In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
quote:Originally posted by sovereignman
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
This is why we have guns... http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm
Don
Excellent history lesson.
Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.
To bad ,today we have gone down the path of excessive gun control. To bad FFL dealers are part of the problem.
My favorite statement.
You don't really have a clue, do you?
Tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance is an art form.
Wyatt,, My point is, this guy should never have involved himself in whatever was going on. That in itself can be considered as interference. Legal carry at that point doesn't matter. Add to that the fact that he wanted to cause a confrontation. Again. He broke one of the basic rules of carrying a gun. You DO NOT start a confrontation. He clearly did. As a result, he made himself a person of interest. At that point, his ID needed to be assertained as well as whether or not he was legally allowed to have those guns. Meaning, did he have any warrents? Any felony convictions? D/V or restraining orders ? And he brought that attention on himself. Of course, as it was, the poorly trained Officer didn't know what to do.
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
quote:Originally posted by sovereignman
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
This is why we have guns... http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm
Don
Excellent history lesson.
Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.
To bad ,today we have gone down the path of excessive gun control. To bad FFL dealers are part of the problem.
My favorite statement.
You don't really have a clue, do you?
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353
quote:Originally posted by sovereignman
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
quote:Originally posted by sovereignman
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
This is why we have guns... http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm
Don
Excellent history lesson.
Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.
To bad ,today we have gone down the path of excessive gun control. To bad FFL dealers are part of the problem.
My favorite statement.
You don't really have a clue, do you?
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353
And your point is?
What spew now?
Tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance is an art form.
Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.
To bad ,today we have gone down the path of excessive gun control. To bad FFL dealers are part of the problem.
My favorite statement.
[/quote]You don't really have a clue, do you?
[/quote]"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353
[/quote]And your point is?
What spew now?
[/quote]For you government worker.More facts for you government worker.
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.
In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare --well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.
In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.
To bad ,today we have gone down the path of excessive gun control. To bad FFL dealers are part of the problem.
My favorite statement.
Yep your right, but with out them, there would be no new firearms on the market, I guess you would like to change that. I wish I could sell firearms without a license like my grandfather did in his general store, but it is not possible. Also, remember when they decide to start the party, the FFL's are going to be the first to go....
Don
BTW,
Notice how the citizens of Athens had to raid a NG armory for arms....
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.
quote:Originally posted by 45long
Wyatt,, My point is, this guy should never have involved himself in whatever was going on. That in itself can be considered as interference. Legal carry at that point doesn't matter. Add to that the fact that he wanted to cause a confrontation. Again. He broke one of the basic rules of carrying a gun. You DO NOT start a confrontation. He clearly did. As a result, he made himself a person of interest. At that point, his ID needed to be assertained as well as whether or not he was legally allowed to have those guns. Meaning, did he have any warrents? Any felony convictions? D/V or restraining orders ? And he brought that attention on himself. Of course, as it was, the poorly trained Officer didn't know what to do.
I watched the video again and I can't see whether the guy was part of the reason for the cop being there, or if he was interfearing as you say. No way to know from the video.
Maybe he was part of the initial situation, and walked to his car to get the camera and then back. Maybe he walked to his car strapped on his gun, then walked back. No way to know if he was interfearing with the situation, or if he was a party to the situation.
Secondly, the cop's aggressive attitude, before he saw the gun, did more to escalate the situation than anything the cameraman did. The cop was attempting (and failing) to intimidate by saying the guy was trespassing.
Look at the cop, his nostrils were flaring, he was flustered, pissed. He eventually got a grip on his self when he saw his mechanical advantage disappear when he saw the guy's gun.
This is the problem these days - cops see anything short of total compliance as being aggressive or interfearing...both of which are charges they overuse to the point that few people take them seriously anymore.
It's like I said, get used to this kind of thing - think about the law, know the law, because more and more people who know their rights are going to challenge cops who don't know the law.
quote:Originally posted by nunn
I need guns because there are people out there who think they need guns to deal with the police.
Because they are CRIMINALS!!! I have been in the business for over 35+ years and dealt with thousands of citizens and hundreds of LEO's and I have seem many LEO's act in an inappropriate manner to citizens (this is very small portion of the contacts) BUT NONE OF THEM WOULD RISE TO THE USE OF DEADLY FROCE BY THE CITIZENS!!!
Most states give authority to citizens to protect themselves from wrongfully applied deadly force by LEO's, BUT this situation is less apt to occur than the probability of being struck my lightning![:(]
I watched the video again and I can't see whether the guy was part of the reason for the cop being there, or if he was interfearing as you say. No way to know from the video.
I was under the impression that he rolled up on it.
Maybe he was part of the initial situation, and walked to his car to get the camera and then back.
Possibly. But it looked he opened his car door. Why close the door if your just getting a camera?
Maybe he walked to his car strapped on his gun, then walked back.
If that's true then he was CLEARLY looking for a confrontation. Why else would someone go "back" to his car with an officer on scene, to get a gun?
No way to know if he was interfearing with the situation, or if he was a party to the situation.
Secondly, the cop's aggressive attitude, before he saw the gun, did more to escalate the situation than anything the cameraman did. The cop was attempting (and failing) to intimidate by saying the guy was trespassing.
He was there, it seemed, on a trespass call. He wasn't talkng JUST about the guy with the camera.
Look at the cop, his nostrils were flaring, he was flustered, pissed.
He as outnumbered. He several people to deal. Once he saw the gun he should have called for backup. If it can be avoided, NO Officer should ever go one on one with an armed person. Not in the type of situation.I have said it before, the officer was poorly trained.
He eventually got a grip on his self when he saw his mechanical advantage disappear when he saw the guy's gun.
Then he turned his back on the armed person. To stupid for words.
This is the problem these days - cops see anything short of total compliance as being aggressive or interfearing...both of which are charges they overuse to the point that few people take them seriously anymore.
You say this but have never worn the uniform or been placed in the situation. Not only do you have to control the situation you were called on, but also, you have to be aware of anyone who may walk up. If you lose control then you have placed yourself in danger as well as everyone else. And when you alone, yeah, that can real scary.
It's like I said, get used to this kind of thing - think about the law, know the law, because more and more people who know their rights are going to challenge cops who don't know the law.
You mean people who THINK they know the law. These sidewalk lawyers usually don't know squat. They have a lot SVU under their belt but not much else. I had a one of these guy in court on a traffic ticket. Of he lost. He then asks the judge how to appeal. The judge asked him "appeal? What appeal? You don't get to appeal a traffic ticket with no jury." Basically the guy had watched to much TV. But he thought he was slick for asking. Until the Judge showed hom how stupid he really was. Much like these sidewalk lawyers. A well informed/trained Officer can defend himself and actions very well. And honestly. Unless the situation is serious, they will probaly just blow the guy off after a few minutes. Most aren't stupid. Where I live though, this guy would have eaten pavement. No question. He can plead his case to the Judge. And lose.
I think we need guns because the President of this country, the very highest office in this land has already demonstrated that he is willing to refuse to up hold the law. he has also demonstrated that he is willing to use his power to stop others in the position to enforce the law even to the point of suing them in court. He also had already shown that he will use his influence over Federal Judges to get them to "re-interpret" well established laws.
If he is willing to do this who knows what he will do next? At anytime he may decide to use the military against the civilian population, suspend the bill of rights, take private property via eminent domain. The possibilities are endless now that he has proven he is willing to refuse to enforce well established laws.
BTW this just happened to be on the news tonight..Not that it has anything to do with what I posted but more of what other have posted..LOL
quote:Originally posted by simongirty
I think we need guns because the President of this country, the very highest office in this land has already demonstrated that he is willing to refuse to up hold the law. he has also demonstrated that he is willing to use his power to stop others in the position to enforce the law even to the point of suing them in court. He also had already shown that he will use his influence over Federal Judges to get them to "re-interpret" well established laws.
If he is willing to do this who knows what he will do next? At anytime he may decide to use the military against the civilian population, suspend the bill of rights, take private property via eminent domain. The possibilities are endless not that he has proven he is willing to refuse to enforce well established laws.
BTW this just happened to be on the news tonight..Not that it has anything to do with what I posted but more of what other have posted..LOL
You nailed it. The progressive agenda will completely negate the Bill Of Rights if they are allowed to remain in power. They must be stopped, one way or another!!![V]
I would hope we can get rid of them with out the use of force, but only time will tell!
quote:Originally posted by simongirty
I think we need guns because the President of this country, the very highest office in this land has already demonstrated that he is willing to refuse to up hold the law. he has also demonstrated that he is willing to use his power to stop others in the position to enforce the law even to the point of suing them in court. He also had already shown that he will use his influence over Federal Judges to get them to "re-interpret" well established laws.
If he is willing to do this who knows what he will do next? At anytime he may decide to use the military against the civilian population, suspend the bill of rights, take private property via eminent domain. The possibilities are endless not that he has proven he is willing to refuse to enforce well established laws.
BTW this just happened to be on the news tonight..Not that it has anything to do with what I posted but more of what other have posted..LOL
quote:Originally posted by simongirty
I think we need guns because the President of this country, the very highest office in this land has already demonstrated that he is willing to refuse to up hold the law. he has also demonstrated that he is willing to use his power to stop others in the position to enforce the law even to the point of suing them in court. He also had already shown that he will use his influence over Federal Judges to get them to "re-interpret" well established laws.
If he is willing to do this who knows what he will do next? At anytime he may decide to use the military against the civilian population, suspend the bill of rights, take private property via eminent domain. The possibilities are endless now that he has proven he is willing to refuse to enforce well established laws.
..
The possibilities have been endless since Abe Lincoln broke free of the restraints placed upon him by the Constitution. You seem to suggest that this current POS is worse that his predecessors, though is reading from the same playbook.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
The possibilities have been endless since Abe Lincoln broke free of the restraints placed upon him by the Constitution. You seem to suggest that this current POS is worse that his predecessors, though is reading from the same playbook.
I'm coming right out and saying it and we all know the results of Lincoln's re-interpretation of the Constitution. In addition we also have to factor in the equation that we are also in a situation very similar to Russia's at the end of WW 1. That being the return of hundreds of thousands of returning veterans who are facing a bleak economic and job markets contributing to their dis-enfranchisement with the Government.
quote:Originally posted by 45long
Wyatt,, My point is, this guy should never have involved himself in whatever was going on. That in itself can be considered as interference. Legal carry at that point doesn't matter. Add to that the fact that he wanted to cause a confrontation. Again. He broke one of the basic rules of carrying a gun. You DO NOT start a confrontation. He clearly did. As a result, he made himself a person of interest. At that point, his ID needed to be assertained as well as whether or not he was legally allowed to have those guns. Meaning, did he have any warrents? Any felony convictions? D/V or restraining orders ? And he brought that attention on himself. Of course, as it was, the poorly trained Officer didn't know what to do.
you sound like the typical jack booted thug that would fit right in with Hitlers Gestapo [}:)]
quote:if it is an illegal intrusion of my home.., you damn right, i would kill the SOB !!
Ida Dunn, the armchair commando has spoken, again.
Real smart, Ida. Then you will either be dead or on your way to death row, unable to support your family, and unable to deal with the problem in the most effective way.
Funny stuff, that! But, I would have to see it to believe it.
The reality is that you can't look at this thread and arrive at any clear conclusions based on the responses. A certain percentage of guys have a clear notion of what they'd do, but have no interest in inviting closer scrutiny from anyone.
quote:Originally posted by Wyatt Earp
quote:Originally posted by 45long
Wyatt,, My point is, this guy should never have involved himself in whatever was going on. That in itself can be considered as interference. Legal carry at that point doesn't matter. Add to that the fact that he wanted to cause a confrontation. Again. He broke one of the basic rules of carrying a gun. You DO NOT start a confrontation. He clearly did. As a result, he made himself a person of interest. At that point, his ID needed to be assertained as well as whether or not he was legally allowed to have those guns. Meaning, did he have any warrents? Any felony convictions? D/V or restraining orders ? And he brought that attention on himself. Of course, as it was, the poorly trained Officer didn't know what to do.
I watched the video again and I can't see whether the guy was part of the reason for the cop being there, or if he was interfearing as you say. No way to know from the video.
Maybe he was part of the initial situation, and walked to his car to get the camera and then back. Maybe he walked to his car strapped on his gun, then walked back. No way to know if he was interfearing with the situation, or if he was a party to the situation.
Secondly, the cop's aggressive attitude, before he saw the gun, did more to escalate the situation than anything the cameraman did. The cop was attempting (and failing) to intimidate by saying the guy was trespassing.
Look at the cop, his nostrils were flaring, he was flustered, pissed. He eventually got a grip on his self when he saw his mechanical advantage disappear when he saw the guy's gun.
This is the problem these days - cops see anything short of total compliance as being aggressive or interfearing...both of which are charges they overuse to the point that few people take them seriously anymore.
It's like I said, get used to this kind of thing - think about the law, know the law, because more and more people who know their rights are going to challenge cops who don't know the law.
Well Stated Brother.
quote:Originally posted by USN_Airdale
quote:If the police were searching your home, you'd SHOOT one of them?
if it is an illegal intrusion of my home.., you damn right, i would kill the SOB !! [:D]
more, i absolutely despise cops who "FEEL" they are judge, jury and executioner, i BELIEVE there are some here who "FEEL" this way.
most i have met in the last 20 years are [:o)] i have met a few i would trust to be alone with my wife, trust me.., that is DAMN FEW !!
The patriot act suspended certain rights you used to have, but don't worry there is no conspiracy to do so.
I think you are all missing the root problems here!
1. We are recruiting people into LE who have no experience with violence. Our society has sissified our youth for many years and thus they have not been exposed to what many of us were growing up. Add to this the psychological testing required to weed out those who have been exposed to violence plus the requirement by many agencies for a 'degree' and you have the majority of the recruits who SHOULD NOT be LEO hired instead of the one who are more qualified.
2. Then they take these 'non violent' 'idealistic' people to the academy and scare the * out of them by stressing the 'officer safety' issues and them turn them loose on us.
3. Our youth has evolved into a group of people who are 'I-ME' people who have no respect for authority or order and "Houston we have a problem"!
When to two collide there is not going to be a favorable out come. [V]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
I think you are all missing the root problems here!
1. We are recruiting people into LE who have no experience with violence. Our society has sissified our youth for many years and thus they have not been exposed to what many of us were growing up. Add to this the psychological testing required to weed out those who have been exposed to violence plus the requirement by many agencies for a 'degree' and you have the majority of the recruits who SHOULD NOT be LEO hired instead of the one who are more qualified.
2. Then they take these 'non violent' 'idealistic' people to the academy and scare the * out of them by stressing the 'officer safety' issues and them turn them loose on us.
3. Our youth has evolved into a group of people who are 'I-ME' people who have no respect for authority or order and "Houston we have a problem"!
When to two collide there is not going to be a favorable out come. [V]
I have consistently said for many years that police officers should have a much more thorough background and psych check to determine their tendency to be an adrenelin junkie. And the guys conducting the background/psych check better have a spotless record himself - the last thing we need is adrenelin junkies interviewing prospective cops.
At that point, pay them a starting salary of $100,000.
Oh, and get the unions out of LE so that bad cops can be fired quickly.
Wyatt,, In a perfect world you would be right. Unfortunately, it's not a pertfect world. And sometimes, that adrenelin your so against is the only thing that gets them through a fight for their lives. It's that adrenelin that gets them through a 10 minute fight with someone that wants to kill them. And if you don't have a little of that "junkie" in you then your in the wrong line of work because in your first real fight you will die. I know you would rather have a police force akin to the movie Demolition Man. But not only is that not real, it's not realistic. It never will be.
quote:In a perfect world you would be right. Unfortunately, it's not a pertfect world. And sometimes, that adrenelin your so against is the only thing that gets them through a fight for their lives. It's that adrenelin that gets them through a 10 minute fight with someone that wants to kill them. And if you don't have a little of that "junkie" in you then your in the wrong line of work because in your first real fight you will die. I know you would rather have a police force akin to the movie Demolition Man. But not only is that not real, it's not realistic. It never will be.
Oh brother.
quote:Originally posted by 45long
Jim,, You nailed it. You are exactly right.
Wyatt,, In a perfect world you would be right. Unfortunately, it's not a pertfect world. And sometimes, that adrenelin your so against is the only thing that gets them through a fight for their lives. It's that adrenelin that gets them through a 10 minute fight with someone that wants to kill them. And if you don't have a little of that "junkie" in you then your in the wrong line of work because in your first real fight you will die. I know you would rather have a police force akin to the movie Demolition Man. But not only is that not real, it's not realistic. It never will be.
No sir, what I'd rather have in that "perfect" world is a LOT less police involvement in everything. Since it is pretty well known that when you call 911, the PD aren't going to show up in time to do you any good in most cases, I am prepared to fend for myself.
I wish revenue generation wasn't part of the job description for cops.
And since I get 3 wishes with this fantasy, I also wish that more people would connect the dots and realize that cops would be needed less for protection of the public, if more of the public realized that they should be protecting themselves. And if state legislators made it a lot less troublesome for the good guys to shoot and kill the bad guys in the commission of their crimes, there'd be a whole lot less crime and less need for cops.
While I agree with you for the most if not all, I feel I should warn you. Just for a second there you sounded like an adrenelin junkie. The vary thing you said we needed less of in the police dept. Protecting ourselfs. Great idea. But you STILL would need more cops on the street. Why? Because cops are trained to handle any number of different things. We get trained on how to read someones body langage. Look for and spot suspisous activity based on the totallity of the circunstances and act accordingly. And, Cops have a certain protection when in the performance of their duty. Average citizens are not. If an average guy accidentaly shoots an innocent by stander, he can be prosecuted for it. Cops can't. They can be sued in many cases, but not held criminally liable. You can.
What would you have done during the Az. shooting ? There was an armed citizen there. He arrived seconds after it went down. Thank God he didn't have the shoot first attitude. If he had, he would killed an innocent man. Cops are not trained to shoot first and ask questions later. If anything we are trained in restraint. As Jim Rau said. Great effort is used to weed out the shoot first guys. They take it to the extreme in some cases/departments so that what you have is a dept. full of social workers. And that is NOT what we need on the street. But trying to find that happy medium is not a simple task. Even when we do, we still get the old rock and hard place thing. We aren't perfect. We make mistakes. But because we wear that blue uniform everyone expects to be. We are the first that get blamed when something goes wrong and we hardley ever get the credit when we do something right. And thats ok. We don't sign up for this for the glory. *L* We shun the Hero tag because we know that tomorrow someone will be calling us a jack booted thug because we had to get rough on Jr. Just because he was about to knife his girlfriend. Or selling dope at the local Middle School. Like Chris Rock says, If the POlice have to chase you, they'er bringing an * whooping with them. It ain't being a adrenelin junkie, or a jack boot, it's just what it is. And 80% of the people who have CCW's just are not ready for all that cops really do. It is a last resort, get my * out of the do-do thing. And that's ok too. Anyone who goes down to get a CCW with the idea that they are going to be hero shouldn't get one. Personally, I think anyone who wants to carry should. Without a permit. But they better have a firm grip on the real world.
quote:While I agree with you for the most if not all, I feel I should warn you. Just for a second there you sounded like an adrenelin junkie.
Oh I am. And I'd make a lousy cop. I have the wrong temperment to be a cop; that's my point. But I have little doubt I could have become a cop had I chosen that path - I had the proper/helpful connections in the LEO community, could easily pass the physical exams, etc. But, I'd make a lousy cop because I don't tolerate stupid very well.
quote:Protecting ourselfs. Great idea. But you STILL would need more cops on the street. Why? Because cops are trained to handle any number of different things. We get trained on how to read someones body langage. Look for and spot suspisous activity based on the totallity of the circunstances and act accordingly.
Yes, you can spot the guy in the trenchcoat who's about to rob the bank. My point is that if more joe blow citizens were shooting Mr. Trenchcoat on the spot, it wouldn't take very long until they wouldn't like the odds and they'd stop robbing banks. Criminals aren't martyrs.
quote: And, Cops have a certain protection when in the performance of their duty. Average citizens are not. If an average guy accidentaly shoots an innocent by stander, he can be prosecuted for it. Cops can't. They can be sued in many cases, but not held criminally liable. You can.
Yep, a lot of things hafta change around here if we're to get passed that mindset that says we have to react to crimes that have already been committed. Maybe good samaritan laws need to extend to your scenario.
quote:What would you have done during the Az. shooting ? There was an armed citizen there. He arrived seconds after it went down. Thank God he didn't have the shoot first attitude. If he had, he would killed an innocent man.
You know it's hard to say for sure, but my guess is that most guys with common sense can quickly determine that the derranged guy rapi-firing indescriminantly is the bad guy, and the insurance salesman-looking guy who is taking careful aim at the derranged shootist is your good guy.
But that is one very unusual scenario among 10,000 more everyday scenarios, like the hoodlum in the 7-Eleven with his Saturday Night Special turned sideways at the clerk.
quote: Cops are not trained to shoot first and ask questions later. If anything we are trained in restraint. As Jim Rau said. Great effort is used to weed out the shoot first guys. They take it to the extreme in some cases/departments so that what you have is a dept. full of social workers. And that is NOT what we need on the street. But trying to find that happy medium is not a simple task. Even when we do, we still get the old rock and hard place thing. We aren't perfect. We make mistakes. But because we wear that blue uniform everyone expects to be. We are the first that get blamed when something goes wrong and we hardley ever get the credit when we do something right. And thats ok. We don't sign up for this for the glory. *L* We shun the Hero tag because we know that tomorrow someone will be calling us a jack booted thug because we had to get rough on Jr. Just because he was about to knife his girlfriend. Or selling dope at the local Middle School. Like Chris Rock says, If the POlice have to chase you, they'er bringing an * whooping with them. It ain't being a adrenelin junkie, or a jack boot, it's just what it is. And 80% of the people who have CCW's just are not ready for all that cops really do. It is a last resort, get my * out of the do-do thing. And that's ok too. Anyone who goes down to get a CCW with the idea that they are going to be hero shouldn't get one. Personally, I think anyone who wants to carry should. Without a permit. But they better have a firm grip on the real world.
Ok, but here's the deal. If I'm standing behind the guy at the bank teller's counter when he pulls a gun out, at that point in time - when it really counts - I'm more qualified to deal with the situation than any cop in that city...because I'm there. I hope I have enough sense to quickly * the risk of hittingthe clerk behind the counter and eliminating that possibility.
I just think laws should be such that there is a lot less risk to pulling out my G26, putting it against the back of his head, and going bang without having to worry about an overzealous anti-gun DA, and without having to worry for 2 years about a civil suit filed by the robber's family. I just think it ought to be a lot less risky to kill the bad guy than it is. If it were, we'd need cops less because there's be less crime.
I can tell you the cops I had to train (starting in the late 1980's) were more worried about loosing their jobs than their lives. They had 'liability' drummed into them from the * go and the psychological test had weed out most the good guys. So you didn't have to worry about 'shooting first', you had to worry about whether the would shoot at all!!![V]
Jim, Again. Right on the money. You are exactly right. LIABILITY is the magic word. That and Look for the "Flashing Red Light" on the camera. Of course today it's look for the guy with the cell phone cam. Act accoerdingly. I hate those little activist J/O's that walk up on an officer in the middle of something with a gun in open carry and intentionally try to get him to confront him. And for what? So he can impress with his vast knowledge of sidewalk law? I don't care whats legal or not, you walk up on me while I am on a call with a gun strapped to your hip, and your not wearing the same clothes I am, get ready to go to ground and cuffed. At least until I can resolve who you are and why your there. Then when I'm done with what I was doing to start with, I will turn my attention to you and start citeing you for interferring.
We don't do this job for the glammor. We damn sure don't do it for the "rush". We do it because we want to help someone who needs it. We want to get bad guys off the street. And we have more obstructions to that goal than everyday citizens can imagine.
quote:
We don't do this job for the glammor. We damn sure don't do it for the "rush". We do it because we want to help someone who needs it. We want to get bad guys off the street. And we have more obstructions to that goal than everyday citizens can imagine.
You kinda just described my job. Only thing is, my job as a roofer is quite a bit more dangerous, and probably a lot more likely to get me sued. And probably, the general public is less trustful of those in my profession.
We all have "obstructions" in our work, it's just more interesting to talk about your job than mine coz you get to shoot people and beat them up. [:D]
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
quote:Originally posted by sovereignman
Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.
To bad ,today we have gone down the path of excessive gun control. To bad FFL dealers are part of the problem.
My favorite statement.
Yep your right, but with out them, there would be no new firearms on the market, I guess you would like to change that. I wish I could sell firearms without a license like my grandfather did in his general store, but it is not possible. Also, remember when they decide to start the party, the FFL's are going to be the first to go....
Don
BTW,
Notice how the citizens of Athens had to raid a NG armory for arms....
Who put a gun to your head and forced you to pay the money, fill out all the forms and have your tiny cottage inspected so that you could get your FFL license and then be in a position where the government forces people to do business with you, you make a profit and you record the names address phone number and serial number of each and every firearm transaction into your bound book and when you go out of business you will hand over your bound book to the ATFE? Who forced you to do all that?
Kinda sounds like you are a willing licensed and paid government agent to me. You like to argue, throw out insults and stuff. Why don't you start arguing with the ATFE claiming that the Second Amendment does not allow for the existance of FFL holders? When you get that problem solved, then you can go after the NRA and dismantle it if that is what you want.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
quote:Originally posted by sovereignman
Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.
To bad ,today we have gone down the path of excessive gun control. To bad FFL dealers are part of the problem.
My favorite statement.
Yep your right, but with out them, there would be no new firearms on the market, I guess you would like to change that. I wish I could sell firearms without a license like my grandfather did in his general store, but it is not possible. Also, remember when they decide to start the party, the FFL's are going to be the first to go....
Don
BTW,
Notice how the citizens of Athens had to raid a NG armory for arms....
Who put a gun to your head and forced you to pay the money, fill out all the forms and have your tiny cottage inspected so that you could get your FFL license and then be in a position where the government forces people to do business with you, you make a profit and you record the names address phone number and serial number of each and every firearm transaction into your bound book and when you go out of business you will hand over your bound book to the ATFE? Who forced you to do all that?
Kinda sounds like you are a willing licensed and paid government agent to me. You like to argue, throw out insults and stuff. Why don't you start arguing with the ATFE claiming that the Second Amendment does not allow for the existance of FFL holders? When you get that problem solved, then you can go after the NRA and dismantle it if that is what you want.
Hypocrite.
Fox,
Your NRA blows.
Don
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
quote:Originally posted by sovereignman
Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.
To bad ,today we have gone down the path of excessive gun control. To bad FFL dealers are part of the problem.
My favorite statement.
Yep your right, but with out them, there would be no new firearms on the market, I guess you would like to change that. I wish I could sell firearms without a license like my grandfather did in his general store, but it is not possible. Also, remember when they decide to start the party, the FFL's are going to be the first to go....
Don
BTW,
Notice how the citizens of Athens had to raid a NG armory for arms....
Who put a gun to your head and forced you to pay the money, fill out all the forms and have your tiny cottage inspected so that you could get your FFL license and then be in a position where the government forces people to do business with you, you make a profit and you record the names address phone number and serial number of each and every firearm transaction into your bound book and when you go out of business you will hand over your bound book to the ATFE? Who forced you to do all that?
Kinda sounds like you are a willing licensed and paid government agent to me. You like to argue, throw out insults and stuff. Why don't you start arguing with the ATFE claiming that the Second Amendment does not allow for the existance of FFL holders? When you get that problem solved, then you can go after the NRA and dismantle it if that is what you want.
Hypocrite.
Fox,
Your NRA blows.
Don
Nobody but you is mentioning the NRA. Whatta you trying to do? Give the NRA some free publicly so you can get them some new members? I can't think of any other reason you would so frequently bring up the subject of the NRA.
quote:I can't think of any other reason you would so frequently bring up the subject of the NRA.
There is a common denominator in play that you are not seeing...you and the NRA are synonymous.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:I can't think of any other reason you would so frequently bring up the subject of the NRA.
There is a common denominator in play that you are not seeing...you and the NRA are synonymous.
LOL, I like how he mentions the NRA, but then tries to blame me....
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
When you get that problem solved, then you can go after the NRA and dismantle it if that is what you want.
Don
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.
Doesn't anyon underst there are good and bad people in all professions. fact of life.
Whether you live in a city enviroment, with police districts, or a county environment, one has to realize the tough job these guys have.
Any person, can be a danger at any time. judgement calls, because of a way a person is dressed or their age can get a cop killed in seconds. A suit can be a murderer, a teenager can be just as dangerous. When police follow department procedures and treat all the same in whatever situation, thats the way it works. That dying screaming woman, and her husband, maybe, maybe just robbed a ban, or are fugitives trying to deceive to get away. Checks take time and sometimes a cop has to appear rude to control the situation. How about the sppeder in a suit, who can't afford to get a ticket and loose his license. So, he gates hot at the cop. How does the cop judge that kind of attitude with out first securing the individual. Some people go off on simple little things for no reason.
If you want to get to know your police, got to their district office at Christmas time with a couple of plates of cheese, sausage and crakers, with a thank you note. They couldn't pay me enough to do their job. Ever hear of a speeder that just got a 400.00 dollar ticket say thank you? An arrested drunk driver say thank you. A domestic disturbance where the cop had to seperate the parties and retore some peace. A suicidal person, stopped from jumping or in a stand off with a gun?
Cops make mistakes, and sometimes there are people who shouldn't be cops, but its the best system we have. Quit complaining.
Comments
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
This is why we have guns...
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm
Don
Excellent history lesson.
Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.
To bad ,today we have gone down the path of excessive gun control. To bad FFL dealers are part of the problem.
My favorite statement.
You don't really have a clue, do you?
quote:Originally posted by sovereignman
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
This is why we have guns...
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm
Don
Excellent history lesson.
Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.
To bad ,today we have gone down the path of excessive gun control. To bad FFL dealers are part of the problem.
My favorite statement.
You don't really have a clue, do you?
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
quote:Originally posted by sovereignman
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
This is why we have guns...
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm
Don
Excellent history lesson.
Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.
To bad ,today we have gone down the path of excessive gun control. To bad FFL dealers are part of the problem.
My favorite statement.
You don't really have a clue, do you?
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353
And your point is?
What spew now?
To bad ,today we have gone down the path of excessive gun control. To bad FFL dealers are part of the problem.
My favorite statement.
[/quote]You don't really have a clue, do you?
[/quote]"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353
[/quote]And your point is?
What spew now?
[/quote]For you government worker.More facts for you government worker.
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.
In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare --well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.
In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.
To bad ,today we have gone down the path of excessive gun control. To bad FFL dealers are part of the problem.
My favorite statement.
Yep your right, but with out them, there would be no new firearms on the market, I guess you would like to change that. I wish I could sell firearms without a license like my grandfather did in his general store, but it is not possible. Also, remember when they decide to start the party, the FFL's are going to be the first to go....
Don
BTW,
Notice how the citizens of Athens had to raid a NG armory for arms....
Wyatt,, My point is, this guy should never have involved himself in whatever was going on. That in itself can be considered as interference. Legal carry at that point doesn't matter. Add to that the fact that he wanted to cause a confrontation. Again. He broke one of the basic rules of carrying a gun. You DO NOT start a confrontation. He clearly did. As a result, he made himself a person of interest. At that point, his ID needed to be assertained as well as whether or not he was legally allowed to have those guns. Meaning, did he have any warrents? Any felony convictions? D/V or restraining orders ? And he brought that attention on himself. Of course, as it was, the poorly trained Officer didn't know what to do.
I watched the video again and I can't see whether the guy was part of the reason for the cop being there, or if he was interfearing as you say. No way to know from the video.
Maybe he was part of the initial situation, and walked to his car to get the camera and then back. Maybe he walked to his car strapped on his gun, then walked back. No way to know if he was interfearing with the situation, or if he was a party to the situation.
Secondly, the cop's aggressive attitude, before he saw the gun, did more to escalate the situation than anything the cameraman did. The cop was attempting (and failing) to intimidate by saying the guy was trespassing.
Look at the cop, his nostrils were flaring, he was flustered, pissed. He eventually got a grip on his self when he saw his mechanical advantage disappear when he saw the guy's gun.
This is the problem these days - cops see anything short of total compliance as being aggressive or interfearing...both of which are charges they overuse to the point that few people take them seriously anymore.
It's like I said, get used to this kind of thing - think about the law, know the law, because more and more people who know their rights are going to challenge cops who don't know the law.
I need guns because there are people out there who think they need guns to deal with the police.
Because they are CRIMINALS!!! I have been in the business for over 35+ years and dealt with thousands of citizens and hundreds of LEO's and I have seem many LEO's act in an inappropriate manner to citizens (this is very small portion of the contacts) BUT NONE OF THEM WOULD RISE TO THE USE OF DEADLY FROCE BY THE CITIZENS!!!
Most states give authority to citizens to protect themselves from wrongfully applied deadly force by LEO's, BUT this situation is less apt to occur than the probability of being struck my lightning![:(]
I was under the impression that he rolled up on it.
Maybe he was part of the initial situation, and walked to his car to get the camera and then back.
Possibly. But it looked he opened his car door. Why close the door if your just getting a camera?
Maybe he walked to his car strapped on his gun, then walked back.
If that's true then he was CLEARLY looking for a confrontation. Why else would someone go "back" to his car with an officer on scene, to get a gun?
No way to know if he was interfearing with the situation, or if he was a party to the situation.
Secondly, the cop's aggressive attitude, before he saw the gun, did more to escalate the situation than anything the cameraman did. The cop was attempting (and failing) to intimidate by saying the guy was trespassing.
He was there, it seemed, on a trespass call. He wasn't talkng JUST about the guy with the camera.
Look at the cop, his nostrils were flaring, he was flustered, pissed.
He as outnumbered. He several people to deal. Once he saw the gun he should have called for backup. If it can be avoided, NO Officer should ever go one on one with an armed person. Not in the type of situation.I have said it before, the officer was poorly trained.
He eventually got a grip on his self when he saw his mechanical advantage disappear when he saw the guy's gun.
Then he turned his back on the armed person. To stupid for words.
This is the problem these days - cops see anything short of total compliance as being aggressive or interfearing...both of which are charges they overuse to the point that few people take them seriously anymore.
You say this but have never worn the uniform or been placed in the situation. Not only do you have to control the situation you were called on, but also, you have to be aware of anyone who may walk up. If you lose control then you have placed yourself in danger as well as everyone else. And when you alone, yeah, that can real scary.
It's like I said, get used to this kind of thing - think about the law, know the law, because more and more people who know their rights are going to challenge cops who don't know the law.
You mean people who THINK they know the law. These sidewalk lawyers usually don't know squat. They have a lot SVU under their belt but not much else. I had a one of these guy in court on a traffic ticket. Of he lost. He then asks the judge how to appeal. The judge asked him "appeal? What appeal? You don't get to appeal a traffic ticket with no jury." Basically the guy had watched to much TV. But he thought he was slick for asking. Until the Judge showed hom how stupid he really was. Much like these sidewalk lawyers. A well informed/trained Officer can defend himself and actions very well. And honestly. Unless the situation is serious, they will probaly just blow the guy off after a few minutes. Most aren't stupid. Where I live though, this guy would have eaten pavement. No question. He can plead his case to the Judge. And lose.
If he is willing to do this who knows what he will do next? At anytime he may decide to use the military against the civilian population, suspend the bill of rights, take private property via eminent domain. The possibilities are endless now that he has proven he is willing to refuse to enforce well established laws.
BTW this just happened to be on the news tonight..Not that it has anything to do with what I posted but more of what other have posted..LOL
http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/274673/3/Off-duty-cop-drinks-drives-patrol-car
I think we need guns because the President of this country, the very highest office in this land has already demonstrated that he is willing to refuse to up hold the law. he has also demonstrated that he is willing to use his power to stop others in the position to enforce the law even to the point of suing them in court. He also had already shown that he will use his influence over Federal Judges to get them to "re-interpret" well established laws.
If he is willing to do this who knows what he will do next? At anytime he may decide to use the military against the civilian population, suspend the bill of rights, take private property via eminent domain. The possibilities are endless not that he has proven he is willing to refuse to enforce well established laws.
BTW this just happened to be on the news tonight..Not that it has anything to do with what I posted but more of what other have posted..LOL
http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/274673/3/Off-duty-cop-drinks-drives-patrol-car
You nailed it. The progressive agenda will completely negate the Bill Of Rights if they are allowed to remain in power. They must be stopped, one way or another!!![V]
I would hope we can get rid of them with out the use of force, but only time will tell!
I think we need guns because the President of this country, the very highest office in this land has already demonstrated that he is willing to refuse to up hold the law. he has also demonstrated that he is willing to use his power to stop others in the position to enforce the law even to the point of suing them in court. He also had already shown that he will use his influence over Federal Judges to get them to "re-interpret" well established laws.
If he is willing to do this who knows what he will do next? At anytime he may decide to use the military against the civilian population, suspend the bill of rights, take private property via eminent domain. The possibilities are endless not that he has proven he is willing to refuse to enforce well established laws.
BTW this just happened to be on the news tonight..Not that it has anything to do with what I posted but more of what other have posted..LOL
http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/274673/3/Off-duty-cop-drinks-drives-patrol-car
Picking a fight at an MMA event is never a great idea.
I think we need guns because the President of this country, the very highest office in this land has already demonstrated that he is willing to refuse to up hold the law. he has also demonstrated that he is willing to use his power to stop others in the position to enforce the law even to the point of suing them in court. He also had already shown that he will use his influence over Federal Judges to get them to "re-interpret" well established laws.
If he is willing to do this who knows what he will do next? At anytime he may decide to use the military against the civilian population, suspend the bill of rights, take private property via eminent domain. The possibilities are endless now that he has proven he is willing to refuse to enforce well established laws.
..
The possibilities have been endless since Abe Lincoln broke free of the restraints placed upon him by the Constitution. You seem to suggest that this current POS is worse that his predecessors, though is reading from the same playbook.
Brad Steele
The possibilities have been endless since Abe Lincoln broke free of the restraints placed upon him by the Constitution. You seem to suggest that this current POS is worse that his predecessors, though is reading from the same playbook.
I'm coming right out and saying it and we all know the results of Lincoln's re-interpretation of the Constitution. In addition we also have to factor in the equation that we are also in a situation very similar to Russia's at the end of WW 1. That being the return of hundreds of thousands of returning veterans who are facing a bleak economic and job markets contributing to their dis-enfranchisement with the Government.
Wyatt,, My point is, this guy should never have involved himself in whatever was going on. That in itself can be considered as interference. Legal carry at that point doesn't matter. Add to that the fact that he wanted to cause a confrontation. Again. He broke one of the basic rules of carrying a gun. You DO NOT start a confrontation. He clearly did. As a result, he made himself a person of interest. At that point, his ID needed to be assertained as well as whether or not he was legally allowed to have those guns. Meaning, did he have any warrents? Any felony convictions? D/V or restraining orders ? And he brought that attention on himself. Of course, as it was, the poorly trained Officer didn't know what to do.
you sound like the typical jack booted thug that would fit right in with Hitlers Gestapo [}:)]
if it is an illegal intrusion of my home.., you damn right, i would kill the SOB !! [:D]
more, i absolutely despise cops who "FEEL" they are judge, jury and executioner, i BELIEVE there are some here who "FEEL" this way.
most i have met in the last 20 years are [:o)] i have met a few i would trust to be alone with my wife, trust me.., that is DAMN FEW !!
Ida Dunn, the armchair commando has spoken, again.
Real smart, Ida. Then you will either be dead or on your way to death row, unable to support your family, and unable to deal with the problem in the most effective way.
Funny stuff, that! But, I would have to see it to believe it.
quote:Originally posted by 45long
Wyatt,, My point is, this guy should never have involved himself in whatever was going on. That in itself can be considered as interference. Legal carry at that point doesn't matter. Add to that the fact that he wanted to cause a confrontation. Again. He broke one of the basic rules of carrying a gun. You DO NOT start a confrontation. He clearly did. As a result, he made himself a person of interest. At that point, his ID needed to be assertained as well as whether or not he was legally allowed to have those guns. Meaning, did he have any warrents? Any felony convictions? D/V or restraining orders ? And he brought that attention on himself. Of course, as it was, the poorly trained Officer didn't know what to do.
I watched the video again and I can't see whether the guy was part of the reason for the cop being there, or if he was interfearing as you say. No way to know from the video.
Maybe he was part of the initial situation, and walked to his car to get the camera and then back. Maybe he walked to his car strapped on his gun, then walked back. No way to know if he was interfearing with the situation, or if he was a party to the situation.
Secondly, the cop's aggressive attitude, before he saw the gun, did more to escalate the situation than anything the cameraman did. The cop was attempting (and failing) to intimidate by saying the guy was trespassing.
Look at the cop, his nostrils were flaring, he was flustered, pissed. He eventually got a grip on his self when he saw his mechanical advantage disappear when he saw the guy's gun.
This is the problem these days - cops see anything short of total compliance as being aggressive or interfearing...both of which are charges they overuse to the point that few people take them seriously anymore.
It's like I said, get used to this kind of thing - think about the law, know the law, because more and more people who know their rights are going to challenge cops who don't know the law.
Well Stated Brother.
quote:If the police were searching your home, you'd SHOOT one of them?
if it is an illegal intrusion of my home.., you damn right, i would kill the SOB !! [:D]
more, i absolutely despise cops who "FEEL" they are judge, jury and executioner, i BELIEVE there are some here who "FEEL" this way.
most i have met in the last 20 years are [:o)] i have met a few i would trust to be alone with my wife, trust me.., that is DAMN FEW !!
The patriot act suspended certain rights you used to have, but don't worry there is no conspiracy to do so.
1. We are recruiting people into LE who have no experience with violence. Our society has sissified our youth for many years and thus they have not been exposed to what many of us were growing up. Add to this the psychological testing required to weed out those who have been exposed to violence plus the requirement by many agencies for a 'degree' and you have the majority of the recruits who SHOULD NOT be LEO hired instead of the one who are more qualified.
2. Then they take these 'non violent' 'idealistic' people to the academy and scare the * out of them by stressing the 'officer safety' issues and them turn them loose on us.
3. Our youth has evolved into a group of people who are 'I-ME' people who have no respect for authority or order and "Houston we have a problem"!
When to two collide there is not going to be a favorable out come. [V]
I think you are all missing the root problems here!
1. We are recruiting people into LE who have no experience with violence. Our society has sissified our youth for many years and thus they have not been exposed to what many of us were growing up. Add to this the psychological testing required to weed out those who have been exposed to violence plus the requirement by many agencies for a 'degree' and you have the majority of the recruits who SHOULD NOT be LEO hired instead of the one who are more qualified.
2. Then they take these 'non violent' 'idealistic' people to the academy and scare the * out of them by stressing the 'officer safety' issues and them turn them loose on us.
3. Our youth has evolved into a group of people who are 'I-ME' people who have no respect for authority or order and "Houston we have a problem"!
When to two collide there is not going to be a favorable out come. [V]
I have consistently said for many years that police officers should have a much more thorough background and psych check to determine their tendency to be an adrenelin junkie. And the guys conducting the background/psych check better have a spotless record himself - the last thing we need is adrenelin junkies interviewing prospective cops.
At that point, pay them a starting salary of $100,000.
Oh, and get the unions out of LE so that bad cops can be fired quickly.
Wyatt,, In a perfect world you would be right. Unfortunately, it's not a pertfect world. And sometimes, that adrenelin your so against is the only thing that gets them through a fight for their lives. It's that adrenelin that gets them through a 10 minute fight with someone that wants to kill them. And if you don't have a little of that "junkie" in you then your in the wrong line of work because in your first real fight you will die. I know you would rather have a police force akin to the movie Demolition Man. But not only is that not real, it's not realistic. It never will be.
Oh brother.
Jim,, You nailed it. You are exactly right.
Wyatt,, In a perfect world you would be right. Unfortunately, it's not a pertfect world. And sometimes, that adrenelin your so against is the only thing that gets them through a fight for their lives. It's that adrenelin that gets them through a 10 minute fight with someone that wants to kill them. And if you don't have a little of that "junkie" in you then your in the wrong line of work because in your first real fight you will die. I know you would rather have a police force akin to the movie Demolition Man. But not only is that not real, it's not realistic. It never will be.
No sir, what I'd rather have in that "perfect" world is a LOT less police involvement in everything. Since it is pretty well known that when you call 911, the PD aren't going to show up in time to do you any good in most cases, I am prepared to fend for myself.
I wish revenue generation wasn't part of the job description for cops.
And since I get 3 wishes with this fantasy, I also wish that more people would connect the dots and realize that cops would be needed less for protection of the public, if more of the public realized that they should be protecting themselves. And if state legislators made it a lot less troublesome for the good guys to shoot and kill the bad guys in the commission of their crimes, there'd be a whole lot less crime and less need for cops.
But Clint said it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEClGMJ2r3g
What would you have done during the Az. shooting ? There was an armed citizen there. He arrived seconds after it went down. Thank God he didn't have the shoot first attitude. If he had, he would killed an innocent man. Cops are not trained to shoot first and ask questions later. If anything we are trained in restraint. As Jim Rau said. Great effort is used to weed out the shoot first guys. They take it to the extreme in some cases/departments so that what you have is a dept. full of social workers. And that is NOT what we need on the street. But trying to find that happy medium is not a simple task. Even when we do, we still get the old rock and hard place thing. We aren't perfect. We make mistakes. But because we wear that blue uniform everyone expects to be. We are the first that get blamed when something goes wrong and we hardley ever get the credit when we do something right. And thats ok. We don't sign up for this for the glory. *L* We shun the Hero tag because we know that tomorrow someone will be calling us a jack booted thug because we had to get rough on Jr. Just because he was about to knife his girlfriend. Or selling dope at the local Middle School. Like Chris Rock says, If the POlice have to chase you, they'er bringing an * whooping with them. It ain't being a adrenelin junkie, or a jack boot, it's just what it is. And 80% of the people who have CCW's just are not ready for all that cops really do. It is a last resort, get my * out of the do-do thing. And that's ok too. Anyone who goes down to get a CCW with the idea that they are going to be hero shouldn't get one. Personally, I think anyone who wants to carry should. Without a permit. But they better have a firm grip on the real world.
Oh I am. And I'd make a lousy cop. I have the wrong temperment to be a cop; that's my point. But I have little doubt I could have become a cop had I chosen that path - I had the proper/helpful connections in the LEO community, could easily pass the physical exams, etc. But, I'd make a lousy cop because I don't tolerate stupid very well.
quote:Protecting ourselfs. Great idea. But you STILL would need more cops on the street. Why? Because cops are trained to handle any number of different things. We get trained on how to read someones body langage. Look for and spot suspisous activity based on the totallity of the circunstances and act accordingly.
Yes, you can spot the guy in the trenchcoat who's about to rob the bank. My point is that if more joe blow citizens were shooting Mr. Trenchcoat on the spot, it wouldn't take very long until they wouldn't like the odds and they'd stop robbing banks. Criminals aren't martyrs.
quote: And, Cops have a certain protection when in the performance of their duty. Average citizens are not. If an average guy accidentaly shoots an innocent by stander, he can be prosecuted for it. Cops can't. They can be sued in many cases, but not held criminally liable. You can.
Yep, a lot of things hafta change around here if we're to get passed that mindset that says we have to react to crimes that have already been committed. Maybe good samaritan laws need to extend to your scenario.
quote:What would you have done during the Az. shooting ? There was an armed citizen there. He arrived seconds after it went down. Thank God he didn't have the shoot first attitude. If he had, he would killed an innocent man.
You know it's hard to say for sure, but my guess is that most guys with common sense can quickly determine that the derranged guy rapi-firing indescriminantly is the bad guy, and the insurance salesman-looking guy who is taking careful aim at the derranged shootist is your good guy.
But that is one very unusual scenario among 10,000 more everyday scenarios, like the hoodlum in the 7-Eleven with his Saturday Night Special turned sideways at the clerk.
quote: Cops are not trained to shoot first and ask questions later. If anything we are trained in restraint. As Jim Rau said. Great effort is used to weed out the shoot first guys. They take it to the extreme in some cases/departments so that what you have is a dept. full of social workers. And that is NOT what we need on the street. But trying to find that happy medium is not a simple task. Even when we do, we still get the old rock and hard place thing. We aren't perfect. We make mistakes. But because we wear that blue uniform everyone expects to be. We are the first that get blamed when something goes wrong and we hardley ever get the credit when we do something right. And thats ok. We don't sign up for this for the glory. *L* We shun the Hero tag because we know that tomorrow someone will be calling us a jack booted thug because we had to get rough on Jr. Just because he was about to knife his girlfriend. Or selling dope at the local Middle School. Like Chris Rock says, If the POlice have to chase you, they'er bringing an * whooping with them. It ain't being a adrenelin junkie, or a jack boot, it's just what it is. And 80% of the people who have CCW's just are not ready for all that cops really do. It is a last resort, get my * out of the do-do thing. And that's ok too. Anyone who goes down to get a CCW with the idea that they are going to be hero shouldn't get one. Personally, I think anyone who wants to carry should. Without a permit. But they better have a firm grip on the real world.
Ok, but here's the deal. If I'm standing behind the guy at the bank teller's counter when he pulls a gun out, at that point in time - when it really counts - I'm more qualified to deal with the situation than any cop in that city...because I'm there. I hope I have enough sense to quickly * the risk of hittingthe clerk behind the counter and eliminating that possibility.
I just think laws should be such that there is a lot less risk to pulling out my G26, putting it against the back of his head, and going bang without having to worry about an overzealous anti-gun DA, and without having to worry for 2 years about a civil suit filed by the robber's family. I just think it ought to be a lot less risky to kill the bad guy than it is. If it were, we'd need cops less because there's be less crime.
We don't do this job for the glammor. We damn sure don't do it for the "rush". We do it because we want to help someone who needs it. We want to get bad guys off the street. And we have more obstructions to that goal than everyday citizens can imagine.
We don't do this job for the glammor. We damn sure don't do it for the "rush". We do it because we want to help someone who needs it. We want to get bad guys off the street. And we have more obstructions to that goal than everyday citizens can imagine.
You kinda just described my job. Only thing is, my job as a roofer is quite a bit more dangerous, and probably a lot more likely to get me sued. And probably, the general public is less trustful of those in my profession.
We all have "obstructions" in our work, it's just more interesting to talk about your job than mine coz you get to shoot people and beat them up. [:D]
quote:Originally posted by sovereignman
Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.
To bad ,today we have gone down the path of excessive gun control. To bad FFL dealers are part of the problem.
My favorite statement.
Yep your right, but with out them, there would be no new firearms on the market, I guess you would like to change that. I wish I could sell firearms without a license like my grandfather did in his general store, but it is not possible. Also, remember when they decide to start the party, the FFL's are going to be the first to go....
Don
BTW,
Notice how the citizens of Athens had to raid a NG armory for arms....
Who put a gun to your head and forced you to pay the money, fill out all the forms and have your tiny cottage inspected so that you could get your FFL license and then be in a position where the government forces people to do business with you, you make a profit and you record the names address phone number and serial number of each and every firearm transaction into your bound book and when you go out of business you will hand over your bound book to the ATFE? Who forced you to do all that?
Kinda sounds like you are a willing licensed and paid government agent to me. You like to argue, throw out insults and stuff. Why don't you start arguing with the ATFE claiming that the Second Amendment does not allow for the existance of FFL holders? When you get that problem solved, then you can go after the NRA and dismantle it if that is what you want.
Hypocrite.
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
quote:Originally posted by sovereignman
Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.
To bad ,today we have gone down the path of excessive gun control. To bad FFL dealers are part of the problem.
My favorite statement.
Yep your right, but with out them, there would be no new firearms on the market, I guess you would like to change that. I wish I could sell firearms without a license like my grandfather did in his general store, but it is not possible. Also, remember when they decide to start the party, the FFL's are going to be the first to go....
Don
BTW,
Notice how the citizens of Athens had to raid a NG armory for arms....
Who put a gun to your head and forced you to pay the money, fill out all the forms and have your tiny cottage inspected so that you could get your FFL license and then be in a position where the government forces people to do business with you, you make a profit and you record the names address phone number and serial number of each and every firearm transaction into your bound book and when you go out of business you will hand over your bound book to the ATFE? Who forced you to do all that?
Kinda sounds like you are a willing licensed and paid government agent to me. You like to argue, throw out insults and stuff. Why don't you start arguing with the ATFE claiming that the Second Amendment does not allow for the existance of FFL holders? When you get that problem solved, then you can go after the NRA and dismantle it if that is what you want.
Hypocrite.
Fox,
Your NRA blows.
Don
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
quote:Originally posted by sovereignman
Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.
To bad ,today we have gone down the path of excessive gun control. To bad FFL dealers are part of the problem.
My favorite statement.
Yep your right, but with out them, there would be no new firearms on the market, I guess you would like to change that. I wish I could sell firearms without a license like my grandfather did in his general store, but it is not possible. Also, remember when they decide to start the party, the FFL's are going to be the first to go....
Don
BTW,
Notice how the citizens of Athens had to raid a NG armory for arms....
Who put a gun to your head and forced you to pay the money, fill out all the forms and have your tiny cottage inspected so that you could get your FFL license and then be in a position where the government forces people to do business with you, you make a profit and you record the names address phone number and serial number of each and every firearm transaction into your bound book and when you go out of business you will hand over your bound book to the ATFE? Who forced you to do all that?
Kinda sounds like you are a willing licensed and paid government agent to me. You like to argue, throw out insults and stuff. Why don't you start arguing with the ATFE claiming that the Second Amendment does not allow for the existance of FFL holders? When you get that problem solved, then you can go after the NRA and dismantle it if that is what you want.
Hypocrite.
Fox,
Your NRA blows.
Don
Nobody but you is mentioning the NRA. Whatta you trying to do? Give the NRA some free publicly so you can get them some new members? I can't think of any other reason you would so frequently bring up the subject of the NRA.
There is a common denominator in play that you are not seeing...you and the NRA are synonymous.
quote:I can't think of any other reason you would so frequently bring up the subject of the NRA.
There is a common denominator in play that you are not seeing...you and the NRA are synonymous.
LOL, I like how he mentions the NRA, but then tries to blame me....
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
When you get that problem solved, then you can go after the NRA and dismantle it if that is what you want.
Don
Whether you live in a city enviroment, with police districts, or a county environment, one has to realize the tough job these guys have.
Any person, can be a danger at any time. judgement calls, because of a way a person is dressed or their age can get a cop killed in seconds. A suit can be a murderer, a teenager can be just as dangerous. When police follow department procedures and treat all the same in whatever situation, thats the way it works. That dying screaming woman, and her husband, maybe, maybe just robbed a ban, or are fugitives trying to deceive to get away. Checks take time and sometimes a cop has to appear rude to control the situation. How about the sppeder in a suit, who can't afford to get a ticket and loose his license. So, he gates hot at the cop. How does the cop judge that kind of attitude with out first securing the individual. Some people go off on simple little things for no reason.
If you want to get to know your police, got to their district office at Christmas time with a couple of plates of cheese, sausage and crakers, with a thank you note. They couldn't pay me enough to do their job. Ever hear of a speeder that just got a 400.00 dollar ticket say thank you? An arrested drunk driver say thank you. A domestic disturbance where the cop had to seperate the parties and retore some peace. A suicidal person, stopped from jumping or in a stand off with a gun?
Cops make mistakes, and sometimes there are people who shouldn't be cops, but its the best system we have. Quit complaining.