We have kind of touched on this issue but I don't think directly tackled the issue of police "random" check points asking people for their ID's.
I've been watching some of those youtube videos where people are filming the police acting quite badly when U.S. citizens refuse to present their ID when asked. It does raise a few questions:
1) As US citizens we are not required to provide ID unless the police have a "reasonable" suspicion(not sure of terms are right).
2) Police can lie to people to manipulate them. I.E.
Police officer... can I see your ID.
Citezen..Do I have to show you?
Officer.... yes you do........(Lie)
Citizen......what have I done?
Officer.......It doesn't matter let me see your ID Citizen....I'm pretty sure I need to be suspected of commiting a crime
etc..etc..
some of the videos show how vindictive police officers can get when US citizens express their constitutional rights, and also they hate it when they are being filmed.
Here is a video of a guy beaten and tased for no reason. He went to trial and was found not guilty..not sure if he is sueing or not.
another incident of police over reaction..
I don't know the laws on this issue that's why I am posting these here..because I am very disturbed by the seeming lack of respect for US citizens rights.
In some states you do have a duty to present your identification to a LEO if asked. I couldn't tell you which off the top of my head but it is state dependent.
Green card and Visa holders are required by federal law to have their visa/green card/etc on them at all times and to present them when asked by a LEO/Immigration agent/etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Okay dug some info up:
Five states’ laws (Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, and Ohio) explicitly impose an obligation to provide identifying information.
Fourteen states grant police authority to ask questions, with varying wording, but do not explicitly impose an obligation to respond:
In Montana, police “may request” identifying information;
In 12 states (Alabama, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Wisconsin), police “may demand” identifying information;
In Colorado, police “may require” identifying information of a person.
Identifying information varies, but typically includes
Name, address, and an explanation of the person’s actions;
In some cases it also includes the person’s intended destination, the person’s date of birth (Indiana and Ohio), or written identification if available (Colorado).
Arizona’s law, apparently written specifically to codify the holding in Hiibel, requires a person’s “true full name”.
Nevada’s law, which requires a person to “identify himself or herself”, apparently requires only that the person state his or her name.
In five states (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island), failure to identify oneself is one factor to be considered in a decision to arrest. In all but Rhode Island, the consideration arises in the context of loitering or prowling.
Seven states (Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio, and Vermont) explicitly impose a criminal penalty for noncompliance with the obligation to identify oneself.
Virginia makes it a nonjailable misdemeanor to refuse to identify oneself to a conservator of the peace when one is at the scene of a breach of the peace witnessed by that conservator.
So from most of this it is in fact criminal to refuse to identify yourself to a police officer to some extent or another, I'm not sure how it works for Border Patrol and the like but I assume it's no different then a mandatory traffic stop for drinking and driving. You pull up to one of those and you can't refuse to breath in the tube or step out of the car and do a little dance or whatever.
This is related to the AZ laws, though. Civil Libertarians should be all up in arms about both.
There are some guys up here in NH who occasionally annoy the local constabulary (not trying to be dicks, but making a point about our rights) by doing things like refusing to show ID, and/or open-carrying their handguns in public.
Obedience can of ingrain in me. If a LEO ask me for ID I comply. Of course I hand my military ID over unless I'm driving then its my driver license. I don't have a problem with it since I'm so use to using my Mil ID card for about everything in the military. Like signing for equipment, pay, or what not.
Jihadin wrote: Obedience can of ingrain in me. If a LEO ask me for ID I comply. Of course I hand my military ID over unless I'm driving then its my driver license. I don't have a problem with it since I'm so use to using my Mil ID card for about everything in the military. Like signing for equipment, pay, or what not.
Remember kids, if you have nothing to hide, why would you object to a search?
Mannahnin wrote: This is related to the AZ laws, though. Civil Libertarians should be all up in arms about both.
There are some guys up here in NH who occasionally annoy the local constabulary (not trying to be dicks, but making a point about our rights) by doing things like refusing to show ID, and/or open-carrying their handguns in public.
The latter is definitely a cultural thing. When I open carry here in CO I get some freaked out looks and will occasionally have an officer stop and talk to me. When I open carried in AZ, the only time any one would say anything would be some old time commenting on the fact that I was carrying a chief's special.
To be honest, most of the problems I've seen (and I never encountered any myself as a LEO) result not from officers getting pissed off that someone is exercising their right to not be identified, but officers getting pissed off at donkey-caves acting like donkey-caves to prove a point. To paraphrase many of the incidents I've seen:
"Can I see some ID?"
"I DON'T HAVE TO SHOW YOU JACK, YOU STUPID PIG! NEENER NEENER, CAN'T TOUCH ME, I KNOW MY RIGHTS!"
If you are stopped for any sort of infraction, yes you need to show ID. That would fall under reasonable suspicion.
If you havn't done anything, the police cannot stop you just to check you have ID on you. Except for foriegn nationals, who are required to have their papers and identification on their person at all times.
Drivers Licences are forms of ID, and you are required to have it with you while operating a vehicle. Driving is a priviledge and you must be able to proove you have the license to do it at all times. So all drivers should have their drivers license at the very least, so you can't say its unreasonable to assume that people operating a vehicle have their license(since it is the law)
Another bit of a loophole for ID laws is that a State can issue driver's licenses that remain state property. The idea being that since you are holding State property, they can ask for it at any time.
It's the same reason that while flag burning is constitutional, burning your draft card is not.
Still, giving your name and other info is the limit. Most of the time, cops are simply looking for somebody missing, or a witness, not a suspect.
Give your name, but don't give permission to search anything. You can always offer to look for what they want, rather than have them search. anything they find in a consensual search can be used against you.
Grey Templar wrote: If you are stopped for any sort of infraction, yes you need to show ID. That would fall under reasonable suspicion.
If you havn't done anything, the police cannot stop you just to check you have ID on you. Except for foriegn nationals, who are required to have their papers and identification on their person at all times.
Drivers Licences are forms of ID, and you are required to have it with you while operating a vehicle. Driving is a priviledge and you must be able to proove you have the license to do it at all times. So all drivers should have their drivers license at the very least, so you can't say its unreasonable to assume that people operating a vehicle have their license(since it is the law)
Driving isn't a privilege. Use of roads isn't even a privilege, since you can walk on them without a licence. The question is where and when does law enforcement have the right to perform a stop, search, or seizure, they don't have that right purely because you are using a vehicle, nor do they have it simply because you are on a road. There has to be cause.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: Another bit of a loophole for ID laws is that a State can issue driver's licenses that remain state property. The idea being that since you are holding State property, they can ask for it at any time.
It depends on the state you live in, whether it has a "stop and identify" law, and how it's worded.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: Give your name, but don't give permission to search anything. You can always offer to look for what they want, rather than have them search. anything they find in a consensual search can be used against you.
Grey Templar wrote: If you are stopped for any sort of infraction, yes you need to show ID. That would fall under reasonable suspicion.
If you havn't done anything, the police cannot stop you just to check you have ID on you. Except for foriegn nationals, who are required to have their papers and identification on their person at all times.
Drivers Licences are forms of ID, and you are required to have it with you while operating a vehicle. Driving is a priviledge and you must be able to proove you have the license to do it at all times. So all drivers should have their drivers license at the very least, so you can't say its unreasonable to assume that people operating a vehicle have their license(since it is the law)
Driving isn't a privilege. Use of roads isn't even a privilege, since you can walk on them without a licence. The question is where and when does law enforcement have the right to perform a stop, search, or seizure, they don't have that right purely because you are using a vehicle, nor do they have it simply because you are on a road. There has to be cause.
What is driving if not a priviledge?
It certaintly isn't a right, nor is it a necessity(dependent on your exact circumstances)
its a privilege the government can revoke if you violate the standards. Everyone exercising it must be able to display proof of their permission to do it.
The cops do actually have the right to stop you if you are suspected of being in violation of the law. Operating a moter vehicle without a license is a violation of the law.
Naturally there is no way of telling if someone has a license or not simply be seeing them drive by. But if something else happens that warrents a stop they can and will ask for your license. But it is technically legal for them to stop you simply to ask for a drivers license.
Something I can do on my own property when and how I want. The state doesn't give it's citizens the privilege of acting, the citizens give the state the authority to restrict acts based on the rule of law. What you describe is tyranny because power is derived from the top down in your example.
It certaintly isn't a right, nor is it a necessity(dependent on your exact circumstances)
Legal is the default status of an act unless otherwise specified by law. Things aren't "made legal", they are "made illegal".
The cops do actually have the right to stop you if you are suspected of being in violation of the law. Operating a moter vehicle without a license is a violation of the law.
In which case they need cause to suspect. The default state of observation is neutrality.
Naturally there is no way of telling if someone has a license or not simply be seeing them drive by. But if something else happens that warrents a stop they can and will ask for your license. But it is technically legal for them to stop you simply to ask for a drivers license.
No, it's not. They need cause to suspect that you've broken a law, otherwise it's an illegal search. Can they post facto make up something that they suspected in order to justify what would otherwise have been an abuse of their authority? Sure. But it isn't lawful for them to stop you simply because they've got nothing better to do.
Something I can do on my own property when and how I want. The state doesn't give it's citizens the privilege of acting, the citizens give the state the authority to restrict acts based on the rule of law. What you describe is tyranny because power is derived from the top down in your example.
There are no restrictions on operating vehicles on your own property. You don't need a license to do that. You do need a license to drive on public roads.
Licenses are State Property. The State may demand their property of you at any time.
Heck, credit and debit cards are not your property. They remain the property of the institution that issued them.
ShumaGorath wrote: The question is where and when does law enforcement have the right to perform a stop, search, or seizure, they don't have that right purely because you are using a vehicle, nor do they have it simply because you are on a road. There has to be cause.
In Australia police have the right to randomly stop any vehicle on the road and demand your licence and check the road worthiness of your vehicle. No cause required. I think this is vastly superior to the US system of needing a justification.
ShumaGorath wrote: The question is where and when does law enforcement have the right to perform a stop, search, or seizure, they don't have that right purely because you are using a vehicle, nor do they have it simply because you are on a road. There has to be cause.
In Australia police have the right to randomly stop any vehicle on the road and demand your licence and check the road worthiness of your vehicle. No cause required. I think this is vastly superior to the US system of needing a justification.
ShumaGorath wrote: The question is where and when does law enforcement have the right to perform a stop, search, or seizure, they don't have that right purely because you are using a vehicle, nor do they have it simply because you are on a road. There has to be cause.
In Australia police have the right to randomly stop any vehicle on the road and demand your licence and check the road worthiness of your vehicle. No cause required. I think this is vastly superior to the US system of needing a justification.
nomotog wrote: The cops have never asked for my ID, except for that one time I got a ticket.
I would be quite irate if they asked for the sake of asking. I don't even carry ID a lot of the time.
Really? I find that extremely odd myself. My driver's license, security officer's license and CCW are always on my person unless I'm working out or swimming or something. I can't think of a good reason no to have them
I was asked by some sort of special 'official', not related to the airline I was using, at an airport in Canada recently for my boarding pass and my itinerary after I had already passed through security....just like the old CCCP.
nomotog wrote: The cops have never asked for my ID, except for that one time I got a ticket.
I would be quite irate if they asked for the sake of asking. I don't even carry ID a lot of the time.
Really? I find that extremely odd myself. My driver's license, security officer's license and CCW are always on my person unless I'm working out or swimming or something. I can't think of a good reason no to have them
Unless I'm driving (or voting ), I can't think of a reason to have my license. That's really all it's good for.
I dunno, I guess I just don't get up in arms about certain things that other people do. Like, I don't want the government knowing everything I type on the internet, even though they probably do. I just don't see an issue with showing my ID to some random cop. If they aren't arresting me, who cares, and if they are arresting me, they are going to get my ID anyways.
Drivers Licences are forms of ID, and you are required to have it with you while operating a vehicle.
Not really, it just expedites the process if you get stopped. You must be licensed by the state in order to drive without interference, but not having the physical license on your person is not illegal.
nomotog wrote: The cops have never asked for my ID, except for that one time I got a ticket.
I would be quite irate if they asked for the sake of asking. I don't even carry ID a lot of the time.
Really? I find that extremely odd myself. My driver's license, security officer's license and CCW are always on my person unless I'm working out or swimming or something. I can't think of a good reason no to have them
Unless I'm driving (or voting ), I can't think of a reason to have my license. That's really all it's good for.
nomotog wrote: The cops have never asked for my ID, except for that one time I got a ticket.
I would be quite irate if they asked for the sake of asking. I don't even carry ID a lot of the time.
Really? I find that extremely odd myself. My driver's license, security officer's license and CCW are always on my person unless I'm working out or swimming or something. I can't think of a good reason no to have them
Unless I'm driving (or voting ), I can't think of a reason to have my license. That's really all it's good for.
How about body identification in case of an accident, or medical emergency?
That seems like a great reason to carry ID at all times.
I think the point that is being made by the activists is that Police cannot just stop you for no good reason. Stopping people just to check if someone is a US citizen is unreasonable..I.E the person did nothing wrong. In most states a LEO has to have a reasonable suspicion that you have done something wrong, in order to detain a person. If you aren't being detained they cannot constitutionally require your ID. (I'm speaking generally as some states laws may be different as has been pointed out)
I know that there are some states where this isn't the case, but that doesn't mean that it is constitutional.
I guess my biggest problem is how the LEO react when citizens just don't comply to a LEO's request to give up their constitutional rights.
In video after video on youtube you can see how angry and vindictive they get when their attempt to abuse power is disputed..and thank God for phone cams..hopefully enough of these incidents will happen that LEO will get the message they can't abuse their authority whenever they want.
The more of those videos I see the more I distrust LEO and I see how minorities are picked out and harrased and I understand their outrage more and more.
generalgrog wrote: We have kind of touched on this issue but I don't think directly tackled the issue of police "random" check points asking people for their ID's.
I've been watching some of those youtube videos where people are filming the police acting quite badly when U.S. citizens refuse to present their ID when asked. It does raise a few questions:
1) As US citizens we are not required to provide ID unless the police have a "reasonable" suspicion(not sure of terms are right).
2) Police can lie to people to manipulate them. I.E.
Police officer... can I see your ID.
Citezen..Do I have to show you?
Officer.... yes you do........(Lie)
Citizen......what have I done?
Officer.......It doesn't matter let me see your ID Citizen....I'm pretty sure I need to be suspected of commiting a crime
etc..etc..
some of the videos show how vindictive police officers can get when US citizens express their constitutional rights, and also they hate it when they are being filmed.
Here is a video of a guy beaten and tased for no reason. He went to trial and was found not guilty..not sure if he is sueing or not.
another incident of police over reaction..
I don't know the laws on this issue that's why I am posting these here..because I am very disturbed by the seeming lack of respect for US citizens rights.
GG
You proceed from the assumption you don't have to show ID.
generalgrog wrote: In video after video on youtube you can see how angry and vindictive they get when their attempt to abuse power is disputed..and thank God for phone cams..hopefully enough of these incidents will happen that LEO will get the message they can't abuse their authority whenever they want.
The more of those videos I see the more I distrust LEO and I see how minorities are picked out and harrased and I understand their outrage more and more.
It almost makes me want to get a Law Degree.
GG
See, I see these videos from the other side of the fence. Generally it's the person making the video getting all up in the cops face and generally making a prick of themselves to prove a point. Surprise surprise, this causes the situation to deteriorate.
Jihadin wrote: SCOTUS already upheld that AZ police can check for an individual statusin the US........
After exhausting virtually every other option. It's not like the cops can pull you over for driving while brown and demand proof of citizenship. By the time they are allowed to ask for proof, or "show me your papers" as the have coined it here. The answer is pretty obvious.
generalgrog wrote: In video after video on youtube you can see how angry and vindictive they get when their attempt to abuse power is disputed..and thank God for phone cams..hopefully enough of these incidents will happen that LEO will get the message they can't abuse their authority whenever they want.
The more of those videos I see the more I distrust LEO and I see how minorities are picked out and harrased and I understand their outrage more and more.
It almost makes me want to get a Law Degree.
GG
See, I see these videos from the other side of the fence. Generally it's the person making the video getting all up in the cops face and generally making a prick of themselves to prove a point. Surprise surprise, this causes the situation to deteriorate.
Exactly. Once again, people with agendas being pricks to Officer Joe Shmo. In the shooting realm we have RKBA activists. These guys will go around open carrying and making a scene in the strange belief this will help the cause of the Second Amendment. Someone beat them with a stick.
"Sir you were doing ten over the limit. I need to see ID and insurance." "JACKBOOTED THUG! NAZI! NAZI JACKBOOTED THUG!" "I hate this job."
Jihadin wrote: SCOTUS already upheld that AZ police can check for an individual statusin the US........
After exhausting virtually every other option. It's not like the cops can pull you over for driving while brown and demand proof of citizenship. By the time they are allowed to ask for proof, or "show me your papers" as the have coined it here. The answer is pretty obvious.
Which is what the law (SB1070) stated in the first place.
Kilkrazy wrote: As I understand it, the US, UK and Japan are fairly unusual in that there are no ID papers that citizens are required to carry and produce on demand.
Are US drivers required to carry their licence with them?
When driving yes.
Note: you are required to get your correct name in the US.
Polonius wrote: Remember kids, if you have nothing to hide, why would you object to a search?
Exactly how I feel about it. If a cop asked me for ID, I'd gladly give it to him. In my experience, if you mind your manners and don't act like a donkey-cave, cops are easier on you.
nomotog wrote: The cops have never asked for my ID, except for that one time I got a ticket.
I would be quite irate if they asked for the sake of asking. I don't even carry ID a lot of the time.
Really? I find that extremely odd myself. My driver's license, security officer's license and CCW are always on my person unless I'm working out or swimming or something. I can't think of a good reason no to have them
Unless I'm driving (or voting ), I can't think of a reason to have my license. That's really all it's good for.
But, you don't just keep it in your wallet?
I do, but my ID is the most important thing in my wallet. If I don't need that, I don't need anything else in my wallet.
Polonius wrote: Remember kids, if you have nothing to hide, why would you object to a search?
Exactly how I feel about it. If a cop asked me for ID, I'd gladly give it to him. In my experience, if you mind your manners and don't act like a donkey-cave, cops are easier on you.
Actual random searches though? "Hi mind if we look through your car or house just for funsies?" I think what you need to have is a due sense of proportion. A cop wanting to know who you are isn't exactly concerning. A cop wanting to go through your stuff without a search warrant should be concerning.
Anyone know how it changes state to state with a pistol permit? I carry in Colorado, so I have a duty to inform officers that I'm armed, present a state photo I.D. (Driver's License usually) and my CCW in the manner least likely to make a rookie nervous if I'm stopped on foot or in a vehicle.
Anyone know how it changes state to state with a pistol permit? I carry in Colorado, so I have a duty to inform officers that I'm armed, present a state photo I.D. (Driver's License usually) and my CCW in the manner least likely to make a rookie nervous if I'm stopped on foot or in a vehicle.
Drivers Licences are forms of ID, and you are required to have it with you while operating a vehicle.
Not really, it just expedites the process if you get stopped. You must be licensed by the state in order to drive without interference, but not having the physical license on your person is not illegal.
At least not in Illinois or Minnesota.
Depends on the state. In Texas driving without your license is a minor infraction. However it will also lead to the police being suspicious and being able to do lots of other things. Plus it helps Dogma the mild mannered Dakkaite from being misidentified as Dogma the raving serial killer they have a warrant out for.
Polonius wrote: Remember kids, if you have nothing to hide, why would you object to a search?
Exactly how I feel about it. If a cop asked me for ID, I'd gladly give it to him. In my experience, if you mind your manners and don't act like a donkey-cave, cops are easier on you.
I'm not an donkey-cave about it but a cop has to articulate to me a good reason why I should do anything more than tell him/her my name. It's best in a free society to be kind, be polite, and never speak to the police.
Polonius wrote: Remember kids, if you have nothing to hide, why would you object to a search?
Exactly how I feel about it. If a cop asked me for ID, I'd gladly give it to him. In my experience, if you mind your manners and don't act like a donkey-cave, cops are easier on you.
Actual random searches though? "Hi mind if we look through your car or house just for funsies?" I think what you need to have is a due sense of proportion. A cop wanting to know who you are isn't exactly concerning. A cop wanting to go through your stuff without a search warrant should be concerning.
Anyone know how it changes state to state with a pistol permit? I carry in Colorado, so I have a duty to inform officers that I'm armed, present a state photo I.D. (Driver's License usually) and my CCW in the manner least likely to make a rookie nervous if I'm stopped on foot or in a vehicle.
Indeed, and I don't feel that asking for my identification constitutes a search.
And just for those interested, a Cop looking in the window of your vehicle is not a search. And if he sees something through the window that arouses suspicion(such as drug paraphernalia, open bottles of alcohol, etc...) then he will have grounds to search your vehicle.
Its actually the most common reason people get busted. The Cop pulls them over for sliding through a stop sign, he sees an open container, searches the car, and finds the bale of weed under the back seat.
Polonius wrote: Remember kids, if you have nothing to hide, why would you object to a search?
Exactly how I feel about it. If a cop asked me for ID, I'd gladly give it to him. In my experience, if you mind your manners and don't act like a donkey-cave, cops are easier on you.
I'm not an donkey-cave about it but a cop has to articulate to me a good reason why I should do anything more than tell him/her my name. It's best in a free society to be kind, be polite, and never speak to the police.
if he pulls you over for speeding.
Protip if you think he just said "meow" just go with it. Trust me.
Polonius wrote: Remember kids, if you have nothing to hide, why would you object to a search?
Exactly how I feel about it. If a cop asked me for ID, I'd gladly give it to him. In my experience, if you mind your manners and don't act like a donkey-cave, cops are easier on you.
I'm not an donkey-cave about it but a cop has to articulate to me a good reason why I should do anything more than tell him/her my name. It's best in a free society to be kind, be polite, and never speak to the police.
if he pulls you over for speeding.
Protip if you think he just said "meow" just go with it. Trust me.
Frazz my elderly compatriot I drive a 7000lbs truck with a 4:10 rear. I couldn't speed if I wanted to.
generalgrog wrote: I think the point that is being made by the activists is that Police cannot just stop you for no good reason. Stopping people just to check if someone is a US citizen is unreasonable..I.E the person did nothing wrong. In most states a LEO has to have a reasonable suspicion that you have done something wrong, in order to detain a person.
Is it reasonable to suspect that a brown person driving a car (or being brown) is an illegal immigrant?
I don't think so, but that's the crux of the debate regarding laws akin to the one passed in Arizona.
The more of those videos I see the more I distrust LEO and I see how minorities are picked out and harrased and I understand their outrage more and more.
Never trust anyone, always assume you're being lied to, and make certain you're never in a position where the truth of statement bears on your material state.
generalgrog wrote: I think the point that is being made by the activists is that Police cannot just stop you for no good reason. Stopping people just to check if someone is a US citizen is unreasonable..I.E the person did nothing wrong. In most states a LEO has to have a reasonable suspicion that you have done something wrong, in order to detain a person.
Is it reasonable to suspect that a brown person driving a car (or being brown) is an illegal immigrant?
I don't think so, but that's the crux of the debate regarding laws akin to the one passed in Arizona.
That's kind of a stretch. I mean I think we agree on the basic issue just not how the law works. A year before 1070 was even proposed a friend of mine on PHX PD told me he suspected a guy of being illegal and after less than 2 blocks of following him pulled him over for failure to signal and hooked him up for DUI. This is the same tactic that will be used under 1070 with varying outcomes because its just plain common police tactics with what is now an infamous law overshadowing it. seatbeklt laws bro, they are evil.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: When I open carried in AZ, the only time any one would say anything would be some old time commenting on the fact that I was carrying a chief's special.
Or the random scared Californian who immediately asks if you're a Police Officer, and if you have a permit for your gun when you tell them no, and then doesn't believe you when you tell them you don't need a permit in AZ. I actually had one such person call the police and tell them I was threatening people with my firearm. When the dust settled, apparently she thought she had the right because she felt threatened that I was (lawfully) carrying a firearm openly and wasn't a police officer.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: When I open carried in AZ, the only time any one would say anything would be some old time commenting on the fact that I was carrying a chief's special.
Or the random scared Californian who immediately asks if you're a Police Officer, and if you have a permit for your gun when you tell them no, and then doesn't believe you when you tell them you don't need a permit in AZ. I actually had one such person call the police and tell them I was threatening people with my firearm. When the dust settled, apparently she thought she had the right because she felt threatened that I was (lawfully) carrying a firearm openly and wasn't a police officer.
Californians shouldn't be allowed to leave their home state without passing an IQ test and getting a course on how "reality" works. Course I never had to deal with it because Californians don't stop for anything but gas in Yuma. They just go on their way as quickly as possible.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: When I open carried in AZ, the only time any one would say anything would be some old time commenting on the fact that I was carrying a chief's special.
Or the random scared Californian who immediately asks if you're a Police Officer, and if you have a permit for your gun when you tell them no, and then doesn't believe you when you tell them you don't need a permit in AZ. I actually had one such person call the police and tell them I was threatening people with my firearm. When the dust settled, apparently she thought she had the right because she felt threatened that I was (lawfully) carrying a firearm openly and wasn't a police officer.
Californians shouldn't be allowed to leave their home state without passing an IQ test and getting a course on how "reality" works. Course I never had to deal with it because Californians don't stop for anything but gas in Yuma. They just go on their way as quickly as possible.
I'm not sure anyone from Arizona really gets to use a broad brush to comment on the intelligence of other states. You're towards the end of the list for HS diplomas, college degrees, and graduate degrees per capita.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: When I open carried in AZ, the only time any one would say anything would be some old time commenting on the fact that I was carrying a chief's special.
Or the random scared Californian who immediately asks if you're a Police Officer, and if you have a permit for your gun when you tell them no, and then doesn't believe you when you tell them you don't need a permit in AZ. I actually had one such person call the police and tell them I was threatening people with my firearm. When the dust settled, apparently she thought she had the right because she felt threatened that I was (lawfully) carrying a firearm openly and wasn't a police officer.
Californians shouldn't be allowed to leave their home state without passing an IQ test and getting a course on how "reality" works. Course I never had to deal with it because Californians don't stop for anything but gas in Yuma. They just go on their way as quickly as possible.
I'm not sure anyone from Arizona really gets to use a broad brush to comment on the intelligence of other states. You're towards the end of the list for HS diplomas, college degrees, and graduate degrees per capita.
I'm not from AZ, just lived there, but at least Arizonans know how turn signals work when changing lanes. A mystery well beyond the average resident of California.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: When I open carried in AZ, the only time any one would say anything would be some old time commenting on the fact that I was carrying a chief's special.
Or the random scared Californian who immediately asks if you're a Police Officer, and if you have a permit for your gun when you tell them no, and then doesn't believe you when you tell them you don't need a permit in AZ. I actually had one such person call the police and tell them I was threatening people with my firearm. When the dust settled, apparently she thought she had the right because she felt threatened that I was (lawfully) carrying a firearm openly and wasn't a police officer.
Californians shouldn't be allowed to leave their home state without passing an IQ test and getting a course on how "reality" works. Course I never had to deal with it because Californians don't stop for anything but gas in Yuma. They just go on their way as quickly as possible.
I'm not sure anyone from Arizona really gets to use a broad brush to comment on the intelligence of other states. You're towards the end of the list for HS diplomas, college degrees, and graduate degrees per capita.
I'm not from AZ, just lived there, but at least Arizonans know how turn signals work when changing lanes. A mystery well beyond the average resident of California.
If that's the metric Maine is the stupidest land on Earth.
AustonT wrote: I'd really be more interested in why you can't fit a snubbie in your pocket
It's not the snub nose, 2 1/2 inch barrel for one and two if I'm carrying defensively I don't want to be fething around in my pocket when I could have a clean straight draw instead.
Also at the time I could only open carry as this was before permitless CCW came to AZ.
generalgrog wrote: In video after video on youtube you can see how angry and vindictive they get when their attempt to abuse power is disputed..and thank God for phone cams..hopefully enough of these incidents will happen that LEO will get the message they can't abuse their authority whenever they want.
The more of those videos I see the more I distrust LEO and I see how minorities are picked out and harrased and I understand their outrage more and more.
It almost makes me want to get a Law Degree.
GG
See, I see these videos from the other side of the fence. Generally it's the person making the video getting all up in the cops face and generally making a prick of themselves to prove a point. Surprise surprise, this causes the situation to deteriorate.
Exactly. Once again, people with agendas being pricks to Officer Joe Shmo.
In the shooting realm we have RKBA activists. These guys will go around open carrying and making a scene in the strange belief this will help the cause of the Second Amendment. Someone beat them with a stick.
"Sir you were doing ten over the limit. I need to see ID and insurance."
"JACKBOOTED THUG! NAZI! NAZI JACKBOOTED THUG!"
"I hate this job."
This also makes it harder when real abuses occur.
So I guess we are supposed to be happy when a police officer violates our Civil Liberties?
generalgrog wrote: I think the point that is being made by the activists is that Police cannot just stop you for no good reason. Stopping people just to check if someone is a US citizen is unreasonable..I.E the person did nothing wrong. In most states a LEO has to have a reasonable suspicion that you have done something wrong, in order to detain a person.
Is it reasonable to suspect that a brown person driving a car (or being brown) is an illegal immigrant?
I don't think so, but that's the crux of the debate regarding laws akin to the one passed in Arizona.
The more of those videos I see the more I distrust LEO and I see how minorities are picked out and harrased and I understand their outrage more and more.
Never trust anyone, always assume you're being lied to, and make certain you're never in a position where the truth of statement bears on your material state.
I don't often agree with dogma, but when I do.....
This is exactly my point, and the point of the activists. Also "if you have nothing to hide you wouldn't mind handing over your ID" is a bogus argument because it misses the point. I don't think polonius was being serious when he posted that statement.
How would you like being pulled over for "unsafe lane change" Then you present your ID and get a ticket for "unsafe lane change"...show up to court and the police officer doesn't show up. Nevermind that you had to waste a 1/2 day off of work to go to court. Oh by the way the person in the above sentence had brown skin. Maybe they were pulled over because of profiling and not for "unsafe lane change" after all.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here is another example and article about the issue. Watch how the police officer gets irate and downright abusive when the videographer exercises his legal right to refuse to show ID.
here is the main issue presented in the article.
However, several states have “stop and identify” statutes that require people to produce identifications if they are being legally detained. And police can only legally detain you if they have a reasonable suspicion you have committed or are about to commit a crime.
Horse gak. If you're driving, you have the legal obligation to show your ID and insurance in many states. There is no rights violation. What part of that do you not get?
Frazzled wrote: Horse gak. If you're driving, you have the legal obligation to show your ID and insurance in many states. There is no rights violation. What part of that do you not get?
The part about someone unconstitutionally detaining a person just because of their skin color. That's what I don't get.
Frazzled wrote: It has to be a legal stop. you're conflating a great many things.
A legal stop sure.
I agree they are two different things. Making up a reason to pull someone, with brown skin, over, like "unsafe lane change" is different than unconstitutionally detaining someone at a "check point". It's a different way to accomplish the same thing.
I don't often agree with dogma, but when I do.....
This is exactly my point, and the point of the activists. Also "if you have nothing to hide you wouldn't mind handing over your ID" is a bogus argument because it misses the point. I don't think polonius was being serious when he posted that statement.
How would you like being pulled over for "unsafe lane change" Then you present your ID and get a ticket for "unsafe lane change"...show up to court and the police officer doesn't show up. Nevermind that you had to waste a 1/2 day off of work to go to court. Oh by the way the person in the above sentence had brown skin. Maybe they were pulled over because of profiling and not for "unsafe lane change" after all.
I think you missed the point I was trying to make. Profiling not only happens, but it is inevitable that it will happen. The very doctrine of "reasonable suspicion" effectively underlines that notion. What 1070 does is require people to carry identification, and also some weird thing about soliciting employment from a vehicle. What it does not do is enable police officers to claim reasonable suspicion by way of race.
Whether or not race is an acceptable component of reasonable suspicion is at the crux of the debate regarding the law, because the debate regarding any law pertaining to illegal immigration is always going to hinge on race, but the law itself has no bearing on that.
That's kind of a stretch. I mean I think we agree on the basic issue just not how the law works. A year before 1070 was even proposed a friend of mine on PHX PD told me he suspected a guy of being illegal and after less than 2 blocks of following him pulled him over for failure to signal and hooked him up for DUI. This is the same tactic that will be used under 1070 with varying outcomes because its just plain common police tactics with what is now an infamous law overshadowing it. seatbeklt laws bro, they are evil.
We have the same basic opinion, I just didn't convey my understanding of the law very well.
LoL...this thread kills me....having been a LEO since 1997 I can tell you this, its all how you write it up. Traffic, standing, camera or no camera you can justify any stop if you are intelligent and really want to. In the case of the one video, look at all those Texas Rangers in one area. WHo is to say the camera man was not involved in the original incident and is now taping the LEO response to an emergency situation. This could be intel gathering for a future critical incident plan. It could then be investigated and DETAINED for concerns under Homeland Security. Once detained you DO have to present your ID, and if you refuse, no problem....the jail has a finger print machine. How much is YOUR time worth? I'm getting paid and even get over-time to play your game if it goes over. More sexy GW models for me thanks to you being a knucklehead. Most of you have at least 1 vehicle infraction on your car, whether that be tire tread depth or what-have-you, so justifying a taffic stop is no different. Failed to signal a turn, loud stereo, window tint, you get the idea.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: When I open carried in AZ, the only time any one would say anything would be some old time commenting on the fact that I was carrying a chief's special.
Or the random scared Californian who immediately asks if you're a Police Officer, and if you have a permit for your gun when you tell them no, and then doesn't believe you when you tell them you don't need a permit in AZ. I actually had one such person call the police and tell them I was threatening people with my firearm. When the dust settled, apparently she thought she had the right because she felt threatened that I was (lawfully) carrying a firearm openly and wasn't a police officer.
Californians shouldn't be allowed to leave their home state without passing an IQ test and getting a course on how "reality" works. Course I never had to deal with it because Californians don't stop for anything but gas in Yuma. They just go on their way as quickly as possible.
As a Californian, I would feel insulted. But from personal experience I agree with you
quickfuze wrote: LoL...this thread kills me....having been a LEO since 1997 I can tell you this, its all how you write it up. Traffic, standing, camera or no camera you can justify any stop if you are intelligent and really want to. In the case of the one video, look at all those Texas Rangers in one area. WHo is to say the camera man was not involved in the original incident and is now taping the LEO response to an emergency situation. This could be intel gathering for a future critical incident plan. It could then be investigated and DETAINED for concerns under Homeland Security. Once detained you DO have to present your ID, and if you refuse, no problem....the jail has a finger print machine. How much is YOUR time worth? I'm getting paid and even get over-time to play your game if it goes over. More sexy GW models for me thanks to you being a knucklehead. Most of you have at least 1 vehicle infraction on your car, whether that be tire tread depth or what-have-you, so justifying a taffic stop is no different. Failed to signal a turn, loud stereo, window tint, you get the idea.
So your proud that you can abuse the power that law abiding tax payers have given you? Great example.
quickfuze wrote: LoL...this thread kills me....having been a LEO since 1997 I can tell you this, its all how you write it up. Traffic, standing, camera or no camera you can justify any stop if you are intelligent and really want to. In the case of the one video, look at all those Texas Rangers in one area. WHo is to say the camera man was not involved in the original incident and is now taping the LEO response to an emergency situation. This could be intel gathering for a future critical incident plan. It could then be investigated and DETAINED for concerns under Homeland Security. Once detained you DO have to present your ID, and if you refuse, no problem....the jail has a finger print machine. How much is YOUR time worth? I'm getting paid and even get over-time to play your game if it goes over. More sexy GW models for me thanks to you being a knucklehead. Most of you have at least 1 vehicle infraction on your car, whether that be tire tread depth or what-have-you, so justifying a taffic stop is no different. Failed to signal a turn, loud stereo, window tint, you get the idea.
So your proud that you can abuse the power that law abiding tax payers have given you? Great example.
GG
I don't consider it abusing anything.....there is something that aroused my suspicion about you, or I wouldn't be interacting with you. Now if that is because someone wants to use douchebaggery to try and prove their point, well now you're playing my game. It's funny, no one wants to be BOTHERED by the police until something happens to them and then its "why weren't you here faster, why were you patrolling my street every 10 mins". We are an inconvenience until we are not. Again this falls into the ME ME ME ME concept currently plaguing America. Everyone demands to be left alone until its convenient for them to need to interact with the police. Effective policing comes from a PROACTIVE approach not a REACTIVE approach. Law abiding, contributing members of society recognize this and are willing to endure a certain level of inconvenience for the greater security of the whole. Others are just egocentric, and are only concerned with what fits into making their own little world revolve around them.
Again this falls into the ME ME ME ME concept currently plaguing America.
Well, y'know, that and the thousands of annual cases of police abuse of power in the United states.
Yes yes yes... I know in your mind this means that all us PIGS (the man) are the enemy, weed isnt REALLY a drug, and cops should shoot people in the arms or legs instead of "needlessly" harming people. Oh and historically only about 10% of alleged police misconduct cases are determined "founded". ANYONE can allege, but not many are founded.
Again this falls into the ME ME ME ME concept currently plaguing America.
Well, y'know, that and the thousands of annual cases of police abuse of power in the United states.
Yes yes yes... I know in your mind this means that all us PIGS (the man) are the enemy, weed isnt REALLY a drug, and cops should shoot people in the arms or legs instead of "needlessly" harming people. Oh and historically only about 10% of alleged police misconduct cases are determined "founded". ANYONE can allege, but not many are founded.
I think you're attributing thoughts to me that I don't have. I was counterpointing the fact that you seemed to be raging in defense of perfectly perfect saintly cops who never do anything wrong. There certainly isn't tens of thousands of cases of racially profiled stops, repetitious harassment of specific ethnic individuals, and many cases of falsified accusations on public record and reported daily! Only some sort of drug crazed punk kid who hates the facist pig state would think that! /puke
Also, yes, very few are determined founded. If they all were I would have said "tens of thousands".
Again this falls into the ME ME ME ME concept currently plaguing America.
Well, y'know, that and the thousands of annual cases of police abuse of power in the United states.
Yes yes yes... I know in your mind this means that all us PIGS (the man) are the enemy, weed isnt REALLY a drug, and cops should shoot people in the arms or legs instead of "needlessly" harming people. Oh and historically only about 10% of alleged police misconduct cases are determined "founded". ANYONE can allege, but not many are founded.
If even 10% of abuses of authority by the police resulted in prosecution, they'd face a manpower crisis. I'm middle class and white, and despite smoking weed for years have never had any trouble from the police at all. But the hatred that ethnic minorities have for the police is palpable.
Add in the fact that the police seem to be immune to prosecution - see the murder of Ian Tomlinson, where the police officer was filmed randomly smacking the dude on the side of the head, and during the trial was found to have a history of abusing his power. Yet, the policeman walked free.
Yeah, but now you think that no one is law abiding. This seems like a needlessly binary way to look at the world.
I don't want to generalise but I don't think I've ever met anyone who always obeyed the law who wasn't a snivelling coward. People break the law all the time.
If even 10% of abuses of authority by the police resulted in prosecution, they'd face a manpower crisis.
A proven case of abuse of power doesn't usually result in any sort of prosecution. That kind of thing is handled internally unless the officer broke some pretty big laws.
Im not raging at all....I tried to give a well thought simple explanation from an officers point of view (to aid in a continued, engaging debate). That, unfortunately people believe us to be a reactionary element when in fact, it is designed to be proactive. I try to do my job (well previous job, I just retired to go full time military), that provides the greatest service and protection to the law abiding citizens of the community. I do that job to the best of my ability, but I can honestly say that I dont give a damn what the scumbag repeat offenders I deal with on a regular basis feel about it. Even if they arent doing anything wrong at the moment, I am still going to make their life hell, cause sooner or later they will.
Again this falls into the ME ME ME ME concept currently plaguing America.
Well, y'know, that and the thousands of annual cases of police abuse of power in the United states.
And the overuse of SWAT...and the overemphasis on police protecting themselves.
Actually the overuse of SWAT as you call it is a good thing. If you read any articles on the "shock and awe" effect of a tatical team, versus that of uniformed officers, it shows that SWAT usually results in less injury and death to subjects due to the psychological effect that even the appearance of the teams have on suspects. There would actually be more shootings if you used regular police to try to apprehend violent subjects.
Its a blanket term that has little if any meaning beyond "I'm ok with what that guy does."
Why not just say "I'm ok with what that guy does."? Why bring law into the question at all?
I believe in your struggle! We'll take back "Law Abiding"! That's our word and we're gonna get it back!
I think it's important since it implies someones status with the law and their generalized opinion of it. Just being ok with what someone does could imply a very large range of things, especially if you're ok with dog fighting or selling heroin.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
quickfuze wrote: I do that job to the best of my ability, but I can honestly say that I dont give a damn what the scumbag repeat offenders I deal with on a regular basis feel about it. Even if they arent doing anything wrong at the moment, I am still going to make their life hell, cause sooner or later they will.
I think this is where you start to make people think your views are a bit extreme. This is also where they become pretty invalid since you directly applaud the misuse of authority and the harassment of private citizens for reasons of profiling.
My views ARE extreme, because I live, work and fight in an extreme society. More so than most people will ever know...they work ther 9-5 and go home to the kids and get their news about what is "going on" from the daily show or msnbc.com or what-have-you. Police Officers are the ones who wake up everyday say goodbye to the kids an wife and go to work. His wife hopeing that he will make it home that night, his kids unaware of the horror he sees everyday. He is the one that creates the buffer between the law abiding citizen and the criminal (tries to anyway). He is the one that sees the abused spouse, the tortured children, the sadist, rapists, pedophiles and the like. He carries that burden, the physical and mental scars, the lack of appreciation from the general public...does all this for not alot of pay and when he comes home he has to put on his "daddy" face. Tell the wife everything was fine, take the kids to soccer practice etc. The Police Officer has a proven shorter life span due to stress, and the only thing you have when you go home is hopeing that you made the world a little safer than when you went in that morning. Are my views extreme, you bet ya....I carry that burden so you dont have to.
dogma wrote:I can basically guarantee you that the vast majority of people in the United States are not law abiding.
It's illegal to posses a lobster. @ your earlier post, that's about what I figured.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
AustonT wrote: I'd really be more interested in why you can't fit a snubbie in your pocket
It's not the snub nose, 2 1/2 inch barrel for one and two if I'm carrying defensively I don't want to be fething around in my pocket when I could have a clean straight draw instead.
Also at the time I could only open carry as this was before permitless CCW came to AZ.
Most of your point is well met, but I and most if not all of the folks I know consider 2.5 inch a Snub.
Actually the overuse of SWAT as you call it is a good thing. If you read any articles on the "shock and awe" effect of a tatical team, versus that of uniformed officers, it shows that SWAT usually results in less injury and death to subjects do to the pschological effect that even the appearance of the teams have on suspects. There would actually be more shootings if you used regular police to try to apprehend violent subjects.
I'm sure it does, of course that result might also indicate that SWAT raids tend to result in less injury and death because they are often conducted in instances which do not warrant them.
And, while it may be a good thing with respect to injury and death, it might not be a good thing with respect to overall cost and public image. Contrary to popular belief, human lives do have price tags and storming the houses of average Americans only to be proven unjustified usually has a negative PR effect.
In America, we are wiling to die or kill to keep are freedom. I say more peopling dieing is a fare price to pay for having fewer swat raids. The US is crazy like that.
quickfuze wrote: kids unaware of the horror he sees everyday. He is the one that creates the buffer between the law abiding citizen and the criminal (tries to anyway). He is the one that sees the abused spouse, the tortured children, the sadist, rapists, pedophiles and the like. He carries that burden, the physical and mental scars, the lack of appreciation from the general public...does all this for not alot of pay and when he comes home he has to put on his "daddy" face. Tell the wife everything was fine, take the kids to soccer practice etc.
generalgrog wrote: I think the point that is being made by the activists is that Police cannot just stop you for no good reason. Stopping people just to check if someone is a US citizen is unreasonable..I.E the person did nothing wrong. In most states a LEO has to have a reasonable suspicion that you have done something wrong, in order to detain a person.
Is it reasonable to suspect that a brown person driving a car (or being brown) is an illegal immigrant?
I don't think so, but that's the crux of the debate regarding laws akin to the one passed in Arizona.
That's kind of a stretch. I mean I think we agree on the basic issue just not how the law works. A year before 1070 was even proposed a friend of mine on PHX PD told me he suspected a guy of being illegal and after less than 2 blocks of following him pulled him over for failure to signal and hooked him up for DUI. This is the same tactic that will be used under 1070 with varying outcomes because its just plain common police tactics with what is now an infamous law overshadowing it. seatbeklt laws bro, they are evil.
It becomes racist if the same treatment is not given to white drivers.
quickfuze wrote: LoL...this thread kills me....having been a LEO since 1997 I can tell you this, its all how you write it up. Traffic, standing, camera or no camera you can justify any stop if you are intelligent and really want to. In the case of the one video, look at all those Texas Rangers in one area. WHo is to say the camera man was not involved in the original incident and is now taping the LEO response to an emergency situation. This could be intel gathering for a future critical incident plan. It could then be investigated and DETAINED for concerns under Homeland Security. Once detained you DO have to present your ID, and if you refuse, no problem....the jail has a finger print machine. How much is YOUR time worth? I'm getting paid and even get over-time to play your game if it goes over. More sexy GW models for me thanks to you being a knucklehead. Most of you have at least 1 vehicle infraction on your car, whether that be tire tread depth or what-have-you, so justifying a taffic stop is no different. Failed to signal a turn, loud stereo, window tint, you get the idea.
So your proud that you can abuse the power that law abiding tax payers have given you? Great example.
GG
He's just being realistic. Hey if you don't like it, quit voting for legislatures that pass stupid laws.
On the other hand, all interactions I've had with police in the past decade have been very professional. It helps that I don't act like an donkey-cave around them and generally obey the traffic laws.
TBone's interactions have been equally good. One helped him get into the van at the park one day. Of course His Magnificence expects no less.
dogma wrote: I can basically guarantee you that the vast majority of people in the United States are not law abiding.
Law abiding, or acting fully within the law 100% of the time?
I'd say law abiding, and generally within the law. Take out government regulations and much closer to fully within the law.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
quickfuze wrote: I don't consider it abusing anything.....there is something that aroused my suspicion about you, or I wouldn't be interacting with you. Now if that is because someone wants to use douchebaggery to try and prove their point, well now you're playing my game. It's funny, no one wants to be BOTHERED by the police until something happens to them and then its "why weren't you here faster, why were you patrolling my street every 10 mins". We are an inconvenience until we are not. Again this falls into the ME ME ME ME concept currently plaguing America. Everyone demands to be left alone until its convenient for them to need to interact with the police. Effective policing comes from a PROACTIVE approach not a REACTIVE approach. Law abiding, contributing members of society recognize this and are willing to endure a certain level of inconvenience for the greater security of the whole. Others are just egocentric, and are only concerned with what fits into making their own little world revolve around them.
I'd never trust police to actually help me or show in time to help me. Thats just stupid.
Again this falls into the ME ME ME ME concept currently plaguing America.
Well, y'know, that and the thousands of annual cases of police abuse of power in the United states.
And the overuse of SWAT...and the overemphasis on police protecting themselves.
Actually the overuse of SWAT as you call it is a good thing. If you read any articles on the "shock and awe" effect of a tatical team, versus that of uniformed officers, it shows that SWAT usually results in less injury and death to subjects due to the psychological effect that even the appearance of the teams have on suspects. There would actually be more shootings if you used regular police to try to apprehend violent subjects.
UNless you hit the wrong house, or shoot a dog, a give grandma a heart attack. The "war on drugs" has been one of the greatest erosion of our civil rights in the history of the Republic.
Anyone know how it changes state to state with a pistol permit? I carry in Colorado, so I have a duty to inform officers that I'm armed, present a state photo I.D. (Driver's License usually) and my CCW in the manner least likely to make a rookie nervous if I'm stopped on foot or in a vehicle.
Texas is the same.
You're not required to volunteer the information that you're carrying in Virginia. I usually do with State Police, just because they've been, in my experience, dialed-in and rational. Northern Virginia local cops, though? Hell, no. You could do a, "Good day, officer, before anything else I wish to inform you that I am a concealed carry permit holder and I am currently carrying a weapon on my person. You will note how I am keeping my hands firmly on the steering wheel, and should you need me to reach for anything, I will move at the speed of frozen molasses. I would be delighted to provide you with all the information you require and take any other steps that would make you feel more comfortable during our interaction," but you'd get to maybe the words 'concealed carry' before you were over the hood of your car.
And Jebus help you if you carry a 1911 cocked and locked. "Holy gak, do you know how dangerous this is? We just saved your ass, guy! This is probably illegal. Hey, Joe, is this illegal?"
Anyone know how it changes state to state with a pistol permit? I carry in Colorado, so I have a duty to inform officers that I'm armed, present a state photo I.D. (Driver's License usually) and my CCW in the manner least likely to make a rookie nervous if I'm stopped on foot or in a vehicle.
Texas is the same.
You're not required to volunteer the information that you're carrying in Virginia. I usually do with State Police, just because they've been, in my experience, dialed-in and rational. Northern Virginia local cops, though? Hell, no. You could do a, "Good day, officer, before anything else I wish to inform you that I am a concealed carry permit holder and I am currently carrying a weapon on my person. You will note how I am keeping my hands firmly on the steering wheel, and should you need me to reach for anything, I will move at the speed of frozen molasses. I would be delighted to provide you with all the information you require and take any other steps that would make you feel more comfortable during our interaction," but you'd get to maybe the words 'concealed carry' before you were over the hood of your car.
And Jebus help you if you carry a 1911 cocked and locked. "Holy gak, do you know how dangerous this is? We just saved your ass, guy! This is probably illegal. Hey, Joe, is this illegal?"
In Texas its very required. Ironically, its legal to have a firearm in your car, and you don't have to tell them...unless you have CHL.
The Wife was pulled over, handed her CHL and id, and the officer went from businesslike to 'well I'm just going to give you a warning, and hey whatcha carrying. Oh yea those are good guns...blah blah blah'
Anyone know how it changes state to state with a pistol permit? I carry in Colorado, so I have a duty to inform officers that I'm armed, present a state photo I.D. (Driver's License usually) and my CCW in the manner least likely to make a rookie nervous if I'm stopped on foot or in a vehicle.
Texas is the same.
You're not required to volunteer the information that you're carrying in Virginia. I usually do with State Police, just because they've been, in my experience, dialed-in and rational. Northern Virginia local cops, though? Hell, no. You could do a, "Good day, officer, before anything else I wish to inform you that I am a concealed carry permit holder and I am currently carrying a weapon on my person. You will note how I am keeping my hands firmly on the steering wheel, and should you need me to reach for anything, I will move at the speed of frozen molasses. I would be delighted to provide you with all the information you require and take any other steps that would make you feel more comfortable during our interaction," but you'd get to maybe the words 'concealed carry' before you were over the hood of your car.
And Jebus help you if you carry a 1911 cocked and locked. "Holy gak, do you know how dangerous this is? We just saved your ass, guy! This is probably illegal. Hey, Joe, is this illegal?"
In Texas its very required. Ironically, its legal to have a firearm in your car, and you don't have to tell them...unless you have CHL.
The Wife was pulled over, handed her CHL and id, and the officer went from businesslike to 'well I'm just going to give you a warning, and hey whatcha carrying. Oh yea those are good guns...blah blah blah'
I used to think carrying a 1911 at condition one was insane... now that I've actually done it I'd say on average it's safer then carrying a glock period XD.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I used to think carrying a 1911 at condition one was insane... now that I've actually done it I'd say on average it's safer then carrying a glock period XD.
You're gonna have to explain this one to me. How in the world have you managed to arrive at this conclusion, especially with regard to the safety that glocks employ.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I used to think carrying a 1911 at condition one was insane... now that I've actually done it I'd say on average it's safer then carrying a glock period XD.
You're gonna have to explain this one to me. How in the world have you managed to arrive at this conclusion, especially with regard to the safety that glocks employ.
Glocks have a bit of a reputation with their "internal only" safety for accidental/negligent discharges. In fact depending on your opinion the Glock doesn't have a safety at all. Certainly nothing vaguely as safe or effective as a manual safety. The last bit was honestly more or less a joke though I personally am not a Glock man. I do find their safety system a bit suspect but with the sheer number of Glocks in LEO and civilian hands world wide it's clearly effective, I even have a Smith and Wesson M&P that is set up similarly... though for just that reason I carry it at condition three. (Mag inserted, no round in chamber)
For those who don't know, when we say "cocked and locked" or "condition one" we mean like this:
Which is to say, magazine inserted, round in chamber, safety on.
Carrying a 1911 on the other hand features a couple different safeties all of which have to be disengaged to allow the weapon to discharge. So a condition one 1911 really isn't that dangerous if you're informed on how they function. The manual safety is first, followed by a grip safety on the back strap of the pistol grip and then third "safety" aka proper trigger control. The pistol will not discharge without a serious internal malfunction if all the safeties aren't properly disengaged before attempting to fire.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I used to think carrying a 1911 at condition one was insane... now that I've actually done it I'd say on average it's safer then carrying a glock period XD.
You're gonna have to explain this one to me. How in the world have you managed to arrive at this conclusion, especially with regard to the safety that glocks employ.
I read KMs response and he's on point but I would like to answer as well.
Glock doesn't have a safety, yeah yeah trigger safety, it's as useful as a sticker that says warning on a blinking red button. If you have your booger hanger on or around the go button it's going to go; clearly a design flaw. Glocks safety system is designed to keep it from going off when dropped, jostled, or bumped. It's a great system. It does not address the human component, which is what the slide and grip safety do. The 1911 is more susceptible to drop fires in its original configuration surprise surprise so was the Glock. Most now have series 80 or similar firing block which makes it arguably safer than a Glock.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I used to think carrying a 1911 at condition one was insane... now that I've actually done it I'd say on average it's safer then carrying a glock period XD.
You're gonna have to explain this one to me. How in the world have you managed to arrive at this conclusion, especially with regard to the safety that glocks employ.
I read KMs response and he's on point but I would like to answer as well.
Glock doesn't have a safety, yeah yeah trigger safety, it's as useful as a sticker that says warning on a blinking red button. If you have your booger hanger on or around the go button it's going to go; clearly a design flaw. Glocks safety system is designed to keep it from going off when dropped, jostled, or bumped. It's a great system. It does not address the human component, which is what the slide and grip safety do. The 1911 is more susceptible to drop fires in its original configuration surprise surprise so was the Glock. Most now have series 80 or similar firing block which makes it arguably safer than a Glock.
Kimber's ProCarry 1911's have a reputation for being reliable, safe pistols:
http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/review/KimberProCarry.htm wrote:
When testing the Kimbers, 16 different Pro Carry II’s were shot, firing 23,000 + rounds. So impressed was the test staff that they went out and purchased an off-the-shelf Pro Carry II and ran 5K through it. No problems were encountered. Other than the Kimbers, pistols had a failure rate as high as 22%. Kimber had the lowest failure rate Tacoma PD has recorded in over 20 years of testing for any type of firearm – less than one half of one percent! They also determined that the Kimber was safer than other test pistols when the safety was in the “on” position. “The Kimbers we tested had the lowest failure rate of any guns I have ever tested or shot, less than 1/10 of 1 percent. We tested 37 different guns and none of the others were even close,” said Sgt. Mark Jenkins, Tacoma Police Range Master.
IIRC the data I got when I worked at the gun store was that the pistols were all dropped from "shoulder height" (about 5') in various attitudes; Butt down, Hammer down, Barrel down. Kimber out-performed in every category. So much for 1911's being unsfe in condition 1.
I didn't intend to start a debate about the relative safety of carrying Glocks vs. 1911s. My point was that most cops aren't "gun people," and like most non-cop non-gun people, they see a cocked and locked 1911 and assume it's about half a second away from going off. It's annoying to have a civilian suggesting I'm being unsafe; it's downright infuriating to have a cop do so, especially because they can keep your ass on the side of the road for quite a long time if you're doing something they don't like.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I used to think carrying a 1911 at condition one was insane... now that I've actually done it I'd say on average it's safer then carrying a glock period XD.
You're gonna have to explain this one to me. How in the world have you managed to arrive at this conclusion, especially with regard to the safety that glocks employ.
Glocks have a bit of a reputation with their "internal only" safety for accidental/negligent discharges. In fact depending on your opinion the Glock doesn't have a safety at all. Certainly nothing vaguely as safe or effective as a manual safety. The last bit was honestly more or less a joke though I personally am not a Glock man. I do find their safety system a bit suspect but with the sheer number of Glocks in LEO and civilian hands world wide it's clearly effective, I even have a Smith and Wesson M&P that is set up similarly... though for just that reason I carry it at condition three. (Mag inserted, no round in chamber)
I read the article... it keeps referring to glock's accidental discharges, but I was always under the impression that most of glock's misfires were the result of the design's highly stupid manner of disassembly, and people firing into their own hands. (I should say at this point, I personally dislike glocks and greatly prefer the 1911 as well.)
Grey Templar wrote:Why are you disassembling the gun while its loaded in the first place? That just seems the height of stupidity.
Because some fools do not practice proper firearm safety, and sometimes assume that there is no round chambered after they eject the magazine. The glock for some reason requires a partial trigger pull in order to remove the slide, and thus has been known to send a bullet into someone's palm and up their arm. (even thinking about that makes me cringe)
Grey Templar wrote: Which has more to do with the police not being educated on the laws they are supposed to enforce.
This isn't exactly their fault. A cop has better things to do then read up on our fethed up laws.
I think this is a great point back on topic. It seems like things would go a lot better if LEO were better trained on how to act when citizens express their right to film them and also their right to question detainment. Here is a good example of a police officer overreacting..albeit he remained calm. he didn't need to call in 6 or 7 other LEO's though. That was quite ridiculous.
Grey Templar wrote:Why are you disassembling the gun while its loaded in the first place? That just seems the height of stupidity.
Because some fools do not practice proper firearm safety, and sometimes assume that there is no round chambered after they eject the magazine. The glock for some reason requires a partial trigger pull in order to remove the slide, and thus has been known to send a bullet into someone's palm and up their arm. (even thinking about that makes me cringe)
It is a Darwinian device.
I really think that firearms should not have to be fool proof.
Grey Templar wrote: Which has more to do with the police not being educated on the laws they are supposed to enforce.
This isn't exactly their fault. A cop has better things to do then read up on our fethed up laws.
I think this is a great point back on topic. It seems like things would go a lot better if LEO were better trained on how to act when citizens express their right to film them and also their right to question detainment. Here is a good example of a police officer overreacting..albeit he remained calm. he didn't need to call in 6 or 7 other LEO's though. That was quite ridiculous.
GG
And that's a perfect example of someone being a douche nozzle for no good reason. It's his 'neener neener, can't touch me' attitude that gets up cops noses and causes the situation to deteriorate.
The way I read the situation, the biker is annoyed at having been stopped for the fifth time because he is riding an electric bicycle without a helmet.
That said, it would be easier to give your driver's licence.
So to offset the negative cop videos. Here's a police officer in Oceanside doing it right. Now I do have an issue with this mook carrying because he didn't have his I.D. or CCW on him. Both of which you should have if you have your weapon on you. So this guy was clearly trying to prove a point in /not/ making life easy on the extremely professional and reasonable officer.
Also fun fact, open carry whether your have a permit or not is now illegal in California.
Grey Templar wrote: Which has more to do with the police not being educated on the laws they are supposed to enforce.
This isn't exactly their fault. A cop has better things to do then read up on our fethed up laws.
I think this is a great point back on topic. It seems like things would go a lot better if LEO were better trained on how to act when citizens express their right to film them and also their right to question detainment. Here is a good example of a police officer overreacting..albeit he remained calm. he didn't need to call in 6 or 7 other LEO's though. That was quite ridiculous.
GG
Too smart for his own good my ass. He lacks the tact to make the situation work for him. He's lucky that cops don't just beat the gak out of people anymore. The response by SMPD was a little much, I'm pretty sure he just called for his partner and a supervisor. The narration on the video just makes me want to shove that piece of paper down his throat.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So to offset the negative cop videos. Here's a police officer in Oceanside doing it right. Now I do have an issue with this mook carrying because he didn't have his I.D. or CCW on him. Both of which you should have if you have your weapon on you. So this guy was clearly trying to prove a point in /not/ making life easy on the extremely professional and reasonable officer.
Also fun fact, open carry whether your have a permit or not is now illegal in California.
=/ Something police officers hate; being made to look like fools when they're trying to enforce something that's been proven to be nonsensical.
My dad gets the police at his door at least once a month over domestic issues with our neighbours. Each time the charge's have been shown to be bull, but they keep coming back month after month with new ones. He handles them in an civil manner, especially considering the attitude of some officers. When he makes a counter claim of say slander against his name, or any other domestic charge (this time with clear evidence), they treat him, not the accused like gak (or ignore the call altogether). Is that because he's now got a black mark against his name for disarming their heavy handed approach every time with common sense and his rights, or are the police not as impartial as they want to make us believe (40 something being charged by a deeply Catholic pair of pensioners for abuse sounds less plausible than the reverse I assume). =P
Yup, there may be a hundred and one factors coming into play that aren't immediately apparent, but your average police officer seems to take the scene as they first see it and not change their view from there.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So to offset the negative cop videos. Here's a police officer in Oceanside doing it right. Now I do have an issue with this mook carrying because he didn't have his I.D. or CCW on him. Both of which you should have if you have your weapon on you. So this guy was clearly trying to prove a point in /not/ making life easy on the extremely professional and reasonable officer.
Also fun fact, open carry whether your have a permit or not is now illegal in California.
LOL even the PD in CA asks you if you're a police officer if you're open carrying.
Open carry of loaded firearms has been illegal in California since Governor Reagan banned it back in 1968. With the recent passage and signing of AB 144 by Govenor Brown, Open Carry of unloaded handguns is no longer legal in most of California effective Jan 1, 2012. As such, most of this FAQ was obsolete and has been deleted.
Grey Templar wrote: Which has more to do with the police not being educated on the laws they are supposed to enforce.
This isn't exactly their fault. A cop has better things to do then read up on our fethed up laws.
I think this is a great point back on topic. It seems like things would go a lot better if LEO were better trained on how to act when citizens express their right to film them and also their right to question detainment. Here is a good example of a police officer overreacting..albeit he remained calm. he didn't need to call in 6 or 7 other LEO's though. That was quite ridiculous.
GG
I'm confused: he was originally pulled over because he was not wearing a helmet while operating his vehicle, and in the end he was issued a valid ticket for not wearing a helmet while operating his vehicle.
Thats dumb, how else am I supposed to carry around a weapon. I can't it loaded, thats commen sense. I can't carry it unloaded, thats just uncalled for.
It the gun you don't see thats the threat, people should know that.
If a person is openly displaying their weapon, the chance of them being a person that is about to commit a crime is almost zero(unless they are displaying the weapon while commiting the crime)
Obviously we must now resort to carrying non-firearm weaponry.
Hmmm, shall I wear my warhammer, my sabre, or my galdius today? Or maybe my Naginata? its more useful walking up and down the hills around here
Grey Templar wrote: Which has more to do with the police not being educated on the laws they are supposed to enforce.
This isn't exactly their fault. A cop has better things to do then read up on our fethed up laws.
I think this is a great point back on topic. It seems like things would go a lot better if LEO were better trained on how to act when citizens express their right to film them and also their right to question detainment. Here is a good example of a police officer overreacting..albeit he remained calm. he didn't need to call in 6 or 7 other LEO's though. That was quite ridiculous.
GG
I'm confused: he was originally pulled over because he was not wearing a helmet while operating his vehicle, and in the end he was issued a valid ticket for not wearing a helmet while operating his vehicle.
Exactly what rights were violated?
The guy on that video is a complete dumbass. You are required to wear a helmet while riding a bike(of any kind)
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So to offset the negative cop videos. Here's a police officer in Oceanside doing it right. Now I do have an issue with this mook carrying because he didn't have his I.D. or CCW on him. Both of which you should have if you have your weapon on you. So this guy was clearly trying to prove a point in /not/ making life easy on the extremely professional and reasonable officer.
Also fun fact, open carry whether your have a permit or not is now illegal in California.
That sucks, although I can understand the reason Cops don't like it.
Their training is to identify potential threats. Someone with a gun is a potential threat.
The Cops know that the person abiding the law with a CCW permit, or even Open Carry, is not a danger(yet)
The yet is what unsettles the officers. They are only human after all, at the end of the day they want to go home to their family.
This can lead to the officers making bad judgements, it is a high stress job. Even without the threat to their personal safety, all the crap they go through every day can wear them down.
They see the worst humanity has to offer. We got to cut them slack on occasion, and make sure they recieve proper resources to deal with it. Including better education about the laws they are enforcing alongside with proper counciling services.
Be reasonable and polite to police and you generally don't have an issue. Even the border patrol stops between San Diego and Yuma have a sense of humor if you're polite about it. Story time:
The third time we were "randomly" stopped because my buddy in my passenger seat was a mexican fellow he decided he decided he didn't speak english and he does a hell of a confused stupid look. He just kept repeating softly to himself "not the trunk again" in spanish. The cop asked where we coming from before asking for ID and when I told him north of LA he chuckled at my buddy and waved us through.
On a serious note always lock your car if you exit and make sure the windows are up. In california not doing this is an open invitation to a search. This is more for people who annoy the cops and teenagers but hey, figured I'd throw it out there.
We have ID cards in Israel. The cops ask for it if you're speeding or going into an airport. It's not a big deal and the world didn't end. People need to stop being so paranoid that 1984 is right around the corner. No Westernized country is in danger of becoming a totalitarian police state.
Kaldor wrote: To be honest, most of the problems I've seen (and I never encountered any myself as a LEO) result not from officers getting pissed off that someone is exercising their right to not be identified, but officers getting pissed off at donkey-caves acting like donkey-caves to prove a point. To paraphrase many of the incidents I've seen:
"Can I see some ID?"
"I DON'T HAVE TO SHOW YOU JACK, YOU STUPID PIG! NEENER NEENER, CAN'T TOUCH ME, I KNOW MY RIGHTS!"
And things generally go badly from that point.
I agree.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think it's a bit ridiculous for the police to randomly ask for papers, but I can't think of any legitimate reason why someone should have a right not to comply.
But from what it shows the officers probably didn't even notice that guy.
Given the guy taking the video's attitude and such all their attention would be on him and not really concious of the guy on a bike thats gone by them.
But from what it shows the officers probably didn't even notice that guy.
Given the guy taking the video's attitude and such all their attention would be on him and not really concious of the guy on a bike thats gone by them.
For what it's worth I kind of agree that that last one isn't a great example....
If the guy taping had been with a white buddy of his riding, both had been lacking their helmets, and his buddy didn't get a ticket then he might have a point.
Grey Templar wrote: That sucks, although I can understand the reason Cops don't like it.
Their training is to identify potential threats. Someone with a gun is a potential threat.
The Cops know that the person abiding the law with a CCW permit, or even Open Carry, is not a danger(yet)
The yet is what unsettles the officers. They are only human after all, at the end of the day they want to go home to their family.
This can lead to the officers making bad judgements, it is a high stress job. Even without the threat to their personal safety, all the crap they go through every day can wear them down.
They see the worst humanity has to offer. We got to cut them slack on occasion, and make sure they recieve proper resources to deal with it. Including better education about the laws they are enforcing alongside with proper counciling services.
It's generally more a case of some panicked civilian calling up and saying "Oh my god, there's a guy here with a gun, hurry!" and the cops having to think "well, it's probably just a case of someone openly carrying a firearm, but I suppose it could be a psycho about to shoot up the neighbourhood." Of course they're going to be a bit on edge en-route to their job, they could be about to confront some psychopath who is going to try and kill them. This tension doesn't just dissolve when they realise it's just some moron with a camera trying to prove a point about his rights, it bleeds over and makes the entire encounter more tense than it needs to be, and makes it much easier for the officer to get pissed off when the moron in question starts acting like an donkey-cave.
Harriticus wrote:We have ID cards in Israel. The cops ask for it if you're speeding or going into an airport. It's not a big deal and the world didn't end. People need to stop being so paranoid that 1984 is right around the corner. No Westernized country is in danger of becoming a totalitarian police state.
There's so much about Israeli society that simply doesn't translate here that you point while well ińentioned is meaningless.
Harriticus wrote:We have ID cards in Israel. The cops ask for it if you're speeding or going into an airport. It's not a big deal and the world didn't end. People need to stop being so paranoid that 1984 is right around the corner. No Westernized country is in danger of becoming a totalitarian police state.
There's so much about Israeli society that simply doesn't translate here that you point while well ińentioned is meaningless.
Why does your 'intentioned ' have an enye... Sir I'm gonna have to see your papers
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I used to think carrying a 1911 at condition one was insane... now that I've actually done it I'd say on average it's safer then carrying a glock period XD.
You're gonna have to explain this one to me. How in the world have you managed to arrive at this conclusion, especially with regard to the safety that glocks employ.
You mean their bs nonexistent safety? A 1911 has a passive grip safety, and an active thumb safety. A Glock has no safety. On the positive it can be used as a brick to back stop your car when you work on it. ;P
I have both types. I switched to DA (S&W style) for an M&Pc when shifting from .45ACP, as my hand shaking was getting progressively worse. I went with DA because its what I use in IDPA, and I figured, in a problem scenario, muscle memory would have me pull and try to shoot and not run the the thumb safety. but if you drill regularly with a thumb safety, you should be in an a much safer position.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I used to think carrying a 1911 at condition one was insane... now that I've actually done it I'd say on average it's safer then carrying a glock period XD.
You're gonna have to explain this one to me. How in the world have you managed to arrive at this conclusion, especially with regard to the safety that glocks employ.
Glocks have a bit of a reputation with their "internal only" safety for accidental/negligent discharges. In fact depending on your opinion the Glock doesn't have a safety at all. Certainly nothing vaguely as safe or effective as a manual safety. The last bit was honestly more or less a joke though I personally am not a Glock man. I do find their safety system a bit suspect but with the sheer number of Glocks in LEO and civilian hands world wide it's clearly effective, I even have a Smith and Wesson M&P that is set up similarly... though for just that reason I carry it at condition three. (Mag inserted, no round in chamber)
I read the article... it keeps referring to glock's accidental discharges, but I was always under the impression that most of glock's misfires were the result of the design's highly stupid manner of disassembly, and people firing into their own hands. (I should say at this point, I personally dislike glocks and greatly prefer the 1911 as well.)
No. "Glock leg" is a real deal. Especially with numbnuts who lighten the triggers.
inversely I've seen guys go the other way and put New York triggers on their Glocks.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So to offset the negative cop videos. Here's a police officer in Oceanside doing it right. Now I do have an issue with this mook carrying because he didn't have his I.D. or CCW on him. Both of which you should have if you have your weapon on you. So this guy was clearly trying to prove a point in /not/ making life easy on the extremely professional and reasonable officer.
Also fun fact, open carry whether your have a permit or not is now illegal in California.
When did that change?
Last six months. Not sure if it has gone through the court system yet.
My Glock has a 3 lbs 10oz trigger pull. It has a 3.5 lb connector, and a leaf trigger spring instead of the stock coil. The stock trigger is supposed to be 5 the normally clock in at 5 4oz and 5 8oz.
Grey Templar wrote: Which has more to do with the police not being educated on the laws they are supposed to enforce.
This isn't exactly their fault. A cop has better things to do then read up on our fethed up laws.
I think this is a great point back on topic. It seems like things would go a lot better if LEO were better trained on how to act when citizens express their right to film them and also their right to question detainment. Here is a good example of a police officer overreacting..albeit he remained calm. he didn't need to call in 6 or 7 other LEO's though. That was quite ridiculous.
GG
I'm confused: he was originally pulled over because he was not wearing a helmet while operating his vehicle, and in the end he was issued a valid ticket for not wearing a helmet while operating his vehicle.
Exactly what rights were violated?
None.
The scooter is electric and under California law that requires the rider to wear a bicycle helmet. Apparently the rider's legal knowledge was less than he thought.
AustonT wrote: My Glock has a 3 lbs 10oz trigger pull. It has a 3.5 lb connector, and a leaf trigger spring instead of the stock coil. The stock trigger is supposed to be 5 the normally clock in at 5 4oz and 5 8oz.
Yeah, see, I wouldn't carry that. Just personal preference. Hell, I think the PPQ trigger is too light for carry.
AustonT wrote: My Glock has a 3 lbs 10oz trigger pull. It has a 3.5 lb connector, and a leaf trigger spring instead of the stock coil. The stock trigger is supposed to be 5 the normally clock in at 5 4oz and 5 8oz.
Yeah, see, I wouldn't carry that. Just personal preference. Hell, I think the PPQ trigger is too light for carry.
Different strokes I suppose. In the same vein I wouldn't bring a tactical or a hunting rifle below 2-3lbs and guys out there have hunting rigs with 4oz triggers. It's comfort zone.
I dont understand the hype about this, in my country the police is allowed to check your papers.
Also why would you not want them to see them if you didnt do anything wrong?
Daemonhammer wrote: I dont understand the hype about this, in my country the police is allowed to check your papers.
Also why would you not want them to see them if you didnt do anything wrong?
And what happens when the police say you did something wrong and you didn't
Basically if you haven't done anything wrong/anything to give the police "reasonable suspicion", it's none of their business who I am, where I live, etc. I have the right to privacy, except where that right is abridged for legitimate safety reasons.
Daemonhammer wrote:I dont understand the hype about this, in my country the police is allowed to check your papers.
Also why would you not want them to see them if you didnt do anything wrong?
Mannahnin wrote:Basically if you haven't done anything wrong/anything to give the police "reasonable suspicion", it's none of their business who I am, where I live, etc. I have the right to privacy, except where that right is abridged for legitimate safety reasons.
There's this perfectly reasonable response and my Merika Hurr response:
Because I have the God given right to wave my fourth amendment rights in the face of the rozzers.
AustonT wrote: My Glock has a 3 lbs 10oz trigger pull. It has a 3.5 lb connector, and a leaf trigger spring instead of the stock coil. The stock trigger is supposed to be 5 the normally clock in at 5 4oz and 5 8oz.
My Beretta has a 4lb trigger. I am about to send my M&P in for a 3.5lb job. I swear my 29 has a 1ounce trigger. I breath heavy in SA mode and it goes off.
AustonT wrote: My Glock has a 3 lbs 10oz trigger pull. It has a 3.5 lb connector, and a leaf trigger spring instead of the stock coil. The stock trigger is supposed to be 5 the normally clock in at 5 4oz and 5 8oz.
Yeah, see, I wouldn't carry that. Just personal preference. Hell, I think the PPQ trigger is too light for carry.
Ayah I am keeping my M&Pc at its factory pull. Without a manual safety I wouldn't trust it otherwise.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: How do you like your M&PC Frazzle? I love mine... it's not quite a pocket carry but it's damn close.
Its new so experimenting with different holsters still. Its pretty accurate and about the same size as my old Kimber ultra carry. The S&W holster I acquired seems too fat, but we'll get it down. Does yours take all types of ammo? Mine doesn't seem to like Remington golden sabres so I'm using old school hardball until I test out some Hornady XTPs I just procured.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: How do you like your M&PC Frazzle? I love mine... it's not quite a pocket carry but it's damn close.
Its new so experimenting with different holsters still. Its pretty accurate and about the same size as my old Kimber ultra carry. The S&W holster I acquired seems too fat, but we'll get it down. Does yours take all types of ammo? Mine doesn't seem to like Remington golden sabres so I'm using old school hardball until I test out some Hornady XTPs I just procured.
I haven't really played around with ammo. It cycled white box rem and blazer CCI just fine. For carry I feed it Winchester Ranger.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: How do you like your M&PC Frazzle? I love mine... it's not quite a pocket carry but it's damn close.
Its new so experimenting with different holsters still. Its pretty accurate and about the same size as my old Kimber ultra carry. The S&W holster I acquired seems too fat, but we'll get it down. Does yours take all types of ammo? Mine doesn't seem to like Remington golden sabres so I'm using old school hardball until I test out some Hornady XTPs I just procured.
Try Speer gold dot if you haven't already. They are very consistent and if memory serves they mix a little silver or antimony (can't remember which but I lean towards silver) to aid in rapid expansion. I carry gold dots almost exclusively...except in my Glock which carries Winchester HPs. They make up for being not top of the line rounds by having a lot of them.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: How do you like your M&PC Frazzle? I love mine... it's not quite a pocket carry but it's damn close.
Its new so experimenting with different holsters still. Its pretty accurate and about the same size as my old Kimber ultra carry. The S&W holster I acquired seems too fat, but we'll get it down. Does yours take all types of ammo? Mine doesn't seem to like Remington golden sabres so I'm using old school hardball until I test out some Hornady XTPs I just procured.
Try Speer gold dot if you haven't already. They are very consistent and if memory serves they mix a little silver or antimony (can't remember which but I lean towards silver) to aid in rapid expansion. I carry gold dots almost exclusively...except in my Glock which carries Winchester HPs. They make up for being not top of the line rounds by having a lot of them.
+Ps or standard pressure?
With the Speer Gold Dot +Ps you're basically getting .40 performance, which is why I've not yet seen the need to go out and pick up a gun I can't shoot well just to have the LE caliber du decade.
On topic, this is a good one. Dude robs a bank, teller manages to get a GPS locator mixed in with the cash. The police pinpoint the robber in his getaway vehicle to one particular intersection, so what do they do? Descend on it, detain and cuff everybody in all of the cars, and search them all.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: How do you like your M&PC Frazzle? I love mine... it's not quite a pocket carry but it's damn close.
Its new so experimenting with different holsters still. Its pretty accurate and about the same size as my old Kimber ultra carry. The S&W holster I acquired seems too fat, but we'll get it down. Does yours take all types of ammo? Mine doesn't seem to like Remington golden sabres so I'm using old school hardball until I test out some Hornady XTPs I just procured.
Try Speer gold dot if you haven't already. They are very consistent and if memory serves they mix a little silver or antimony (can't remember which but I lean towards silver) to aid in rapid expansion. I carry gold dots almost exclusively...except in my Glock which carries Winchester HPs. They make up for being not top of the line rounds by having a lot of them.
+Ps or standard pressure?
With the Speer Gold Dot +Ps you're basically getting .40 performance, which is why I've not yet seen the need to go out and pick up a gun I can't shoot well just to have the LE caliber du decade.
On topic, this is a good one. Dude robs a bank, teller manages to get a GPS locator mixed in with the cash. The police pinpoint the robber in his getaway vehicle to one particular intersection, so what do they do? Descend on it, detain and cuff everybody in all of the cars, and search them all.
Yep... that's a little extreme. Though I can't say I'm surprised that there was a slightly OTT reaction to an armed robbery in Aurora given what just happened there over the summer.... edit: nope nvm this happened before that. Even then it's really not a justification. You'd think GPS tech could pinpoint to the car...
here in Thailand. highway cops still 'abuse the traffic law'. using uniforms and bills to call a tribute from every passing trucks. those who refused to pay will be threathened, (and worse! arrested... with some allegations. usually drug trafficking... of course!). Those who run away will be carchashed (as if he/she is a criminal)Those drivers who aware that the checkpoint is actually a 'toll' set up by a corrupting cop and INTENTIONALLY run him over will be charged with murder (and the judge always pass a judgement in favor of a corrupting cop) the only way to get rid of this corruptor is that you need a working video recording device (any type), bravery, and wit. a videoclip can be used in court as an evident and of course! the law will work against some corruptors.
In the past, an excuse of 'underpaid salary' is enough for a lowly policeman to set up a tribute toll/checkpoint. recently however, every 'checkpoints' must be authorized by superior, and accompanied with at least 1 'police leiutenant'.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: How do you like your M&PC Frazzle? I love mine... it's not quite a pocket carry but it's damn close.
Its new so experimenting with different holsters still. Its pretty accurate and about the same size as my old Kimber ultra carry. The S&W holster I acquired seems too fat, but we'll get it down. Does yours take all types of ammo? Mine doesn't seem to like Remington golden sabres so I'm using old school hardball until I test out some Hornady XTPs I just procured.
Try Speer gold dot if you haven't already. They are very consistent and if memory serves they mix a little silver or antimony (can't remember which but I lean towards silver) to aid in rapid expansion. I carry gold dots almost exclusively...except in my Glock which carries Winchester HPs. They make up for being not top of the line rounds by having a lot of them.
Speer gold dots are consistently top five in bullet reviews for penetration and expansion, at any caliber tested. Good call there. I'm trying the Hornady's next because its a 115 grain HP and has the eraser head. I'm trying to isolate the variables of whether its the weight, high end remington primers, or big wide hollowpoint that cause the issue (several failures to cycle fully to battery and cock it or fire, yet cheap crap loads do just fine).
KalashnikovMarine wrote: How do you like your M&PC Frazzle? I love mine... it's not quite a pocket carry but it's damn close.
Its new so experimenting with different holsters still. Its pretty accurate and about the same size as my old Kimber ultra carry. The S&W holster I acquired seems too fat, but we'll get it down. Does yours take all types of ammo? Mine doesn't seem to like Remington golden sabres so I'm using old school hardball until I test out some Hornady XTPs I just procured.
Try Speer gold dot if you haven't already. They are very consistent and if memory serves they mix a little silver or antimony (can't remember which but I lean towards silver) to aid in rapid expansion. I carry gold dots almost exclusively...except in my Glock which carries Winchester HPs. They make up for being not top of the line rounds by having a lot of them.
+Ps or standard pressure?
With the Speer Gold Dot +Ps you're basically getting .40 performance, which is why I've not yet seen the need to go out and pick up a gun I can't shoot well just to have the LE caliber du decade.
On topic, this is a good one. Dude robs a bank, teller manages to get a GPS locator mixed in with the cash. The police pinpoint the robber in his getaway vehicle to one particular intersection, so what do they do? Descend on it, detain and cuff everybody in all of the cars, and search them all.
That was all over the gun sights when it occurred. Very bad move.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: How do you like your M&PC Frazzle? I love mine... it's not quite a pocket carry but it's damn close.
Its new so experimenting with different holsters still. Its pretty accurate and about the same size as my old Kimber ultra carry. The S&W holster I acquired seems too fat, but we'll get it down. Does yours take all types of ammo? Mine doesn't seem to like Remington golden sabres so I'm using old school hardball until I test out some Hornady XTPs I just procured.
Try Speer gold dot if you haven't already. They are very consistent and if memory serves they mix a little silver or antimony (can't remember which but I lean towards silver) to aid in rapid expansion. I carry gold dots almost exclusively...except in my Glock which carries Winchester HPs. They make up for being not top of the line rounds by having a lot of them.
+Ps or standard pressure?
With the Speer Gold Dot +Ps you're basically getting .40 performance, which is why I've not yet seen the need to go out and pick up a gun I can't shoot well just to have the LE caliber du decade.
On topic, this is a good one. Dude robs a bank, teller manages to get a GPS locator mixed in with the cash. The police pinpoint the robber in his getaway vehicle to one particular intersection, so what do they do? Descend on it, detain and cuff everybody in all of the cars, and search them all.
Standard pressure. I run GDs in my 38spc which fireballs too much with +P and in my 45 Sig. My Glock is a .40 but carrying just shy of 60 GDs is expensive so I load it cheap. I have all the mags, Just need a barrel to switch over to 9mm in my Glock, or build a new one. I'm thinking about picking up another turn in Glock and getting a stamp for a shoulder stock' I wish they just stop beating around the bush and make a carbine.
Standard pressure. I run GDs in my 38spc which fireballs too much with +P and in my 45 Sig. My Glock is a .40 but carrying just shy of 60 GDs is expensive so I load it cheap. I have all the mags, Just need a barrel to switch over to 9mm in my Glock, or build a new one. I'm thinking about picking up another turn in Glock and getting a stamp for a shoulder stock' I wish they just stop beating around the bush and make a carbine.
Both the home office in Austria and the plant down in Smyrna have recently completed rifle-length indoor range additions to their facilities. Wonder what they could be using those for?
Standard pressure. I run GDs in my 38spc which fireballs too much with +P and in my 45 Sig. My Glock is a .40 but carrying just shy of 60 GDs is expensive so I load it cheap. I have all the mags, Just need a barrel to switch over to 9mm in my Glock, or build a new one. I'm thinking about picking up another turn in Glock and getting a stamp for a shoulder stock' I wish they just stop beating around the bush and make a carbine.
Both the home office in Austria and the plant down in Smyrna have recently completed rifle-length indoor range additions to their facilities. Wonder what they could be using those for?
Which 45 Sig, btw? P220?
An early Exeter 220 w/out rail.
I have trouble working myself up to be excited about the Glock carbine. Rumors cirulated as far back as 2000 that Glock would bring a carbine to market. After the resounding sucess of the Cx4 who can blame Glock for being cautious. oh that's right ME!
Beretta tried to introduce a whole new line and Glock has a huge existing market. Now these jackasses have waited too long. The last thing I heard from a reliable source was that the Glock Carbine would be M4-ish. If it is they have effectively wasted whatever time or money they put into the project. If they don't release the Iphone of Carbines with compatible magazines then in my eyes Glock is a failure.
There were some solid rumors about a Glock shotgun too. In any event something this way comes.
In actual police news: Starting today the Phoenix PD is required to wear the standard polyester blue button up uniforms. Their union is going BESERK! And I love every second of it. Not because I hate cops but because I can get behind what I am interpreting as a demilitarization of the police force. The union is crying about unfair labor practices...in a uniform job, what a joke. I guess if the new chief really wants to piss them off he'll mandate ties.
I'm with Auston. Cops in many places play paramilitary too much, in BDUs with SMGs and combat boots, etc. Good for the chief if this is indeed aimed at curbing that cowboy dress up stuff.
AustonT wrote: In actual police news: Starting today the Phoenix PD is required to wear the standard polyester blue button up uniforms. Their union is going BESERK! And I love every second of it. Not because I hate cops but because I can get behind what I am interpreting as a demilitarization of the police force. The union is crying about unfair labor practices...in a uniform job, what a joke. I guess if the new chief really wants to piss them off he'll mandate ties.
What were they wearing before? Whatever they felt like?
This is one of the better "police going too far" examples I know of. The guy getting stopped and open carrying (a Marine Captain) was a bit of a douche, but not nearly as bad as the usual open carry bleaters. For those who want the summary rather than checking out the (entirely audio, no video) clip: Dude's riding his motorcycle through Wyoming. Open carrying. He passes some RVs carrying Grandma and Grandpa, who feel he's speeding and call the cops. A cop pulls him over, asks him if he's armed, which is when he makes the, in my opinion, boneheaded decision to simply say he doesn't consent to any searches or seizures.
I don't know Wyoming law, but I'd be shocked if you're not required to disclose you're carrying when directly asked. Either way, the cop has him get off the bike, at which point the pistol becomes obvious. The cop immediately cuffs him and calls for backup. They argue for a while about whether or not the guy had to disclose he was carrying. Backup shows up, the cops ask the guy to surrender his weapon (!). The guy refuses. The cops then come up with the idea of letting him go, but having one of them draw his weapon, keeping it trained on the Marine, and shooting him if he makes any sudden movements (!!!). Our motorcyclist friend refuses that one, too. The cops call in their boss, who promptly decides they've got nothing to arrest him for, and sends him on his way.
Marine's suing them now. Not sure for what, exactly, but it's going to trial next year.
AustonT wrote: In actual police news: Starting today the Phoenix PD is required to wear the standard polyester blue button up uniforms. Their union is going BESERK! And I love every second of it. Not because I hate cops but because I can get behind what I am interpreting as a demilitarization of the police force. The union is crying about unfair labor practices...in a uniform job, what a joke. I guess if the new chief really wants to piss them off he'll mandate ties.
What were they wearing before? Whatever they felt like?
This is one of the better "police going too far" examples I know of. The guy getting stopped and open carrying (a Marine Captain) was a bit of a douche, but not nearly as bad as the usual open carry bleaters. For those who want the summary rather than checking out the (entirely audio, no video) clip: Dude's riding his motorcycle through Wyoming. Open carrying. He passes some RVs carrying Grandma and Grandpa, who feel he's speeding and call the cops. A cop pulls him over, asks him if he's armed, which is when he makes the, in my opinion, boneheaded decision to simply say he doesn't consent to any searches or seizures.
I don't know Wyoming law, but I'd be shocked if you're not required to disclose you're carrying when directly asked. Either way, the cop has him get off the bike, at which point the pistol becomes obvious. The cop immediately cuffs him and calls for backup. They argue for a while about whether or not the guy had to disclose he was carrying. Backup shows up, the cops ask the guy to surrender his weapon (!). The guy refuses. The cops then come up with the idea of letting him go, but having one of them draw his weapon, keeping it trained on the Marine, and shooting him if he makes any sudden movements (!!!). Our motorcyclist friend refuses that one, too. The cops call in their boss, who promptly decides they've got nothing to arrest him for, and sends him on his way.
Marine's suing them now. Not sure for what, exactly, but it's going to trial next year.
It seems to me like it was both sides being stupid.
Cops should know that they had nothing to hold the guy for. You can't use Hearsay to give someone a ticket, just because a couple of old coots thought he was speeding doesn't mean squat unless the officer actually gets a reading on him.
On the flipside, its downright cruel to not tell a cop you are armed. They are going to act on their first instinct and thats self preservation. I'll fell much more comfortable if someone fesses up that they are packing then if I find out for myself. That seems as if the person is hiding something, and if someone is hiding something it implies they might do something with it.
It seems to me like it was both sides being stupid.
Cops should know that they had nothing to hold the guy for. You can't use Hearsay to give someone a ticket, just because a couple of old coots thought he was speeding doesn't mean squat unless the officer actually gets a reading on him.
On the flipside, its downright cruel to not tell a cop you are armed. They are going to act on their first instinct and thats self preservation. I'll fell much more comfortable if someone fesses up that they are packing then if I find out for myself. That seems as if the person is hiding something, and if someone is hiding something it implies they might do something with it.
I fully agree it is downright cruel to not tell a cop you're armed. I wouldn't volunteer the information in all cases, as I said earlier in the thread, nor am I required to in Virginia, but if outright asked, I'll answer.
However, I think cuffing the guy, detaining him on the side of the road for quite some time, requesting that he hand over his firearm, and proposing that he be shot should he move too fast all cross very far over the line no matter how uncomfortable you are with the fact that he's carrying a gun, in my opinion.
It seems to me like it was both sides being stupid.
Cops should know that they had nothing to hold the guy for. You can't use Hearsay to give someone a ticket, just because a couple of old coots thought he was speeding doesn't mean squat unless the officer actually gets a reading on him.
On the flipside, its downright cruel to not tell a cop you are armed. They are going to act on their first instinct and thats self preservation. I'll fell much more comfortable if someone fesses up that they are packing then if I find out for myself. That seems as if the person is hiding something, and if someone is hiding something it implies they might do something with it.
I fully agree it is downright cruel to not tell a cop you're armed. I wouldn't volunteer the information in all cases, as I said earlier in the thread, nor am I required to in Virginia, but if outright asked, I'll answer.
However, I think cuffing the guy, detaining him on the side of the road for quite some time, requesting that he hand over his firearm, and proposing that he be shot should he move too fast all cross very far over the line no matter how uncomfortable you are with the fact that he's carrying a gun, in my opinion.
The Cops probably wouldn't have done that if he had volunteered the info in the first place. But yes, it was totally unacceptable what they did.
AustonT wrote: In actual police news: Starting today the Phoenix PD is required to wear the standard polyester blue button up uniforms. Their union is going BESERK! And I love every second of it. Not because I hate cops but because I can get behind what I am interpreting as a demilitarization of the police force. The union is crying about unfair labor practices...in a uniform job, what a joke. I guess if the new chief really wants to piss them off he'll mandate ties.
What were they wearing before? Whatever they felt like?
Black Polos, black BDU paints and load bearing outer vest
thier union would love for you to believe that they look like the guy in front, the guy in back is the now mandated class c uniform.
As for it being hot and uncomfortable, my heart fair the feth bleeds, cops should look like cops not an airsofters wet dream.
Mannahnin wrote: I'm with Auston. Cops in many places play paramilitary too much, in BDUs with SMGs and combat boots, etc. Good for the chief if this is indeed aimed at curbing that cowboy dress up stuff.
The actual reason stated by the Chief is the sudden "rash" of Police impersonations in previous months or years (can't remember which off the top of my head), and to avoid 'confusion' by the populace due to there being two different uniforms for officers (blue polyester and the black cotton/BDU pants). IMO these are both very flimsy excuses, as anybody willing to impersonate a police officer isn't going to be deterred by a different uniform, and in the second case, officers have been wearing either uniform at their own discretion for right around a decade now; the populace is definitely accustomed to seeing police in either.
The union's arguments are about more than just the heat; the current choice allows officers to wear comfortable and lightweight gear; The "dress" uniform includes a mandatory leather belt, the other allows for a nylon belt and vest with pockets that allows officers to distribute the weight around their body more evenly. When you have to carry 20 or more pounds of equipment on your waist all day everyday a slight discomfort in the morning can lead to very real pain by the end of your shift, and can cause lower back injuries in the long run. Ask any construction worker who wears a toolbelt if you doubt this.
AustonT wrote: Black Polos, black BDU paints and load bearing outer vest
See, I'd say ditch the vest and switch to jeans and it'd be fine, but I'm used to seeing po-pos in polos and jeans in Richmond. Sure, they look a little like they're coming to set up your office LAN, but it's probably pretty comfortable, and it doesn't look overdone on the "I'm a hardcase!" scale.
AustonT wrote: Black Polos, black BDU paints and load bearing outer vest
See, I'd say ditch the vest and switch to jeans and it'd be fine, but I'm used to seeing po-pos in polos and jeans in Richmond. Sure, they look a little like they're coming to set up your office LAN, but it's probably pretty comfortable, and it doesn't look overdone on the "I'm a hardcase!" scale.
Cargo pants with knee padding are the way to go. The extra pockets are extremely handy, the material is more comfortable, and the knees of uniform pants wear out quickly when you spend a good amount of time looking under things, especially on roads. Load bearing vests are a far superior option to sticking everything on your belt, too. It's funny watching rookies wear them though because you no longer have the tactile sense of a seatbelt going across your chest when you're sitting in a car, so when they go to get out of the car they forget to take their seatbelt off and struggle to work out what's wrong for a few seconds!
AustonT wrote: Black Polos, black BDU paints and load bearing outer vest
See, I'd say ditch the vest and switch to jeans and it'd be fine, but I'm used to seeing po-pos in polos and jeans in Richmond. Sure, they look a little like they're coming to set up your office LAN, but it's probably pretty comfortable, and it doesn't look overdone on the "I'm a hardcase!" scale.
Cargo pants with knee padding are the way to go. The extra pockets are extremely handy, the material is more comfortable, and the knees of uniform pants wear out quickly when you spend a good amount of time looking under things, especially on roads. Load bearing vests are a far superior option to sticking everything on your belt, too. It's funny watching rookies wear them though because you no longer have the tactile sense of a seatbelt going across your chest when you're sitting in a car, so when they go to get out of the car they forget to take their seatbelt off and struggle to work out what's wrong for a few seconds!
Bloody seatbelts. I graciously offerred (was ordered) my services as a driver to another companies convoy excersize driving an MTV. I'm not the tallest of men so I can't actually reach the steps to get down, and being a paratrooper I don't terribly mind the 4-5ish foot drop. The LT riding third seat ordered us to evacuate the truck during an ambush; soz I go to unass myself from the truck and undid my seatbelt. You know the common over the shoulder towards the doorframe kind, and jumped. My glorious combat PLF abruptly ended in mid flight as the seatbelt wrapped around my mag pouches. I hung suspended in the open door of that truck for almost 10 minutes, the seat belt fething turtled me and all I could do was kick off the side of the truck and get swung back into it. I. fething. hate. seatbelts. Well while wearing a kit.
/tangent.
OTVs on cops, I have no sympathy for you. Shirt, Clip on tie, manners. The outer vests that look like uniform shirts and tie the belt into the shoulders are perfect. You aren't fighting a war, you're serving the community. Look the part.
I can certainly see the purpose in arming some units in Arizona as if they were military (given los zetas are armed as such) but the problem comes when those units get over used.
youbedead wrote: I can certainly see the purpose in arming some units in Arizona as if they were military (given los zetas are armed as such) but the problem comes when those units get over used.
So your concern is arming someone to react to a cartel group from across the border?
Done.
youbedead wrote: I can certainly see the purpose in arming some units in Arizona as if they were military (given los zetas are armed as such) but the problem comes when those units get over used.
So your concern is arming someone to react to a cartel group from across the border?
Done.
They operate in the southwest of the US as well, and as I said the group that should be responding to the cartel shouldn't be the group responding to petty crimes, or most crimes for that matter.
youbedead wrote: I can certainly see the purpose in arming some units in Arizona as if they were military (given los zetas are armed as such) but the problem comes when those units get over used.
So your concern is arming someone to react to a cartel group from across the border?
Done.
They operate in the southwest of the US as well, and as I said the group that should be responding to the cartel shouldn't be the group responding to petty crimes, or most crimes for that matter.
Or maybe they shouldn't be the only people responding. Wouldn't hurt to occasionally call in the actual military to deal with it. Nice practice for them and we have plenty of reserve units to call on.
They(los zetas) operate in the southwest of the US as well, and as I said the group(SWAT, or equivalant) that should be responding to the cartel shouldn't be the group responding to petty crimes, or most crimes for that matter( this should be normal officers)
Ah, yeah that was what I was getting at, it's a good idea to have at least one unit capable of operations like that, but it shouldn't spread to the rest of the force
AustonT wrote: You aren't fighting a war, you're serving the community. Look the part.
"looking the part" should be a consideration, but it's much, much lower on the list than appropriate functionality and comfort.
I disagree utterly. If you want to be tacticool spetnatz, go work at the mall, or even better, join the Boy Scouts. You're not Stazi, and not an "operator." You're an officer of the Law of and Court. Act like it.
We don't dress soldiers in bright red uniforms because 'that's how they should look'. We make concessions for functionality. We don't mandate that female officers wear skirts anymore, nor do we insist that anyone wear polished dress shoes or ties on patrol duty.
What is a police officer supposed to look like?
More importantly, why should this imaginary image be preserved at the expense of comfort and functionality? Why shouldn't I be able to have pants with extra pockets, or a load bearing vest? What is it about the (impractical and outdated) equipment belt that you want to keep? Should police also be restricted to revolvers, because "that's what they're supposed to use"?
We don't dress soldiers in bright red uniforms because 'that's how they should look'.
AND cops aint fething soldiers. THATS THE PROBLEM.
We make concessions for functionality.
Functionality doesn't require tacticool. LAPD in the 80s didn't have tacticool but managed everything nicely. Plus they actually worked out, unlike many a local PoPo I see around these parts.
nor do we insist that anyone wear polished dress shoes or ties on patrol duty.
You should. If you dress like a slob you will be taken for a slob. Dress like Stazi and you wilkl be thought of as Stazi. you know that wuit the bs about it being functional.
What is a police officer supposed to look like?
Like a police officer and not wannabe Seal Team Six. You're not an occupier. You're not badass. You're a police officer serving the citizenry.
More importantly, why should this imaginary image be preserved at the expense of comfort and functionality? Why shouldn't I be able to have pants with extra pockets, or a load bearing vest? What is it about the (impractical and outdated) equipment belt that you want to keep? Should police also be restricted to revolvers, because "that's what they're supposed to use"?
Because it makes you look like a mall tacticool tough guy and you get that mentality instead of the mentality of a police officer.
If Frazzled is saying this, one should think about that.
AustonT wrote: You aren't fighting a war, you're serving the community. Look the part.
"looking the part" should be a consideration, but it's much, much lower on the list than appropriate functionality and comfort.
I think you must have confused me with someone who thinks you should carry around a portable air conditioner and ride a segway in the name of comfort and functionality. Image conveys a number of messages to the public that is often much more important than any other factor, first impressions and all that. Police that cultivate an image of armed enforcers become seen as such, those that cultivate the image of professionals and public servants tend to be received more positively. It's the difference between law enforcement and policing. In todays culture there are too many enforcers and not enough cops.
Seaward wrote:
Kaldor wrote: Should police also be restricted to revolvers, because "that's what they're supposed to use"?
Might cut down on NDs!
Meh IMHO revolvers have a better chance to ND than semi autos. The original argument is silly in the first place because it was settled 30 years ago. People Like Kaldor think that this is approproate for police because of all the wonderful comfort and functionality. If you question why rozzers need MP5s the response is: what should they carry revolvers and a truncheon? It's a clown question.
The answer is snowballs.
AustonT wrote: You aren't fighting a war, you're serving the community. Look the part.
"looking the part" should be a consideration, but it's much, much lower on the list than appropriate functionality and comfort.
I think you must have confused me with someone who thinks you should carry around a portable air conditioner and ride a segway in the name of comfort and functionality. Image conveys a number of messages to the public that is often much more important than any other factor, first impressions and all that. Police that cultivate an image of armed enforcers become seen as such, those that cultivate the image of professionals and public servants tend to be received more positively. It's the difference between law enforcement and policing. In todays culture there are too many enforcers and not enough cops.
Agreed. back in the day in LA we were routinely rousted by The Man. However The Man dressed and acted in a professional manner. Unlike others I always got along with them in these interactions. Same to same for the fine constabulary in the Austin region of Wiener Command.
However I've seen and had to interact with ICE and others in my travels. Almost invariably, the guys dressed up for combat didn't act professional.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: If you think you're out gunned with a revolver thou needs to get thy self to a range. Only takes one shot to settle an engagement.
Any way, since this thread is filled with gunners, here's the new CCW holster I'm using. KM like. http://oldfaithfulholsters.com/
KalashnikovMarine wrote: If you think you're out gunned with a revolver thou needs to get thy self to a range. Only takes one shot to settle an engagement.
Any way, since this thread is filled with gunners, here's the new CCW holster I'm using. KM like. http://oldfaithfulholsters.com/
In a shoot out a Revolver has a disadvantage over a weapon that uses a Magazine. It takes longer to reload a revolver.
Yes there are reloading aids, but why put an extra cog in the machine.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: If you think you're out gunned with a revolver thou needs to get thy self to a range. Only takes one shot to settle an engagement.
Any way, since this thread is filled with gunners, here's the new CCW holster I'm using. KM like. http://oldfaithfulholsters.com/
In a shoot out a Revolver has a disadvantage over a weapon that uses a Magazine. It takes longer to reload a revolver.
Yes there are reloading aids, but why put an extra cog in the machine.
For the sake of argument how are those aids any different than a magazine? They store rounds, deliver them to the gun, and are discarded when empty.
If I wanted to argue against revolvers I'd go more to capacity, which is a legitimate concern. I've been witness to countless debates between cops old and new about semis vs revolvers in the end there is no resolution to be had.
I must be having trouble with English today, I have no idea what KM was trying to say. I'm suprised theres no actual comparison between top revolver and top semi auto shooters. This guy is no Jerry Miculek, but you'd be hard pressed to say he reloads slower than a magfed semi.
AustonT wrote: I must be having trouble with English today, I have no idea what KM was trying to say. I'm suprised theres no actual comparison between top revolver and top semi auto shooters. This guy is no Jerry Miculek, but you'd be hard pressed to say he reloads slower than a magfed semi.
I was concurring with your "Same cog" statement, specifically that the primary revolver reloading aids, (Speed loaders and moon clips) are the same (conceptually) as magazines, and that using any of them effectively is a matter of training and practice.
We don't dress soldiers in bright red uniforms because 'that's how they should look'.
AND cops aint fething soldiers. THATS THE PROBLEM.
Not sure if trolling, or just...
Well. You know.
Look, we don't use a bell as the only means to alert firefighters that a fire is on, just because that's how it's supposed to be. We don't make doctors wear candles and reflectors on their heads, we don't insist women stay in the kitchen, we don't prevent interracial marriage, because "that's how it's supposed to be"...
We adapt. We utilise the most effective version of the gear we need. We sacrifice form for function. That's how it is in the world (as I'm sure you're aware) and policing is no different.
Functionality doesn't require tacticool. LAPD in the 80s didn't have tacticool but managed everything nicely. Plus they actually worked out, unlike many a local PoPo I see around these parts.
What are you even talking about? You've got some image in your head, and anything that doesn't match it is 'tacticool'? Police in the 80's managed fine, I'm sure. What's that got to do with wearing boots instead of shoes, vests instead of belts, and cargo pants instead of dress pants? If I wear different pants, I'll approach my job differently?
Look, maybe you vary your level of professionalism depending on what you're wearing, but don't project that childishness onto others.
Frazzled wrote:
What is a police officer supposed to look like?
Like a police officer
And what is that supposed to look like? Do I wear blue? Or white? Or black? Or Red? What sort of hat do I wear? Can I use anything that was invented in the last 30 years, or must I be restricted to pre-war equipment to preserve your sensibilities?
talk about a kick off for the conspiracy theorists 
