Articles at the front of this website

[NavyLCDR]

Has anyone noticed how the articles at the front of this website always advocate waiving your rights and catering to law enforcement and the sheep rather than explaining exactly what your rights are, how to exercise them, and how to protect yourself from the criminal that just might be wearing a badge and uniform?

And before the usual crowd starts jumping up and down chanting "anti-cop"....

We carry guns in the unlikely event that we might need to defend ourselves against a criminal. We can meet thousands and thousands of people throughout our lives and none of them will commit a criminal act against us, but we carry the gun anyway. I believe the same is true of the LE profession. I believe the same percentage of LEO don't give a rat's butt about peoples' rights and the limits of their authority as the percentage is of the people we meet every day who will commit a criminal act against us. So why is there so much interest in protecting oneself from the criminal not wearing a badge and uniform and so little interest in protecting oneself from the criminal that does wear a badge and uniform?

 

[Deserteagle]

So why is there so much interest in protecting oneself from the criminal not wearing a badge and uniform and so little interest in protecting oneself from the criminal that does wear a badge and uniform?

What does "protecting" yourself from police mean to you?

 

[Rhino]

Some of them do seem to have an air of 'subservience' to them at times. Luke posted a thread a while back soliciting for articles. I'd be more than happy to read one from you, NavyLCDR.

 

[50SR9]

As of this date, I have never had to explain my constitutional rights to an officer that knew I was carrying a gun. I guess I have been lucky?, or just maybe the ones I have had contact know this? What is protecting your self and catering to the police? I need a little more specifics, that is a bit too broad and vague for my simple country boy mind.:smile:

 

[Firefighterchen]

I feel from reading the front articles since I joined that 80% of the time I enjoy them, the other 20% I feel the same way as you do Navy. That's pretty good to me. I do agree though, recently there have been a lot of articles that I haven't found interesting or couldn't relate to.

 

[Caribou]

Most of these articles appear to be written by people to get free advertising for their business, check the bio at the end of the article. If you have an ex-leo selling gun classes you might expect a certain leaning in the advice offered. Then again, it is always nice to know what the cops want. This site is a commercial enterprise. For the work of writing an article you are paid with a little quip about your business. The articles like the posts are free advice and of varying quality. We each pay for our usage by providing information and entertainment to the others here, and by viewing the advertising.

 

[bellyfat]

i know a young man who is in college . and majoring in criminal justice. he wants to become a state trooper after graduation.
i think most younger troopers are college grads. it seems to me; they should be very well versed on constituional law after they graduate.
i dont know about city cops or deputy sherrifs. but its hard to beleive they wouldnt know this much.

 

[bswartz15]

I don't think anyone really teaches the Constitution anymore. I wish they did because most of the Bill of Rights is violated daily. The only one I think that isn't is the quartering of troops.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Some of them do seem to have an air of 'subservience' to them at times. Luke posted a thread a while back soliciting for articles. I'd be more than happy to read one from you, NavyLCDR.

Unfortunately, I have no credentials hanging on my wall to lend credibility to anything I would write.

 

[Bikenut]

As of this date, I have never had to explain my constitutional rights to an officer that knew I was carrying a gun. I guess I have been lucky?, or just maybe the ones I have had contact know this? What is protecting your self and catering to the police? I need a little more specifics, that is a bit too broad and vague for my simple country boy mind.:smile:

For me... catering to the police is being so naive as to think the cop is on my side so I not only answer all his/her questions but also volunteer all sorts of information... including giving up my ID when I'm not legally required to.

Y'all do know that cops are trained to lie to you in order to fish for information or to lead you into divulging something that could be construed as reasonable suspicion or probable cause... right?

Protecting myself from the police would be knowing what the laws actually are (that oftentimes is NOT what the cop says they are!) and requiring the officer also obey the applicable laws while respecting my rights.

We carry guns to protect ourselves from bad guys... and I carry a recorder or 3 to protect myself from rogue cops who think they can harass, intimidate, or fish to find something, in order to jam me up when I am engaged in a lawful activity.

It's just a cop folks... not your lord and master.

And I am far from anti cop too... but just like I am anti ordinary criminal.. I am also anti criminal cop. And just like the cops tell us... "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear." well... if a cop isn't doing anything wrong then he has nothing to fear from a recording either.

 

[golocx4]

I don't think anyone really teaches the Constitution anymore. I wish they did because most of the Bill of Rights is violated daily. The only one I think that isn't is the quartering of troops.

You are so right.
There is another thread talking about people younger that 27 and global warming. Made me think that people 27 and younger don't have a clue about the Constitution or the founding principles. The agenda was changed to totally ignore constitution and teach about the founders and their slaves or black mistresses and homosexuality.
Several generation are lost and believe that the POTUS has magical power or the power of a king.
I also truly believe that of all the cops out there the ones that scare me the most are the youngins. Been there done that.
As they get older and more experienced they improve like wine.

 

[tricolordad]

What does "protecting" yourself from police mean to you?

Retaining my firearm so that I can defend myself against an arrogant narcissist who tends to fly off he handle once he as you handcuffed and shoved in teeny tiny back of a Dodge Charger, and only at that time...just because you don't agree with him on the 2A or something else he decided to wrongly interpret. Daniel Harless ring a bell?

Believe it or not, some LEOs act like you can punch at 850fps...sigh...

 

[NavyLCDR]

What does "protecting" yourself from police mean to you?

The biggest common sense approach that I would say is, "If you would not do it for/with a stranger off the street not wearing a uniform, then don't do it for/with a stranger wearing a badge and uniform" unless you are required to by law. And the biggest way to protect yourself from the police is to ask the question up front, "Are you detaining me?" If the answer is "No", then walk away.

Examples:

Open carrying in a public place, doing the same thing everyone else around you is doing, except you happen to have a holstered legally carried firearm on your belt. If I, Joe Schmoe citizen, come up to you and say, "I need to see your ID, please, because I need to make sure that you are not prohibited from carrying that firearm because Sally Soccer mom is concerned and called me about a man with a gun." Would you show me your ID or even tell me who you are so I could run you through a public records check? I certainly hope not. So, absent any indication of any crime being committed, especially in a state such as Washington where there is no permit required for open carry, why are so many people willing to do exactly the same thing just because the person asking is wearing a badge and uniform? Absent a reasonable suspicion you are committing a crime, the officer has no legal authority to demand anything of you, regardless of if someone called or not.

Of course the usual traffic stop argument.... why should I offer a reason for the police officer to disarm me and needlessly handle my firearm by telling them about it when there is 99% chance it is never going to be mentioned otherwise? Again, Washington, no duty to inform. If the officer goes back to his car and runs my name/address/DOB and finds out I have a CPL.....SO WHAT!!! Now, he has NO legal reason to disarm me if he asks about a gun upon his return because he has just received confirmation from the State of Washington that I have passed all the background checks required for the CPL, I have done nothing to warrant it's revocation, and any handgun that I possess anywhere in the vehicle loaded or not is legal. If I just show him my CPL up front he cannot know if it is valid or not until he checks with the State of Washington so he has every right to legally disarm me until he does so.

Even the simple question, "Do you know why I stopped you today?" is asking you to waive your 5th amendment rights and confess to what you think you did. Why not just answer, "No, sir, I'm not sure why?" If you choose to fight the ticket in court, your answer of, "I was probably speeding" is likely to be presented as a confession.

Protecting myself from police officers might be taking the same action as Matthew St. John:
Link Removed

Protecting myself from police officers, to me, is simply being polite and respectful while at the same time limiting my official interaction with them to the minimum required by law, which it is my duty to study and understand. Protecting myself is not complying with their every request and whim, when they have no authority of law behind them, simply because they are wearing a badge and uniform.

 

[tricolordad]

Unfortunately, I have no credentials hanging on my wall to lend credibility to anything I would write.

Except your service record...

 

[NavyLCDR]

Except your service record...

That's true, I guess that is enough for Colonel Benjamin Findley to make statements like this:
http://www.usacarry.com/why-i-carry-concealed-firearm/

1. It is a right afforded to me by the U.S. Constitution and the State of Florida. It is afforded to me by Florida Concealed Carry law statutes that law-abiding citizens should never have had to fight for. Nonetheless, it has been hard won through long and expensive legislative action to develop what we have today. It is a right and the more of us who obtain the license and legally carry guns for lawful and prudent use, the harder it will be for controlling politicians to reverse it in the future.

This shows a gross misundertanding and/or ignorance of what rights are, where they come from, and what infringement by government means. The Florida Concealed Carry law statutes do not afford him the right to carry a firearm - they, in fact, take away the right to carry a firearm.

 

[tricolordad]

That's true, I guess that was enough for Colonel Benjamin someone or the other a while back.

And Col. Lincoln!

 

[NavyLCDR]

And Col. Lincoln!

I edited my post. I wasn't referring to Benjamin Franklin. Rather Benjamin Findley.

 

[kelcarry]

Unfortunately, I have no credentials hanging on my wall to lend credibility to anything I would write.

If nothing else, you are honest and have a very definite opinion about LEOs etal. If I have learned anything reading all these forums and other material, the fact is that as much as I respect the police in my community and spend time volunteering at the station on the more administrative activities that otherwise would take an LEO to do, they really cannot, on a day to day type basis be there to protect us. When that breakin occurs or that robbery in the street occurs they are only there after the fact---if it was protection, they would be what the secret service is to the pencil necked geek in the whitehouse. After the fact means gathering information and investigating and it you are square in the middle of the situation, YOU ARE PART OF THE INVESTIGATION WHETHER YOU LIKE LEOs or not. Do not believe that because you are innocent, you can only help the LEO in his investigation without casting you further into the middle of the investigation. You shut up and get a good lawyer and let him do the talking. You have constitutional rights and are presumed innocent--let him make the case.

 

[Firefighterchen]

You are so right.
There is another thread talking about people younger that 27 and global warming. Made me think that people 27 and younger don't have a clue about the Constitution or the founding principles. The agenda was changed to totally ignore constitution and teach about the founders and their slaves or black mistresses and homosexuality.
Several generation are lost and believe that the POTUS has magical power or the power of a king.
I also truly believe that of all the cops out there the ones that scare me the most are the youngins. Been there done that.
As they get older and more experienced they improve like wine.

I think you are off on the age bit. I recently walked around with a list of the Bill of Rights. I asked everyone that seemed friendly enough to approach, all my friends, coworkers, and family if they could recite any of them. From ages 12-70+, from grocery clerks to war veterans, police officers to stay at home moms, firefighters to teachers, less than a handful get get more than 5. And of those 5, they were all partial's (ie: 1st amendment, freedom of speech...sure but there is so much more to that amendment).

I then asked how many amendments are there total?
When was it written?
Who wrote it?
Why was it written?
Who does it control?

The sad fact is, the Constitution has been dead for a long time Who is going to defibrillate it and try and bring it back to life? I'm trying in my area...

 

[Deserteagle]

The biggest common sense approach that I would say is, "If you would not do it for/with a stranger off the street not wearing a uniform, then don't do it for/with a stranger wearing a badge and uniform" unless you are required to by law. And the biggest way to protect yourself from the police is to ask the question up front, "Are you detaining me?" If the answer is "No", then walk away.

Examples:

Open carrying in a public place, doing the same thing everyone else around you is doing, except you happen to have a holstered legally carried firearm on your belt. If I, Joe Schmoe citizen, come up to you and say, "I need to see your ID, please, because I need to make sure that you are not prohibited from carrying that firearm because Sally Soccer mom is concerned and called me about a man with a gun." Would you show me your ID or even tell me who you are so I could run you through a public records check? I certainly hope not. So, absent any indication of any crime being committed, especially in a state such as Washington where there is no permit required for open carry, why are so many people willing to do exactly the same thing just because the person asking is wearing a badge and uniform? Absent a reasonable suspicion you are committing a crime, the officer has no legal authority to demand anything of you, regardless of if someone called or not.

Of course the usual traffic stop argument.... why should I offer a reason for the police officer to disarm me and needlessly handle my firearm by telling them about it when there is 99% chance it is never going to be mentioned otherwise? Again, Washington, no duty to inform. If the officer goes back to his car and runs my name/address/DOB and finds out I have a CPL.....SO WHAT!!! Now, he has NO legal reason to disarm me if he asks about a gun upon his return because he has just received confirmation from the State of Washington that I have passed all the background checks required for the CPL, I have done nothing to warrant it's revocation, and any handgun that I possess anywhere in the vehicle loaded or not is legal. If I just show him my CPL up front he cannot know if it is valid or not until he checks with the State of Washington so he has every right to legally disarm me until he does so.

Even the simple question, "Do you know why I stopped you today?" is asking you to waive your 5th amendment rights and confess to what you think you did. Why not just answer, "No, sir, I'm not sure why?" If you choose to fight the ticket in court, your answer of, "I was probably speeding" is likely to be presented as a confession.

Protecting myself from police officers might be taking the same action as Matthew St. John:
Link Removed

Protecting myself from police officers, to me, is simply being polite and respectful while at the same time limiting my official interaction with them to the minimum required by law, which it is my duty to study and understand. Protecting myself is not complying with their every request and whim, when they have no authority of law behind them, simply because they are wearing a badge and uniform.

Thanks for your explanation, I agree with you.