The NEW LEO Encounters...

[MI .45]

There are 22 topics on the first page of the "LEO Encounters" of this forum; 13 of which are negative, a couple of questionables, and the rest simply human interaction with authority figures (i.e. benign). I realize that there are thousands of encounters everyday by law enforcement and the majority either go well or are resolved against an adversarial subject(s) one way or another.

What is so troubling is the persistent increase of these "mistakes" (killing and armed cover of suspects for minor crimes, killing peoples animals, forced entry and arrests at wrong addresses , etc.), the absolute lack of any remorse ("We'll apologize if you drop your right to sue us for a flagrant violation of your rights"), and the outright contravention of American civil liberties and entitlement to constitutional protections. The police have become over militarized and seek only to control every situation as opposed to utilizing any discretion or discourse. Force is frequently the first form of action in many LEO encounters and we are all perceived to be violent, abusive, but principally arrestable. My brother-in-law (who is a major in a State Police force) has more than intimated that the new recruiting standards are dramatically different than in years past for all LEO's. Police forces are looking for people who strictly follow any and all orders, may have an overly assertive personality, love martial actions, and tend to act first and answer questions later. Higher authorities count on the "Blue Line" not breaking under almost any circumstance (sounds like a cartel of sorts, doesn't it?).

Folk's, there is a whole new paradigm at work in our law enforcement community that have permeated the vast majority of our police forces from small town Constables to the top of the FedGov chain. The police determine your rights at any given moment and they need not fear any professional repraisals for the most part (killed over being suspected of being a bookie (which if one follows the whole story the "perp" was set up from the beginning) - Link Removed - shooter still on force). If the officer is found to be in the wrong, he/she may get a short suspension and some community service (and probably not even that) but their job is generally secure and the prevailing government authorities insurance picks up the tab. (In the case noted above, my follow-up showed that there was a $2M rendition but nothing more from the Fairfax Police - pay the fine and life goes on (except for the person we unjustly killed and the family we destroyed).

LE is becoming more aggressive and intolerant; they exercise very limited discetion and even less support for your civil and constitutional rights. Running afoul of the police these days can easily be a very dicey proposition no matter what the situation and even if there is no situation. I love seeing the stories and the videos of the successful citizens that pull off "resistance of right violations" but with the wrong officer or group of them things can go south very quickly. A lawyer told me recently that the governments greatest wish is to get everyone into a situation to commit a felony - that would then take care of the so called "gun problem".

We're all suspects now... how's it feel?

 

[r1derbike]

Suspects? I thought we were all potential terrorists? If proven neither, we are mere peasants, bricks in the wall. Beings of indentured servitude, to be spat on by the out of control, ivory tower elitists called our political system.

And then there is the approaching militarized police state. Do we not see the glee of battle in the eyes of younger police recruits? They were brought-up with it on a computer screen! They are already steeped in the human disconnect of violence they will perpetrate. As the police become more violent, so will the citizens of this country, unfortunately. Violence begets violence, death begets death.

We have a helluva fight brewing on the horizon. May not be tomorrow, or next month, or next year, but it is foolish to ignore the signs of dictatorial governance, and the abuses associated with it. Our founding fathers correctly called it, tyranny.

Finally, I am a firm believer in two term limits for ALL politicians; one in office, the other in prison.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Oh boy is the badge polishing crowd going to be upset over this one......

 

[Lakeland Man]

I often think of this forum in the same way I think of the Politics forum. The only reason to come in here is to see the negative spin.

I will freely admit that there are bad cops and bad, illegal, and downright evil encounters with them. However, I also feel that the good encounters are grossly under-reported. Call me a badge polisher if you like. I would accept that moniker proudly.

Can't you see that when you condemn all police for the misdeeds of a few, you are acting exactly like the antis. They condemn all gun owners for the actions of a few crazies. Many of the members here should look in the mirror before throwing those stones. In this, you are no better than the Brady kooks.

Perhaps you've had a bad experience with LEO,s. Maybe you've has two or three of them. Who knows...your entire local department or SO might be corrupt. Does that mean that they ALL are? Having spent some years behind the badge, I fully expect to be scorned and ridiculed. When I am, I just try to consider the source. And believe me, our opinion of you is a mirror of your opinion of us in many cases.

 

[Deanimator]

Perhaps you've had a bad experience with LEO,s. Maybe you've has two or three of them. Who knows...your entire local department or SO might be corrupt. Does that mean that they ALL are?

What it means is that any one of them COULD be, and that it's manifestly in my interest to view what they do with extreme skepticism.

I mistrust cops because of what they both do and DON'T do, namely police THEMSELVES.

Remember, it's been PROVED IN A COURT OF LAW that the Chicago Police Department maintains a "code of silence". Do you think that they're the ONLY ones?

 

[Lakeland Man]

Then by your reasoning, all gun owners are suspect. They shouldn't be trusted because any one of them COULD be a mass murderer. It's been proven in a court of law that gun owners have killed people.

I reject that argument. Like I stated, it's exactly the same as the Brady bunch argument.

 

[NavyLCDR]

What it means is that any one of them COULD be, and that it's manifestly in my interest to view what they do with extreme skepticism.

I mistrust cops because of what they both do and DON'T do, namely police THEMSELVES.

Remember, it's been PROVED IN A COURT OF LAW that the Chicago Police Department maintains a "code of silence". Do you think that they're the ONLY ones?

Then by your reasoning, all gun owners are suspect. They shouldn't be trusted because any one of them COULD be a mass murderer. It's been proven in a court of law that gun owners have killed people.

I reject that argument. Like I stated, it's exactly the same as the Brady bunch argument.

Let me ask you this, Lakeland Man.... why do you carry a gun in civilian life? Is it not to protect yourself from the very small percentage of the general population that you come into contact with everyday that may choose to commit a violent criminal act against you or your family? How many violent crimes are committed against you and your family compared to the number of the general public that you pass every day? So, are you not distrusting every person you pass in public enough that you feel the need to protect yourself from them by carrying a gun?

I doubt if there is any member on this forum who would say it is foolish to carry a gun to protect ourselves from the one in a million chance we may encounter that one or small group of people that may choose to commit a violent criminal act against us out of the thousands or millions of people we might encounter during the course of our lifetimes. So.... why is it so unreasonable to you when some of us say that there is a small percentage of the police force that are bad and we should take reasonable steps to protect ourselves during a police encounter in case that unknown stranger who has detained us happens to be one of the few who is bad? What's the difference?

A small percentage of the general population have proven themselves to be violent criminals, so we exercise our 2nd Amendment rights to the fullest extent to protect ourselves in case we encounter one of them. A small percentage of the population of police officers are less than honorable, so why is it wrong for us to exercise our 4th and 5th Amendment rights to the fullest extent in order to protect ourselves in case we encounter one of them?

Why is it perfectly acceptable for us to talk about the strategies and tactics involved in protecting ourselves from violent criminals, but making all police officers suspect when we discuss strategies and tactics involved in protecting ourselves from the small percentage of police officers that are bad?

And if you do not think that you are suspect until proven innocent in the eyes of at least one or more agencies of the government, than you truly have your head buried deep into the sand of the government propaganda.

 

[Lakeland Man]

I agree with most of your reasoning. However, a couple of points. LEO's take an oath to serve and protect the public. The general public, including gun owners and carriers do not. Do some of those LEO's violate that oath? Yes. But not all and I would say not most. I don't argue that there some bad cops. What I object to is the seemingly pervasive feeling among some members here that most or all cops are bad. When I was an LEO, I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of my peers who were less than honorable, and I would still have 4 fingers left over.

I carry to protect myself from the darker elements of society. However, everyone I pass is not suspect. I don't mistrust all the people I come into contact with. I don't act as if they all have intentions of harming me and my family. I don't want to live in that kind of a paranoid state. I am ready for confrontation at all times but I don't expect everyone to be the bad guy. So far, this has served me well.

When you are standing in line at the grocery store, do you expect the cashier to whip out a knife and attack you? Unless it's my ex-wife, I don't. Am I ready for such an attack? I like to think so. But readiness and fear or paranoia are two different things.

How many thousands of times a day do you suppose LE come into contact with the public? And how many of those times do you suppose the LEO is wrong or doing something they're not supposed to. I don't have numbers or statistics, but I'd be willing to wager that the percentage is statistically insignificant. However some posters here seem to feel the reverse is the norm. They judge all by the actions of a very few. Once again I say that that is Brady reasoning.

 

[Bikenut]

I agree with most of your reasoning. However, a couple of points. LEO's take an oath to serve and protect the public. The general public, including gun owners and carriers do not. Do some of those LEO's violate that oath? Yes. But not all and I would say not most. I don't argue that there some bad cops. What I object to is the seemingly pervasive feeling among some members here that most or all cops are bad. When I was an LEO, I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of my peers who were less than honorable, and I would still have 4 fingers left over.

I carry to protect myself from the darker elements of society. However, everyone I pass is not suspect. I don't mistrust all the people I come into contact with. I don't act as if they all have intentions of harming me and my family. I don't want to live in that kind of a paranoid state. I am ready for confrontation at all times but I don't expect everyone to be the bad guy. So far, this has served me well.

When you are standing in line at the grocery store, do you expect the cashier to whip out a knife and attack you? Unless it's my ex-wife, I don't. Am I ready for such an attack? I like to think so. But readiness and fear or paranoia are two different things.

How many thousands of times a day do you suppose LE come into contact with the public? And how many of those times do you suppose the LEO is wrong or doing something they're not supposed to. I don't have numbers or statistics, but I'd be willing to wager that the percentage is statistically insignificant. However some posters here seem to feel the reverse is the norm. They judge all by the actions of a very few. Once again I say that that is Brady reasoning.

I'm curious about the part of your post I put in bold for emphasis...

What did you do about the officer you knew was less than honorable? Did you take steps within your dept. to address his/her less than honorable actions?

And before there are any attempts to equate a police officer with an ordinary person please understand that those who have the authority to enforce the law need to be held to a higher standard of "honor" because of the amount of power that authority holds. And the ordinary person does NOT have that authority or power.

 

[Lakeland Man]

In answer to your question, I did nothing. But that is because I and most of my peers did not find out about his misconduct until it came to the attention of our superiors. And I don't know what my peers who DID know about it did. That information was not made common knowledge.

It just seems to me that some posters here NEVER have a good thing to say about LE.

NavyLCDR, let me ask you a question. Now I don't know if you are active duty or reserve, but if there were a crime committed "on post" who would you call? And when you DID call the SP's, would you expect them to be as incompetent as you seem to think civilian LE are?

 

[Bikenut]

In answer to your question, I did nothing. But that is because I and most of my peers did not find out about his misconduct until it came to the attention of our superiors. And I don't know what my peers who DID know about it did. That information was not made common knowledge.

It just seems to me that some posters here NEVER have a good thing to say about LE.

NavyLCDR, let me ask you a question. Now I don't know if you are active duty or reserve, but if there were a crime committed "on post" who would you call? And when you DID call the SP's, would you expect them to be as incompetent as you seem to think civilian LE are?

Thank you for answering. That is meant sincerely.

Now... what did those of your peers who did know do about that one officer's misconduct?

Like it or not.... entirely too often the very officers us ordinary people trust to enforce the law don't when it comes to fellow LE. So why would folks trust cops to honorably enforce the law for ordinary people when they don't do it for themselves?

As for some posters never having a good thing to say about LE? Well... it has been my experience (not necessarily on this forum) that there are some LE who have the attitude that everyone they meet is guilty of something and all that is necessary is for them to find out what it is.

Now... to get to the crux of the matter....

Of course there are "some" ordinary folks, criminals or not, that don't have much good to say about LE... and of course there are "some" LE who treat folks in less than honorable ways.... but ...

When we use words those words have meaning.... you and I both used the word "some" so care needs to be taken by both of us to not condemn everyone just because of "some".

And... I mentioned that because LE has been given authority and power to enforce the law that LE needs to be held to a higher standard than the ordinary person who does not have that authority or power. To go along with that higher standard is the realization that ordinary people questioning or distrusting LE is merely ordinary people holding LE to that higher standard.

In my opinion... my personal opinion... anyone who goes into LE should understand that they are taking on the responsibility to honorably use their authority as they exercise their power and not take umbrage with being questioned or distrusted because how else can the ordinary person hold LE accountable?

By the way... I believe that police have the duty to enforce the law regardless of who is breaking it... and that includes skid row bums, ordinary work-a-day folks, rich people, politicians regardless of how high the office, and........ fellow LE.

 

[NavyLCDR]

NavyLCDR, let me ask you a question. Now I don't know if you are active duty or reserve, but if there were a crime committed "on post" who would you call? And when you DID call the SP's, would you expect them to be as incompetent as you seem to think civilian LE are?

I am active duty. Currently deployed on an aircraft carrier. If there is crime committed I report it to the ship's security duty officer. The level of incompetence would depend entirely upon the individuals involved. I would like you to show us where I state that civilian LE are incompetent. What I have stated, and what continues to prove to be true is that largest source of misinformation regarding firearms laws continue to prove themselves to be gun shop employees, CCW instructors and LE officers. That doesn't mean police officer are incompenent. What it means is that they cannot be expected to be law experts.

Here's the perfect example for you Lakeland Man. I saw in a meeting of a local group of democrats and the topic was firearms laws. They had the County Sheriff, the head law enforcement officer in the county there, and the city Chief of Police. Myself and a couple other members of my group were openly carrying our handguns in holsters on our belt. The meeting was held in a public building - the government operated public library. We had asked the leader of the group if we could attend their meeting ahead of time, and were told it would be fine if we attended. One of the questions that one of the audience posed to the Sheriff and to the Chief of Police was exactly why was my group allowed to carry our firearms in a public library, and what could be done about it.

The Chief of Police stated that we were allowed to carry our firearms in the public library because there were no signs on the building prohibiting it. The Sheriff agreed with the Chief of Police. I happen to live in Washington State where this meeting took place. RCW 9.41.290 prohibits local governments from enacting firearms bans that are not specified in state law. RCW 9.41.300 specifies the locations where firearms are prohibited, and public government buildings is not one of the prohibited places (except for courthouses). So the real answer to the person's question about firearms in the library had absolutely nothing to do with signs or not because if the library was posted, the signs themselves would be a violation of state law and would be completely meaningless. So what does this tell you about the Sheriff and Chief of Police? Are they incompetent? No. They can't be expected know every law about every subject. But when they are approaching me in the public library regarding my firearm, I better be ready to defend myself against their mistaken beliefs about what the law actually says. The very first defense is simply to ask, "Officer, are you detaining me?" If the answer is no, then, "Thank you officer, I will be going about my business then."

 

[Lakeland Man]

NavyLCDR, thank you for the honest answer. What follows is entirely conjecture on my part. My guess would be that the LE officials who fielded that question didn't know the true correct answer to the question so they gave a "field expedient" answer meant to satisfy a citizen who was even less knowledgeable about state firearm law. As a Naval officer, you are tasked with upholding the UCMJ. However, you are not realistically expected to know the entire UCMJ. I would be willing to bet there isn't a Provost Marshall or JAG officer who DOES know it. The same is true of civilian LEO. What I expect is that they have enough of an understanding of the law to effectively perform their duty. If they don't know the answer to a question or what law, if any, is applicable to a given situation, I expect them to find out and to educate themselves. I expect them to follow the laws they are sworn to enforce and when they don't, I expect them to be charged and prosecuted just like everyone else.

As for the incident when I was LE, I stated that I don't know what any other officer who might have known about it did. That information was not made public and nobody came forward to the rest of us. Believe me though...we all talked about it amongst ourselves and we pretty much agreed that he got what he deserved.

One example from when I was LE. I had pulled over a vehicle for speeding and running a stop sign. Before I even got out of my car, the offender had his hand out the window and was waving his badge at me. When I asked him for his license, registration and proof of Insurance, he said "But I'm a cop.". I told him "Then you should have known better." And he left with $300 worth of tickets. Was he wrong? Yes. Did his badge entitle him to a "get out of jail free" card, so to speak? No. Did I get any poop from my peers about ticketing another member of the thin blue line? No. I know I was not alone in applying the law equally to everyone. Maybe my buddies and I were different then the rest of the country's LE, but I don't believe so.

 

[Bikenut]

A "field expedient" answer????

If an officer doesn't know the answer then I would expect him to man up and say he doesn't know the answer but he will find out... instead of giving out an answer that isn't the truth but is intended to pacify those who also don't know the answer.... and to maintain an attitude of control of the situation by furthering the perception that the cops know the law. There is no shame in not knowing but there is shame in an officer who is entrusted in enforcing the law not only not knowing that law but not doing due diligence before giving an answer.

How hard is it to simply say:

"I am aware that it is legal for folks to carry guns at this meeting but I don't have the exact law at hand at the moment. Rest assured I will find out before the meeting ends."

I find it annoying that any LE would consider disseminating misinformation as being Ok as long as it might be "expedient"...

Now... about the idea that it's Ok for LE to not know all the laws....

It is understandable that any one officer wouldn't know all the laws... but this is the age of the radio and if an individual officer doesn't know the exact law he is talking about, or intending to arrest/ticket for, then that radio offers the means to have someone look it up for him ... before he speaks, arrests, or tickets.

The authority and the power entrusted to LE requires... nay demands... a very high level of accountability.

 

[vernsimpson]

So far I have had no problems with any LEOs in their official capacity. I do have one for a neighbor who I do have a problem with. I have lived next door to for over 19 years and, without going into a long story, he has never respected my property or me. I tried for 15 years to get along with him and his family. Then his family called the LEOs when my kids had an unauthorized party. But his kids had a VERY loud party outside and nobody was supposed to be upset about that. My LEO neighbor has a double standard. One set of rules for his family and himself and another for everyone else. The LEO and I had a discussion about this. He went nuclear and now as far as I am concerned he needs to try to get along with me. I told him that I may be the a$$hole that he thinks I am but it would be this a$$hole who will HANDPICK his next neighbor!!!! :wink:

 

[Lakeland Man]

@bike nut...did you not read the first couple of sentences where I stated that it was conjecture on my part? I don't know why he answered the way he did. I wasn't there. I also did not excuse his behavior, I only attempted to offer a possible explanation.

Its possible that 20, 30, or even 50 years ago the individual LEO would have a better possibility of knowing more of the law. However, since our elected officials seem to think that if a little is good, a lot is better, there are considerably more laws on the books today. That complicates things for the police and civilians alike. As for requesting info by radio, that is not always a good option. First, dispatchers are not law researchers. Second, tying up the airwaves with requests for codes and subsections could prevent an officer from getting through in an emergency. We were always taught that brevity is the name of the game in radio communications. As for myself, I always kept a copy of the code books handy as a reference tool. Nowadays, you would need a law library.

Yes, LE needs to be held to a higher standard. And yes, sometimes they will fall short. But the main point I was trying to make was that by and large the majority of LE are good, honest, hard working men and women trying to do an impossible job the best they can. And, as evidenced here, for little or no appreciation from the general public.

 

[Lakeland Man]

@vernsimpson...I'm sorry about the trouble you had with your neighbor. Did he abuse his police authority in any way? If so, then he was completely wrong. If he did not, then his status as a police officer makes no difference. He may as well have been a CPA or a garbage man. Don't confuse what a person does for a living with who they are. Your story doesn't give enough details to understand what really happened and how his job entered into the equation.

 

[vernsimpson]

In a way he has used his badge to constantly park in front of a fire hydrant. He treated it like it was a personal parking spot. When the police were called they would not give him a ticket. After that he would park in front of it all day. It was not until I promised the Mayor that if anything happened on our street and someone got hurt I would make let the people know that the city was aware of the parking problem. That solved the problem because the Mayor did not want the city or the Mayor's office to be liable.

So yes he did use his badge to continue his actions with the help of other LEOs.

I do not lump my neighbor in with all LEOs. I generally trust that most LEOs are just trying to a job unless they show me otherwise. I have had no encounters with any LEO for years now. I try to obey ALL laws and for the most part do. If I do break any law it would be because I was not aware of the said law.

 

[Bikenut]

@bike nut...did you not read the first couple of sentences where I stated that it was conjecture on my part? I don't know why he answered the way he did. I wasn't there. I also did not excuse his behavior, I only attempted to offer a possible explanation.

Its possible that 20, 30, or even 50 years ago the individual LEO would have a better possibility of knowing more of the law. However, since our elected officials seem to think that if a little is good, a lot is better, there are considerably more laws on the books today. That complicates things for the police and civilians alike. As for requesting info by radio, that is not always a good option. First, dispatchers are not law researchers. Second, tying up the airwaves with requests for codes and subsections could prevent an officer from getting through in an emergency. We were always taught that brevity is the name of the game in radio communications. As for myself, I always kept a copy of the code books handy as a reference tool. Nowadays, you would need a law library.

Yes, LE needs to be held to a higher standard. And yes, sometimes they will fall short. But the main point I was trying to make was that by and large the majority of LE are good, honest, hard working men and women trying to do an impossible job the best they can. And, as evidenced here, for little or no appreciation from the general public.

Yes I read your post that it was conjecture on your part about the officer giving a "field expedient" answer... but...

Did you not notice that my post wasn't about just that one officer but would apply to any and all officers?

As for clogging up the radio? Or dispatchers not being law researchers? Big deal. If cops using the radio to learn the law is clogging up the radio then there isn't a problem with a clogged radio... there is a problem with cops not knowing the law so perhaps more time spent on educating officers would be advantageous. A higher standard requires the officer know the law regardless of what resources he needs to use. That is why he has... resources.

As for needing a law library... well... if the officer doesn't know and he has no resources available to find out... then that officer should man up and say they don't know instead of spreading misinformation.

Please understand that I am NOT knocking all of LE and that I know only too well there are not only good cops but there are some exemplary, even heroic (like my local Chief of Police who crawled into a burning home and pulled out a kid), cops out there. The point I'm making is that because LE has a great deal of authority and power there is no excuse for an officer not having the requisite knowledge... or using the resources available to gain that knowledge... before speaking or acting on a matter of law.

There is one other thing to consider... the comments made here on this forum do not necessarily reflect the attitude of what you referred to as "the general public".

There is another thing to consider... any officer who is getting a less than appreciative response from "the general public" .... is doing something wrong.

 

[Lakeland Man]

For the most part I that we mostly agree. It's simply a matter of degree.