The NEW LEO Encounters...

[Deanimator]

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.

1. I guarantee you that I'm suspect in the eyes of a lot of police, both as a gun owner and for any number of other reasons, none of them crimes or cause for reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed.
2. Let me be clear: I have NO need or desire to be "trusted" by police. I only need for the police to know and obey the law.

 

[NavyLCDR]

In my personal life, I've run about 25 to 1 encounters with "good" officers v. the one "bad" officer who waved my "shall issue" Concealed Pistol License in my face and told me that it could be revoked because another customer (not the management, another customer) was alarmed by the handgun in the holster on my belt, with a retention strap fastened, while I was eating dinner in a restaurant at dinner time. He then proceeded to strong arm a waitress who was too young to serve alcohol to escort him while he trespassed me from the premises. When the restaurant owners did find out about the encounter the next day, they called me, apologized profusely about the encounter, they had no desire for police intervention the night before, had no desire for me to be removed from the premises, and specifically invited me, family and friends to return to their restaurant, bearing our firearms.

The following weekend a group of 12-14 of us openly carrying as we normally do met in the restaurant with some of our families and friends for a luncheon. The Chief of Police and any of his force was invited to join us for social interaction, but was warned that we were invited guests of the restaurant and any attempt to unlawfully remove us from private property would result in a lawsuit filed against the police officers and the city. We never saw any police officers in any capacity. In response to my email, the Chief of Police justified the officer's earlier action of removing me from private property as a "matter of public safety", even though that same officer never disarmed me and watch me get into my vehicle still fully armed and drive away.

Notice, though, what I started this post with. That encounter was 1 in probably 25 various interactions I have had with law enforcement officers during traffic stops and whatnot and all of the other officers were nothing less than completely professional.

 

[XD40scinNC]

We, average citizens, are the feared enemy of government, and the militarization of every police department is their solution. Too many people don't pay attention and buy the bunk, that it is to protect us, when in fact it is to protect them from us.

We all have seen video (not from the media, but from citizens) of military style strike forces removing families from every house in a 20 block area of Boston from their homes at gunpoint, all over an unarmed, wounded 19 year-old. Boston is the home ground of citizens standing up to a tyrannical government over 200 years ago, only to beget a city full of surrender monkeys, that make the French look some real Rambo style warriors.

The first spark of freedom from government started in Boston, and it has totally and completely eliminated, a city full of subjects to the system that do not deserve to call themselves Americans or patriots. But that is the plan, the militarization of law enforcement, and the propaganda ministers selling it to people that will trade freedom for a false sense of security.

Link Removed

 

[jcreek]

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."

I would disagree about their incompetence. Being in LE especially an elected Sheriff or a Chief comes with certain responsibilities. Can they be expected to know every law verbatim? No, absolutely not. But IMO their incompetence comes from their inability to admit their lack of knowledge when a question is posed. If you don't know the law then just say so, instead of spreading misinformation throughout the public.

 

[MI .45]

We, average citizens, are the feared enemy of government, and the militarization of every police department is their solution. Too many people don't pay attention and buy the bunk, that it is to protect us, when in fact it is to protect them from us.

We all have seen video (not from the media, but from citizens) of military style strike forces removing families from every house in a 20 block area of Boston from their homes at gunpoint, all over an unarmed, wounded 19 year-old. Boston is the home ground of citizens standing up to a tyrannical government over 200 years ago, only to beget a city full of surrender monkeys, that make the French look some real Rambo style warriors.

The first spark of freedom from government started in Boston, and it has totally and completely eliminated, a city full of subjects to the system that do not deserve to call themselves Americans or patriots. But that is the plan, the militarization of law enforcement, and the propaganda ministers selling it to people that will trade freedom for a false sense of security.

Link Removed

From NavyLCDR, I quote, "In response to my email, the Chief of Police justified the officer's earlier action of removing me from private property as a "matter of public safety", even though that same officer never disarmed me and watch me get into my vehicle still fully armed and drive away."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am in no way disparaging cops in general - not even a little bit. I believe that the vast majority of policemen and women are honorable people and most police forces are administered competently. I also know that due to the stress of the job and the authority given, there is a code of silence and solidarity that will not be breached. (recently a State Trooper is being ostricized by fellow officers for not supporting his partner, caught on dash cam, for arresting a sober passenger as 'the drunk driver' when the actual driver gets away. Someone, even the innocent had to be collared.). If these police are upholding the Constitution, then they best do it and their fellow officers should be supporting that oath and not each others wrong doing.

In the above quotes... going from home to home, forcing people out of their homes while assuming the position... is totally unconstitutional and completely wrong! And which of those officers lodged a complaint or refused to violate their fellow citizens rights? Show me one... I see a lot of gung-ho vigilantes herding people out and going through their houses without a warrant, or stating a reason for the search, or having any dialogue whatsoever - just - GET OUT! These officers, are of course following orders but this is the type of thing that turns into really bad things for the folks.
In the above quote from NavyLCDR - the Chief of Police condones his officers action even though it's illegal. We can all parce words here and state "public safety, etc" but the action was illegal, pure and simple.

This country is going down a slide that is getting steeper by the day and the nations police forces are complicit in this descent!

 

[NavyLCDR]

From NavyLCDR, I quote, "In response to my email, the Chief of Police justified the officer's earlier action of removing me from private property as a "matter of public safety", even though that same officer never disarmed me and watch me get into my vehicle still fully armed and drive away."

As a follow-up, the Chief of Police of Oak Harbor, WA, where the encounter occurred was replaced. The new chief of police, Ed Green, who I believe took over in November last year, is absolutely the most professional and knowledgeable LEO I have had the chance of talking with. There was a little drama over the city council refusing to remove an illegal ordinance banning firearms in city parks early this year, and I met a few times with Chief Green to discuss the issue and he is 100% solid in his support of all the rights of citizens from the 2nd through the 4th and 5th Amendments.

 

[BluesStringer]

@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.

So a person who is known in their personal life to practice double-standards of conduct between themselves and their neighbors should not be expected to practice double-standards of conduct between themselves and those over whom they have virtually unlimited control and power? Yes, I know the Constitution and lower-level laws are what "limit" a cop's power, but that's what's being discussed here (in part), that laws are only a protector of The People's rights and liberties when they're followed by its enforcers, and it happens more than often enough that they aren't followed, that it's only prudent to distrust them out in the field. That you think that someone who is a cop for a living can divorce him/herself from "who they are" (in the example above, a practitioner of double-standards) just because they put on a uniform is exactly the attitude that supports cops' abusive attitudes over that of reality. What they do is who they are, and they'll do it when claiming a neighborhood fire hydrant as their own personal parking spot at home, just like they'll do it when dragging people out of their homes in Boston for no (legal) reason, or searching cars on open highways at gunpoint because one ex-cop went off the rails in So Cal.

The cops, ex-cops and cop badgefluffers on this forum always seem to whine about nobody ever posting about LEOs doing a good thing. If we did, here's what every headline would look like:

Extra! Extra! Cop Does His Job!
​

Don't you guys get it? Cops are supposed to do good, even great things! They're supposed to be legitimate protectors of both life and rights. Instead they expect to be seen as such just because they put on a uniform (or full-on battle gear these days) and made it through the Academy, and seem to think they don't have to earn that reputation every single day.

You guys want to stop seeing stories posted about bad cops, then go out and do your jobs well, and demand that your compadres do theirs well too. And when the leaders of your agencies support the bad ones and only support you when you support them too, then either get another job if you can't handle the pressure, or become a whistle-blower. There are legal protections for them that are violated on a daily basis too. By whom? Take a wild guess.

Blues

 

[Lakeland Man]

Blues, I did my job. I did it well. I didn't abuse my authority. I performed my duty with conviction and compassion. I always tried to remember why I went into Law Enforcement in the first place. And I never expected and very rarely received thanks or even appreciation for what I did and for what I risked. That included from my wife (now ex-wife). So I am a strong supporter and "badge fluffer" because I fully understand what it means to be hated, scorned and mistrusted on a daily basis. It tend to make you bitter and you begin to look at the general public differently.

 

[XD40scinNC]

Blues, I did my job. I did it well. I didn't abuse my authority. I performed my duty with conviction and compassion. I always tried to remember why I went into Law Enforcement in the first place. And I never expected and very rarely received thanks or even appreciation for what I did and for what I risked. That included from my wife (now ex-wife). So I am a strong supporter and "badge fluffer" because I fully understand what it means to be hated, scorned and mistrusted on a daily basis. It tend to make you bitter and you begin to look at the general public differently.

The problem is not the rank and file LEO, just trying to do their job, and go home at end of shift.

However, just as our children are being indoctrinated by government in school, the tactics and objectives that LEO's are being trained in are desensitizing them to citizens and subtly instilling the concept that citizens are the enemy.

The Constitution, narry a mention for your kids in school, or the cadet LEO going through BLET.

 

[BluesStringer]

Blues, I did my job. I did it well. I didn't abuse my authority. I performed my duty with conviction and compassion. I always tried to remember why I went into Law Enforcement in the first place. And I never expected and very rarely received thanks or even appreciation for what I did and for what I risked. That included from my wife (now ex-wife). So I am a strong supporter and "badge fluffer" because I fully understand what it means to be hated, scorned and mistrusted on a daily basis. It tend to make you bitter and you begin to look at the general public differently.

Like I said, a story's headline about cops doing good simply reads, "He did his job." You just wrote the body of that story underneath that headline. It's much more refreshing to read than the contempt for citizens Deserteagle spews on a regular basis. But like every other "hater" here, I didn't say all cops were deserving of distrust, I said that enough are that it's only prudent to distrust them until after the contact is over and they haven't violated our rights and/or well being. But even at that point, all I could really say or think is, "Cool. That cop just did his job." It's not hate on my part, and my scorn is reserved only for those who earn it. But distrust is just prudent caution, and you know as well as I, it goes both ways. When was the last time most citizens could honestly say they were approached by a cop as though he trusted them? If it's prudent on their part to approach a car they pulled over with caution because a lot, not all, of citizens have proven they need to exert that caution, then it's just as prudent for citizens to be cautious and distrusting of cops for the exact same reason. And you know when both parties know for sure that the other was trustworthy? Of course you know. You were a cop. When the contact was over is the only time you fully trusted a citizen, and the only time a (prudent) citizen trusted you.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Just because you got extensive training in how to be overly cautious of every contact you made, doesn't mean that citizens who figure out for themselves that it's prudent for them to do the same thing for the exact same reason you did it is legitimately worthy of criticism. I don't hate or have scorn for you or any other cop I've never encountered. I reserve the right, however, to reserve my trust only to those (of any profession or background) who have earned it through personal interaction. The very fact that I have very little (as close to none as I can possibly make it) personal interaction with cops only serves to suggest that I'm either a criminal genius and never get caught in my criminal endeavors, or that I am a consistent and committed law abiding citizen, and if the latter is true (which it is), any cop who would care that I have no wish to interact with them would only prove that my distrust is warranted, because they wouldn't be protecting my rights to pick my friends and associations as I see fit.

Blues

 

[Lakeland Man]

There is a lot of acrimony flowing in both directions between cops and the general public. You reap what you sow. In many cases, both sides are wrong.

 

[BluesStringer]

There is a lot of acrimony flowing in both directions between cops and the general public. You reap what you sow. In many cases, both sides are wrong.

Let me ask your honest opinion about something then. I am a pro, original-intent constitutionalist. I (and everybody like me) am referred to by Deserteagle on a nearly daily basis as being "anti-government." How can one be pro-the-document-that-legitimizes-government and anti-government at the same time (a rhetorical question that is answered simply by asking it)? Is his attitude towards citizens who revere the Constitution not reaping for himself and all of his co-workers what he sows with tripe like that? Is it not contemptuous of citizens who support cops only to the extent that they support the Constitution? And is not the prudent and proper response to that crap to be distrusting (at least) of those who spew it?

You seem like a heck of a nice guy LM. You write as a very conscientious and caring individual, but when it comes to refraining from criticizing cops, your reticence speaks as loudly against that premise as your written words speak for it. I'm not asking for special treatment. If you don't like or agree with what I say, that's fine. Just call crap from the cops and cop-groupies crap when they say it and your silence wouldn't control what anyone thinks of you, your actual words will. Or don't. Up to you.

Blues

 

[whodat2710]

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.

And by that statement, you are agreeing with him. His point is that since any cop "could" be bad, we must mentally prepare for that just like we prepare for anything else that is a possibility (no matter how small).
-
That said I do not immediately jump to the conclusion that a cop is bad, just the same as I do not assume that the random stranger intends me harm. I am polite and respectful in both instances, but need to be prepared for any eventuality. It's the basis of situational awareness. If you let your guard down (mentally or physically) because you become complacent with any situation, you invite trouble.

 

[whodat2710]

@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... 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.

I understand, and can almost agree with you. While I completely agree with you regarding excessive legislation, If I was the top LEO going to a meeting to discuss gun issues I might take a few minutes to brush up on (and understand) those.

 

[whodat2710]

There is a lot of acrimony flowing in both directions between cops and the general public. You reap what you sow. In many cases, both sides are wrong.

Are you saying that because cops deal with a large percentage of dirtbags, they are justified in assuming we all are? In the sentence above, "You (the general public) reap what you sow" really means that you think "I" should reap what others have sown. LEO should not have that kind of lattitude. Innocent until proven guilty, but dirtbag until proven otherwise?
-
You have mentioned that these LEO took an oath. You must remember that our elected officials did as well, though some take it seriously and some don't.

 

[NavyLCDR]

And by that statement, you are agreeing with him. His point is that since any cop "could" be bad, we must mentally prepare for that just like we prepare for anything else that is a possibility (no matter how small).
-
That said I do not immediately jump to the conclusion that a cop is bad, just the same as I do not assume that the random stranger intends me harm. I am polite and respectful in both instances, but need to be prepared for any eventuality. It's the basis of situational awareness. If you let your guard down (mentally or physically) because you become complacent with any situation, you invite trouble.

And one consideration unique to dealing with police officers when they approach you to "investigate" something is this: by the time you discover that the police officer you are interacting with is "bad", you have likely already relinquished several of your rights that you could use in your defense should you end up in court. For example:

Police officer, "Hi! Can I talk to you for a few minutes?"
You, "Sure, officer."
Police officer, "We got a call that someone is scared because you are carrying a gun so we need to sort this out."
You, "No problem, officer, what do you need?"
Police officer, "Well, if I could see some ID, that would be a good start."
You, "Sure, I have nothing to hide, here is my driver's license."
Police officer, "OK, your name came back clean, but I am going to have to issue you a citation because you scared someone by carrying your gun, sign here, please. The fine is $400 or you can appear in court in two weeks."

You just consented to having a voluntary encounter with that police officer and gave up your very first defense in court: were you being legally detained? There is no illegal detention if you voluntarily stay of your own free will. Just like there are no illegal searches if you give your consent. Now it is up to you to prove that a reasonable person would feel like they had no choice but to interact with the officer and that is why you "consented" to the encounter. The mere act of walking up to you and asking to speak to you or even asking for your ID is not a detainment.

Police officer, "Hi! Can I talk to you for a few minutes?"
You, "Sure, officer."
Police officer, "We got a call that someone is scared because you are carrying a gun so we need to sort this out."
You, "Are you detaining me, officer?"
Police officer, "I have to investigate the 911 call."
You, "Am I free to leave, officer, I do not consent to this investigation."
Police officer, "No, you are not free to leave, I have to investigate the 911 call."

Now, your first defense in court will be to cause the officer to prove they had reasonable suspicion under which to lawfully detain you because you specifically expressed that you were not consenting to the encounter. If the 911 call contained no other information other than a description of a person engaged in a legal activity, and the officer saw nothing contrary to a person engaged in a legal activity, then there is no basis to legally detain you, for example, to check your identity and verify you were not a person prohibited from carrying a gun. If you can get the initial detention thrown out as having no reasonable suspicion to base it on, all charges after that arising from that detention must be nullified as well.

 

[Bikenut]

There is a lot of acrimony flowing in both directions between cops and the general public. You reap what you sow. In many cases, both sides are wrong.

And we are right back to that higher standard of accountability for those who have the awesome power of authority... because...

When a cop is wrong about a law the least that happens is the general public hears misinformation... but the worst that can happen is an individual member of that general public gets wrongly arrested and, at the very least, incurs legal bills but the end result might be the loss of a job and/or a loss of reputation.....and while that individual can sue for wrongful arrest it isn't the cop who suffers the legal bills, the job loss, and the loss of reputation. And even if that lawsuit restores the amount of money spent (unlikely) it will not bring back the reputation or the job that was lost.

And it is a cop who doesn't know the law or doesn't take the time to find out about the law that has the power to cause an individual to suffer all those things I mentioned above.

 

[Lakeland Man]

Do those two scenarios have to be the only choices?

The best way I can describe my position is this...I don't automatically assume that every cop I interact with is bad. I give them the benefit of the doubt. But I also prepare myself for the possibility that they might be bad. The same holds true for the general public. I don't automatically assume that someone I meet is going to try to do me harm but I am prepared for it. And I treat them in the same way I would like to be treated.

As for my statement that you reap what you sow, I meant "you" in the metaphorical sense. "You" is both sides of the badge. The public distrusts the cops so they tend to treat them so. The cops distrust the public so everyone becomes a suspect. Unfortunately that's the nature of the beast, and I don't see any solution to that.

Blues, thank you for your kind words. I do try to be aware of feelings on both sides when I post. I choose my words carefully. I have often thought that I would have made a good diplomat but I have too many skeletons rattling around in my closet. LOL. I won't comment on your disagreements with other posters except to say that I agree with everyone here at one time or another and that I think everyone here is an idiot at one time or another. I'm sure you all feel the same way about me too. I tend not to be extreme to either end in my views on most subjects (but not all).

 

[Bikenut]

Do those two scenarios have to be the only choices?

The best way I can describe my position is this...I don't automatically assume that every cop I interact with is bad. I give them the benefit of the doubt. But I also prepare myself for the possibility that they might be bad. The same holds true for the general public. I don't automatically assume that someone I meet is going to try to do me harm but I am prepared for it. And I treat them in the same way I would like to be treated.

As for my statement that you reap what you sow, I meant "you" in the metaphorical sense. "You" is both sides of the badge. The public distrusts the cops so they tend to treat them so. The cops distrust the public so everyone becomes a suspect. Unfortunately that's the nature of the beast, and I don't see any solution to that.

Blues, thank you for your kind words. I do try to be aware of feelings on both sides when I post. I choose my words carefully. I have often thought that I would have made a good diplomat but I have too many skeletons rattling around in my closet. LOL. I won't comment on your disagreements with other posters except to say that I agree with everyone here at one time or another and that I think everyone here is an idiot at one time or another. I'm sure you all feel the same way about me too. I tend not to be extreme to either end in my views on most subjects (but not all).

Actually the two examples I gave are merely shades of the same scenario...

Cop doesn't know the law and people suffer the consequences. Some consequences are mild like hearing misinformation yet some consequences are harsh... like being arrested. But it still ends up being people suffering the consequences when a cop doesn't know the law yet acts (speaking is "acting") on that law.

 

[BluesStringer]

This same "hater vs. prudently cautious" conversation comes up pretty often around here. I recalled that I had explained my position(s) best one time not too long ago when I recounted the events of an incident that I was a secondary participant in, so I'm going to re-post it here to try to make myself understood better. While Lakeland Man's participation in this discussion we've been having is what inspires me to repeat myself this way, this is not directed at him personally and is not in reply to anything he's said. It just seems to fit, so there ya go.....

I've met as many good cops as I have met sh!tty ones, FWIW.

I'll be honest - I haven't "met" all that many cops. Since about 1994 or so, that has been on purpose. We owned a little coffee shop on the main drag of a small town. When we first opened, we had several folks recommend that we offer discounts or free stuff to cops and firefighters. I had no objection to it, so we offered free small coffees to 'em, and free refills in our logo mugs after they bought one (which was a large size). This one cop started coming in every day and eventually we became pretty friendly. He and his wife both rode their own Harleys, as did me and my wife, so we started going on rides together and generally socializing away from our respective jobs. That went on for at least two years, maybe three.

One day I'm standing at the espresso machine making a drink when I see a car pull into my parking lot with a cop car with its lights flashing pulling in right behind him. I see the driver get out and start pointing in his car while yelling something towards the cop car. As he's doing that, I see my friend get out of the squad car. I finished up the drink, took my customer's money, and then went outside to see what was up. The driver was yelling, "Dude! She's having a baby RIGHT NOW! I gotta get to the hospital!" My friend was writing a ticket and ignoring the driver, so the driver finally said F You! and started getting back in his car. My friend calmly put his ticket book down on the trunk of the guy's car, walked to the driver's door, opened it, dragged the guy out, SLAMMED him on the hood and started whining about being told "F You" as he emphasized every couple of words with another slam of the guy's head on the hood.

After it was all over, my now ex-friend had to let the guy go on his way after I called 911 and got his supervisor down there. The dad-to-be was missing two front teeth, both of which I found after everyone left my parking lot. He was bleeding profusely out of his mouth as he drove his wife(?) or girlfriend to the hospital to deliver a baby. Never heard how that went. Never saw the guy again, even though I had told him that I would be a witness for him if he ever needed one. I don't know if my ex-friend was simply embarrassed from losing his cool in front of me, or if he was pissed because he heard me offer to be a witness, but he never came back for coffee anymore, and to tell you the truth, I was glad. The dude was dangerous. I didn't want him in my store anymore.

There's no big, profound moral to the story here. The best moral I can offer is simply, "You just never know." So I keep my distance from cops in every way I have control over. I haven't actually met and conversed with a cop since that day, and have no desire to. There are an awful lot of folks out there just like me, who have either witnessed brutality dispensed illegally under the color of authority, or they just see the same stuff we all see on YouTube and other outlets and feel fearful and distrusting of cops on that basis alone. Fair or not, there is a brutal image that cops have at least participated in fomenting, if not been wholly responsible for. They are the only ones who can change it. The best any of us can do is survive an encounter with them while being unjustifiably subservient and deferential to them just so we won't piss them off and get our heads smashed against our car hoods for no good reason.

Blues