The Glade 4.0

We get all sorts of stories here about cops being jackbooted thugs and stomping on the rights of gun owners, I thought I'd post one that showed a counter example. Video link below.

Cop vs. 2nd Amendment Activists

Based only on how he's acting in front of a camera (which might not be how he normally acts), I like him.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

All in all the cop did perfectly and I wish all encounters went down that well. He obviously knew the guy was going to bring up all the by-the-book rules and he stayed polite when explaining himself. Nothing that he said came off with the tone of, "because I said so," which is often what people don't appreciate when dealing with officers.

Yup, the cop did great, I believe that is a result of him knowing the law he is enforcing. When he's dealing with people who believe themselves to be knowledgeable about the situation it has a great positive influence on the whole dialogue when he can be more knowledgeable than they are, and show it calmly and respectfully, even when the other parties are a being a bit dickish. It would be **** great if all cops were this knowledgeable and polite. He needs to start training other officers ASAP.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

+1000

Agree totally! I've had a few run-ins with police in my lifetime, but they have always been fine because 1) I was respectful of the police officer and 2) he/she were respectful of me.

_________________
"Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use one!"~ Matthew Quigley

"nothing like a little meow in bed at night" ~ Bruskey

"I gotta float my stick same as you" Hondo Lane

"Fill your hand you son of a *****!"

I like when he invited him to train with the citizen's academy. They had nothing to say.

The situation sucks for everyone in this case since NFA Class III weapons require so much trouble to obtain the license police are forced to "investigate" anyone everyone who carries an SMG or rifle that is a civilian issue of an automatic weapon. I estimate this is more a result of the taboo about civilians owning tactical weapons than anything. After all, one does not randomly stop civilians for operating vehicles even though state law requires issuance of a driver's license. They don't have to do this because people do not randomly call the police about drivers simply for operating vehicles since operating a vehicle is not taboo or controversial.

There's similarly no reason to randomly stop a person with a weapon that doesn't even require Class III because it might resemble one that does. But the police get calls so they have to do something to appease the idiots calling in about it.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

...and that didn't take long, here's the opposite:



Favorite line:
Sgt. Lazoff(?) "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

Second Favorite line (tie):
Late-Arriving Black Sgt: "You're about to get the **** kicked out of you." and "Keep walking or you're gonna get jacked up."
Article

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Guess we can't have a thread where the police are lauded without dredging up an incident where they are shown to be wrong.

Typical.

_________________
This must be Thursday. I could never get the hang of Thursdays.

GOOMH

To be fair, there is very little value to posting a thread with a single anecdote of little importance. This is a large cultural issue and the discussion is naturally going to progress in that direction. We *know* there are good cops as well as bad cops. There are also an overwhelming number of cops that are just average, doing the best job they can without trying to the incur the responsibility of inspiring sweeping reform within the LEO culture.

That one cop like this exists isn't a surprise or that important.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Obviously any give single anecdote doesn't mean much, I thought that was assumed.

The point is more that the majority of the folks on this forum dislike cops, so nothing positive they do can be left alone without finding something equally or greater negative. It's more a commentary on the people here, than a commentary on cops.

Regardless of one's political leanings, few people ever have the opportunity to have positive dealings with police. Think about it: for the vast majority of most people's interactions with police, they're either issuing you a traffic citation, or just getting information from you about what was stolen from you, none of which you'll ever get back anyway. For people who are interested in political change, police tend to represent the establishment, and therefore end up on opposite sides of the protest. For those unfortunate enough to end up on the receiving end of serious police attention, the experience is rarely positive.

I, on the other hand, have had the experience of calling police and getting them to help a friend get her things out of her apartment because her live-in boyfriend was beating her. The police were understanding and supportive and helpful and compassionate and in every way a reassuring pleasure to have around.

The thing is, due to their job, there are few opportunities for police to impress people like this, and plenty of opportunities for them to screw up and piss a lot of people off. This is going to make it forever an unpopular profession.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

By their very nature, pigs are going to be the ones we have the most exposure to. The upstanding police officers, who do exist, don't harass citizens looking to provoke them into a ticketable offense. Pigs do.

For instance, at a stop light at midnight, a car in the left-turn lane turns left when the green arrow appears.

One cop watches the car, notices they're not driving erratically, and continues their route.

Another cop watches the car, notices the turn signal isn't on, and decides to go fishing for a DUI.

EDIT: (10:19:32 AM) Corolinth: Police brutality wouldn't be a crime of more cops were like that guy.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Not using a turn signal is a violation of the law. It's the officer's discretion to enforce it or not. That does not make the one who enforces it a "pig" nor "fishing for a DUI" (you can't look at a car momentarily and "notice they're not driving erratically" anyhow), nor does it make the one who ignores the violation a good cop.

It's hilarious, in fact, tht you strt out talking about "harrassing" people and "provoking them into a ticketable offense" then turn around and give an example where the officer already observed a ticketable offense and talk about how stopping the guy for it is "fishing for a DUI".

How exactly do you "provoke" someone into not using their turn signal, or into a DUI, or indeed, into any ticketable offense at all? Here's a clue - you can't. About the only offenses you can "provoke" someone into are disorderly conduct or assaulting a police officer.

The "pigs" aren't police officers who stop people for minor violations when they legitimately did observe a violation. The pig is the cop who lies about the minor violation.

Let me tell you who else is a pig - a pig is a citizen who thinks getting stopped for a minor violation is some kind of problem because he thinks the cop should have let it go. No one asked you. If you want to get a job as a cop, go for it, then you an decide to write or not write tickets on your watch. If you don't like the traffic laws, write your state representative. If they don't get changed, tough ****. Evidently your fellow citizens are not interested in changing the law just because you're mad you got a ticket.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Well, it sorta depends, DE. In coro's example, at midnight, with nobody else on the road, the turn signal is both redundant (he's in the left turn lane, anyone watching knows he's turning), and pointless (there's nobody at the intersection affected by his lack of signal.) There is no reason to signal other than "it's the law." Enforcing it at this point is "being a pig" since you're ticketing someone just for the sake of giving a ticket. The spirit of the law isn't being violated, and only a "pig" cares about the letter of the law. That's why they can use discretion.

That same car turns left without signalling at a busy intersection or busy time of day, suddenly they're causing a safety issue, which is why the law exists.

Regardless of your opinion on the matter, the person being ticketed is going to quite rightly think the cop is, at the very least, an anal-retentive idiot who needs to loosen up. Even if the ticket was entirely warranted, the driver's going to be upset at the cop. That doesn't mean he shouldn't issue the ticket in that case, but suddenly one more person hates the cops.

Best to keep the tickets to when they matter, I would think.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

To be fair, a car isn't as "taboo" simply because it's sole design and purpose is not to injure/kill another human being (nobody hunts elk with an mp5). Certainly, they can be deadly in the wrong hands, but generally to a far lesser degree than an automatic weapon in the wrong hands.

Just pointing out the reasons why cars aren't nearly as high profile. I'm actually all for lawfully owning weapons by responsible adults.


Edit: As for getting upset when laws are being enforced even when it feels pointless, cops are totally in the right to enforce any law that is being broken. A law is a law. Not a guideline. If you live in the U.S. you are agreeing to these laws, whether you like it or not.

In my state, it is a law to have a license plate on both the front and back of your car. I've been driving for 15 years without a front license plate. When I bought my current car, I knowingly and willfully removed the front license plate (I like the look better). In 15 years I've been pulled over exactly one time for not having a front license plate (happened about 9 years ago). And even then, I didn't get a ticket just a verbal warning (of which I did nothing about).

Did I whine and complain when I was pulled over? No. Did I rant about it afterwards? No. If I get pulled over today and issued an actual ticket will I whine and complain? No. I'm breaking the law and I know that it's fully within their right to ticket me. I am just betting on the fact that all cops just won't bother with said law.

I am convinced the only reason I was pulled over even just that one time was only because I was driving alone at 3am and looked a bit suspicous, and that was a convenient excuse to make sure I wasn't high or something (and again, I am not complaining or whining about it).

_________________
Les Zombis et les Loups-Garous!

Nobody is disputing that. But just because they are "in the right" to enforce it, doesn't change that fact, that in some cases, doing so automatically makes you a prick. Thanks to freedom of speech, I am "in the right" to stand on your street corner and shout insults about your mother, too.

Law doesn't exist for its own sake. We don't need law, we need the effect for which certain laws are purposed. Cops have discretion to enforce law as they see fit because laws have a purpose. When a particular application of law does not serve that purpose, a cop can ignore enforcing it.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Yeah, laws like turn signals are there for a reason, but if the reason for having them isn't an issue (no one around to warn that you're switching lanes), why bust someone for not doing it? You shouldn't enforce a law simply because it exists. Sure, we can't complain about it either, but that doesn't make it right.

No, it's not "being a pig". And yes, the fact that it is the law is certainly a reason to obey it, especially when there is absolutely no reason not to use your turn signal either, and the fact that one didn't use it is, in fact, an indicator that something else might be wrong. People that can't be bothered to do something that takes the truly minimal effort of turning on a turn signal are frequently also those that have a suspended driver's license because they couldn't do other things they were supposed to, or becuase they're drunk. Maybe not "violently swerving all over the place" drunk, but drunk to the point where one's ability to drive is certainly impaired, and just because there's no one around right then does not mean there's not another car down the road a ways when this same drunk does start drifting into another lane because he wants to radio-surf or something.

Furthermore, simply stopping someone does not mandate issuing a ticket. There is no reason it makes someone a "pig" to stop a car, remind the driver its important to use turn signals, and send them on their way if nothing else is wrong. Is that "fishing for a DUI"? Maybe so, but if the person actually is drunk, who cares? IF they aren't they get sent on their way.



Yes, but the law does not contain an exception for times when it's "not a safety issue". Nor should it. Even without any exceptions, people cannot consistently use their turn signals when they are supposed to. If they were allowed to "when it's not a safety issue", people who were simply lazy would never use it, and always have some excuse as to why it "wasn't a safety issue" if issued a ticket, even in rush hour.



They may very well, think that, but there's nothing "rightly" about it. That's simply elevating yourself above the cop; because you wouldn't give yourself a ticket, the cop shouldn't have either. What makes you so special, that your view of what's "anal retentive" should govern? Especially when you're the one with the conflict of interest, not the cop. He doesn't get paid any more, nor get to go home any earlier, for giving you the ticket. You're just another person, and by stopping you, he also gets to possibly arrest someone with a warrant, or who is drunk, or doesn't have a driver's license. The fact that you are none of these things is irrelevant. He doesn't know that ahead of time, and you violated the law. Simple as that. The law is not in some way imposing on you, oppressing you, impeding your use of the road, or violating your rights. It's a turn signal. Move your left hand down an inch and a ahlf and flip the damn thing on.



First of all, most people do not hate the cops just because they got a ticket. Even if they did. the entire argument is silly; the cops should not enforce the law because adults are so childish that personal resentment over a ticket will necessarily override their ability to accept responsibility for their own actions, and cause them to hate all cops because one cop caused them a minor inconvenience in response to an action they, themselves, took or failed to take - in this example, a failure to go to the incomprably minor effort of turning on a turn signal.



When it "matters" is unique to each person. Personally, I most likely would not actually issue a ticket to a sober person with a valid license and no warrants when there was no other traffic, but if nothing else was going on, I'd definitely stop them and remind them and take that opportunity to observe if they were drunk and check their license. The fact that a police officer has a different idea of what "matters" from you, or anyone else, does not make him a "pig".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Why exactly should you not enforce a law "just because it exists"? What exactly do you mean by "bust" someone? Not stop them, or not ticket them? Those are two different things.

We're not talking about laws that are obsolete, unfair to some people, oppressive, or have inordiantely severe punishments and even if we were, the polcie don't make them. We're talking about an eminently sensible traffic regulation that requires almost no effort to comply with.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

By "bust" I mean ticket. If you see someone not using a blinker at 2am with zero other cars around and you're bored, fine. Pull the person over and give them a talking-to. That, IMO, doesn't warrant a ticket though because the reason the law exists is not applicable in the scenario. There's no one around that you need to warn about your turn or lane change, and using your blinker is literally a useless motion for the driver. However, since yes the law is the law, I'd be fine if an officer decided to give me a reminder in that instance.

Some cops would ticket a driver that did that, some wouldn't. As a citizen and as a logical being I take issue with the cop that would issue a ticket, but I still recognize that it's the law.

You guys totally misunderstood that example.

The cop doesn't care at all about enforcing the turn signal. He's using it as an excuse to pull someone over and search their car for marajuana or to administer a breathalyzer.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Clearly the cop was there and you weren't observant enough to see him so why should we trust your judgement that "no one is around" when you've just proven you can't be trusted to make that determination.

_________________

Cops don't generally have all their lights turned on when they're sitting somewhere waiting to catch people. If the cop was sitting at the stoplight going the other direction, there would be someone for you to notify of your turn and you'd be neglecting to do that.

You haven't said anything to contradict me.
A) Which direction the other car is travelling is irrelevant
B) You aren't observant enough to notice a police car (lights on or off as the case may be) why should I assume you would notice a private car (lights on or off)?

_________________