforce the First Amendment until the 1920s; it has yet to enforce the Second Amendment and there is no credible basis to believe it ever will. You and others who share your circumscribed views on liberty should be delighted.

In case it escaped your attention, the Second Amendment hasn't been repealed or amended as you desire. Has that fact or your sworn oath to adhere to the Constitution deterred you or any of your like-minded brethren from enforcing anti-gun/knife statutes; prevented you from arresting your fellow countrymen "guilty" of nothing more than peaceably exercising their RKBA? No, I didn't think so. It certainly hasn't affected Charles Schumer & Company either.

I can only gather that you did not deal directly with the true low level criminals that I had the pleasure of spending quality time with. They change your attitude towards anyone who you have to deal with on a enforcement level.

As far as your notion about my not having sufficient experience dealing with criminals (private and governmental), you have no idea how wrong you are. All the murderers, rapists, robbers, et al. in the USA, however, don't pose nearly the risk to Americans' lives and liberties as the views you and your peers embrace.

I have never had anyone admit they did any crime no matter how guilty I knew the were.

I have. Of course, the "crime" they admitted — possession of a gun collection they'd peacefully owned for decades — was only an offense thanks to oath-betraying legislators who share your seriously-flawed beliefs and enacted GCA-68 (which was drafted by Senator Thomas Dodd using an English translation of the Nazi Law on Weapons of March 19, 1938).

This does not give an officer the right to be rude

Good luck explaining that to Sep.

As for asking questions during a stop that you may feel is not relevant, well often times there is a wealth of information that can be gathered that way.

I fully understand that ... which is precisely why people should never answer such questions. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

You may not like it, but that is a standard police practice.

There are many "standard police practices" which any rational, morally conscious human being would deplore. FBI agents are taught (and encouraged) to lie to the public (as are other LEOs). As Martha Stewart discovered, it's a federal felony punishable by years in prison to lie to an FBI agent. Of course, it's not called lying when done by a LEO but rather a "pretext interview," "investigative ruse" or other term ... and such deceit is routinely sanctioned by judges. The lies which concern me most are the perjury many LEOs commit in their affidavits accompanying search warrant applications.

Under the bizarre 1984 Leon decision, it's effectively impossible to successfully challenge a search warrant in court even when judges concede it was only issued because LEOs committed perjury. The Ventura County District Attorney publicly admitted LEOs used perjury to obtain a search warrant against Donald Scott's ranch as part of their plot to steal his valuable property for the National Park Service. Mr. Scott, a completely innocent man, was killed by the LEOs who raided his home yet where were the perjury prosecutions against the responsible officers? LEO perjury (and less egregious misconduct) in affidavits for search warrants is rampant in many jurisdictions in America yet is almost never punished. A LAPD detective committed perjury in his affidavit supporting his request for a search warrant against O.J. Simpson's home. A judge later conceded the officer committed perjury yet refused to exclude the evidence seized during the search.

Our forefathers fought a rebellion to gain government recognition of individual rights Americans (including you) are now eagerly sacrificing. How did the children of the American Revolution sink to such depths of docility and ignorance? How did the heirs of the Sons of Liberty become so craven and servile?

There have been very few truly bad officers that I have seen, and they have all suffered for their actions.

Really? Here's one example you might be familiar with. In the mid-1990s, a couple hundred NYPD officers attended a major LEO function at Washington, D.C. They were ordered not to take their handguns with them. Over 80 NYPD cops staying at the same hotel got drunk and began terrorizing guests. They went door-to-door threatening "civilians," brandishing weapons, impersonating FBI agents and perpetrating other misdeeds. When hotel management summoned Washington, D.C. police, they refused to arrest any of the miscreants after discovering they were fellow "brothers of the shield." The FBI/DOJ is really aggressive about prosecuting people who impersonate FBI agents; they did nothing to the NYPD cops who committed that offense.

NYPD officials attempted to discipline these malefactors and pleaded with officers who were present to testify against their peers (although no NYPD member at the scene did anything to stop the misdeeds as they were occurring). Eventually, a single officer had the courage to cooperate with Internal Affairs investigators. How was he treated by his peers? He was vilified, ostracized and threatened. Out of 200 NYPD cops at the hotel, where were the "good apples" and why was the one officer willing to do what's right treated as he was if there are only a "few bad officers"? I can document numerous similar cases. I can't fathom how such incidents can possibly happen if the reality was as you perceive it to be.

Just because we're on the internet then logic doesn't apply? Are you gonna say because we're on the internet then 2+2 does not equal 4?

I wish you’d work on improving your reading comprehension. It would be refreshing if you’d cease accusing me of behavior I’ve never engaged in and having opinions I’ve never held.

Apparently you and yours have more than a fair share of experience with bad cops, which explains your hostility toward them.

If I'd never personally had any contact with any LEO, I would still expect them to possess a fully-developed conscience, not betray their oath of office, violate anyone's individual rights, perpetrate any misdeeds or passively condone those committed by their peers.

Am I supposed to recoil in horror to the idea that cops look after their own?

No, you're supposed to "recoil in horror" at the objective reality of many LEOs actively or passively endorsing their colleagues who commit (often on a routine basis) various crimes, including violent felonies. I'm not aware of members of any other occupation ... plumbers, electricians, nurses, etc. ... who swear an oath of public trust then commonly overlook/rationalize/cover up criminal acts out of what you call "loyalty."

As a platoon leader and company commander, I ardently "looked after" the welfare of my troops, even when doing so jeopardized my career after I refused to obey blatantly illegal orders from superiors seeking a promotion while abusing their authority. My sense of loyalty to fellow soldiers never interfered with my seeking to discipline them when they committed crimes ranging from aggravated assault to drug use/possession ... even acts which are only offenses if done by persons subject to the UCMJ.

You finally claim that you never think the majority of cops are that way, yet you still blame them as a whole for not being proactive enough in culling their bad apples.

I'll try, again, to make this really simple for you:

I never said or thought a majority of LEOs torture handcuffed prisoners, plant drugs in the homes/vehicles of innocent persons, rape female suspects or commit Mopery on the King's Highway. At the FBI Academy, we were taught that two groups of people routinely lie in court: defendants and police officers. I initially thought this was some sort of joke until I noticed the ex-cops in my class laughing and nodding their heads. As FBI agents, we were instructed not to commit perjury (albeit for the wrong reasons).

The same LEOs who do not engage in the perfidy described above, however, often passively or actively condone the misdeeds of their peers (usually out of fear of being ostracized). Many people who are physically brave are moral cowards. The same cop who'll run into a burning building to save a trapped child will refuse to write traffic tickets or make DUI arrests against his buddies or report them when they commit perjury or beat a suspect. That's objective reality. Throughout my years on active duty, I frequently watched officers who'd risk their lives if Soviet tanks had rolled through the Fulda Gap quiver like a bowl of jello for fear of losing a point on an OER. This was back when field grade promotions were highly competitive (get promoted or get kicked out and lose your pension), unlike today where, thanks to needing plenty of warm bodies for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, such promotions are virtually assured in the Army.

Team work (and the associated loyalty) are values drilled into men and women tasked to protect us, because it makes them more effective in performing their job.

The connection between working as a "team" and LEOs committing crimes/covering them up/ignoring them is what? There's no relationship between the legitimate functions of LEOs and perpetrating/condoning the misbehavior, even criminal offenses, I've illustrated.

What's your solution then? Disband the police force? Prohibit them from forming unions? Require them to be celibate?

The connection between anything I've posted and celibacy for police is what? As for my "solution," I thought it was obvious.

 

[the useless atlas]

after I got mugged a few years ago there hasnt been a day since that I havent been armed I ALWAYS have a cold steel gi tanto strapped to the outside of my EDC bag where people can see, this at first was a problem, the police were called on me every two or three days, and i was never arrested, my blade was never confiscated, i was occasoinally asked to leave a store or resturaunt, but after a while the cops knew me, and the people knew me. how did I avoid jailtime or confiscation?
- i carry the law that clearly states that my blade is legal as long as it is open carry, which it is
-I also know the law by heart
-i know how to talk to the police
-and i dont atract attention to myself

generally if you know waht you are talking about people will leave you alone

 

[glistam]

after I got mugged a few years ago there hasnt been a day since that I havent been armed I ALWAYS have a cold steel gi tanto strapped to the outside of my EDC bag where people can see, this at first was a problem, the police were called on me every two or three days, and i was never arrested, my blade was never confiscated, i was occasoinally asked to leave a store or resturaunt, but after a while the cops knew me, and the people knew me. how did I avoid jailtime or confiscation?
- i carry the law that clearly states that my blade is legal as long as it is open carry, which it is
-I also know the law by heart
-i know how to talk to the police
-and i dont atract attention to myself

generally if you know waht you are talking about people will leave you alone

That's really interesting and a good case study. The subject of open carry is often brought up and this fits very closely with my own thoughts on the matter. That is, even if legal, you still are going to get some unwanted attention, as civies can be even worse with their appraisal of legality.

May I ask, what sort of questions do the police ask you? For example do they ask you why you have that big knife, and what do you say back?

 

[TOM1960]

after I got mugged a few years ago there hasnt been a day since that I havent been armed I ALWAYS have a cold steel gi tanto strapped to the outside of my EDC bag where people can see, this at first was a problem, the police were called on me every two or three days, and i was never arrested, my blade was never confiscated, i was occasoinally asked to leave a store or resturaunt, but after a while the cops knew me, and the people knew me. how did I avoid jailtime or confiscation?
- i carry the law that clearly states that my blade is legal as long as it is open carry, which it is
-I also know the law by heart
-i know how to talk to the police
-and i dont atract attention to myself

generally if you know waht you are talking about people will leave you alone

If you can openly carry a large fixed blade like the Cold Steel Tanto in your jurisdiction 24/7, you are one lucky individual, indeed. Where I live, you would be locked up and telling your story to the judge the next morning. Massachusetts provides for open carry of large knives for specific purposes, such as fishing, hunting, camping, cooking, etc. I wouldn't want to get caught carrying your Tanto in Boston, that's for sure.

That said, do you mind if I ask if you are a woman, since you mentioned an EDC bag. If you are, in fact, a woman and carry a handbag, there are several models available which have a hidden compartment right in the middle of the bag. My girlfriend has one and uses it to carry her (unlicensed) pepper spray. Yes, you need a Firearms Identification Card (FID) or a License To Carry Firearms (LTC) in Massachusetts to possess/carry pepper spray. She could easily carry a large FB or folder in this space as well. There are briefcases and belt-packs available for men that accomplish the same purpose. The only reason (besides not attracting LEO attention) that I choose to carry completely concealed is that a potential attacker will not realize that I am armed until it is too late. I have never been asked to leave any establishment due to open carry as well. Out of sight, out of mind is the way I like it.

 

[the useless atlas]

That's really interesting and a good case study. The subject of open carry is often brought up and this fits very closely with my own thoughts on the matter. That is, even if legal, you still are going to get some unwanted attention, as civies can be even worse with their appraisal of legality.

May I ask, what sort of questions do the police ask you? For example do they ask you why you have that big knife, and what do you say back?

usually they ask what im doing with the knife, or something along the lines of that
usually ill answer one of two things, if the cop is being a dick, ill usually say something like
"well officerI was mugged a fewyears ago, and since you guys never showed, and even though ive gone through all the legal loopholes you guys wont grant me my liscence to carry permit."
"if the cops begn a cool guy like they usually are ill jsut tell them because its within my legal right, and that allthough i know they are here to protect me, there isnt ennugh of them to go around, therfore(spellcheck please) in take it apon myself to defend myself, after all the police arent there to prevent crime, theyr there to clean up after it."

 

[the useless atlas]

If you can openly carry a large fixed blade like the Cold Steel Tanto in your jurisdiction 24/7, you are one lucky individual, indeed. Where I live, you would be locked up and telling your story to the judge the next morning. Massachusetts provides for open carry of large knives for specific purposes, such as fishing, hunting, camping, cooking, etc. I wouldn't want to get caught carrying your Tanto in Boston, that's for sure.

That said, do you mind if I ask if you are a woman, since you mentioned an EDC bag. If you are, in fact, a woman and carry a handbag, there are several models available which have a hidden compartment right in the middle of the bag. My girlfriend has one and uses it to carry her (unlicensed) pepper spray. Yes, you need a Firearms Identification Card (FID) or a License To Carry Firearms (LTC) in Massachusetts to possess/carry pepper spray. She could easily carry a large FB or folder in this space as well. There are briefcases and belt-packs available for men that accomplish the same purpose. The only reason (besides not attracting LEO attention) that I choose to carry completely concealed is that a potential attacker will not realize that I am armed until it is too late. I have never been asked to leave any establishment due to open carry as well. Out of sight, out of mind is the way I like it.

no im not a woman, I carry an edc bag because Im very localized so I never use my car, I use itto carry mywork uniform, books, whatever

and to your concealment thing, isnt it better to not have the fight at all, the chances of me beinga ttacked it I conceal the blade tripple, id rather not fight if i dont have to

 

[the useless atlas]

please exscuse my spelling, my keyboard is failing on me, sometimes it wont read keys or the spacebar