Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Lordhat wrote:

 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.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Lordhat wrote:

 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.

I'd really be more interested in why you can't fit a snubbie in your pocket

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Lordhat wrote:

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

 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?

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 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.

 generalgrog wrote:

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.


http://www.pixiq.com/article/are-you-required-to-produce-id-if-a-cop-demands-it

GG

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.

GG

It has to be a legal stop. you're conflating a great many things.

 Frazzled wrote:
It has to be a legal stop. you're conflating a great many things.

Yeah I'm having trouble following quite a lot of the "Asking for ID is illegal" party here...

 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.

GG

 generalgrog wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:

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:

 Lordhat wrote:

 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.



GG

I can basically guarantee you that the vast majority of people in the United States are not law abiding.

 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?

 generalgrog wrote:

 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.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Law abiding, or acting fully within the law 100% of the time?

I consider the two to be the same. Otherwise you end up with murderers being law abiding if they obey traffic laws.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

 quickfuze wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

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".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Law abiding, or acting fully within the law 100% of the time?

I consider the two to be the same. Otherwise you end up with murderers being law abiding if they obey traffic laws.

Yeah, but now you think that no one is law abiding. This seems like a needlessly binary way to look at the world.

 quickfuze wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

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.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Yeah, but now you think that no one is law abiding. This seems like a needlessly binary way to look at the world.

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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 quickfuze wrote:
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.

That comes off as more than a little prejudicial.

 dogma wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

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.