The Glade 4.0

And maybe they are. You were trying to justify your single anecdote as to having some sort of meaning in the context of what you perceive to be a general dissatisfaction on this forum with the police because you seem to labor under the misapprehension that this forum simply doesn't like the police for being the police. I rebuke that by saying that no one dislikes the police simply for being what they are, but rather, they dislike the poor police for being poor, even if they contributed to the poor experience. But that doesn't constitute simply disliking police for the effect of it. What, if anything, is your point?

_________________
"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

This may be true but I still maintain the taboo about tactical weapons has nothing to do with their functional capabilities but with some undefined and nebulous fear about what their capabilities might be despite the objective evidence bearing out that they aren't all that dangerous to society in a relative sense. Particularly those that are borne legally by citizens. But in the original context, even if a person is carrying a fully automatic weapon, it shouldn't alarm people anymore than a person carrying any type of weapon which shouldn't alarm anyone at all or induce them to bother the police with 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

The problem with this, however, is the fact that people here seem to take it upon themselves to decide when the police are being poor. Complaining that the police have behaved poorly when the standard of "poor" is not "going outside what the law and the courts permit" and thus objective, but rather "doing things I don't like", which is subjective. We're being told right in this thread "the issue is whether the cop is being an *******". Why is that the issue? Because the cop was rude? I note that in NONE of the discussion of the hypothetical turn signal ticket scenarios is the officer's actual attitude at issue, rather he's a "prick" for enforcing the law because it's unnecessary, or he's "fishing for a DUI", whatever that means.. evidently it means jumping straight from "no turn signal" to "breathalyzer" which everyone agrees totally violates probable cause anyhow.

Disliking the police for doing things the way society, the law, or the courts demand is disliking the cops simply for being the police. That's who the police are; the servants of society as a whole. They do not work for individuals and they are not "pigs" because you personally take issue with the laws they are enforcing. A lot of the "poor police" various denizens of this board have encountered, at least in terms of the polcie threads we've had, have resulted from them simply pronouncing something improper, then loudly denouncing any counterargument as "bias" or whatever, without actually showing what law or policy the officer violated. It's essentially begging the question, and that is, in fact, disliking cops simply for being cops. The cops are, on the whole, going to comply with the law, and fulfill duty. that's what makes a cop not a "bad" cop. If you want to complain that makes one only mediocre, fine, but if you can't provide a reason a cop did something wrong beyond your personal feelings about it, that bad interaction is your fault for unreasonably demanding that the officer satisfy you, personally, in his actions.

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

A great deal of the taboo does result from fear created by the media based on cosmetics and such, but that fear, in turn, is necessarily based on the actual capabilities of these weapons. If they weren't actually better for fighting and killing, they would not have been adopted as tactical weapons in the first place.

The fear largely results from the few events where they are used, as well as from battlefield news and movie depictions of their capabilities. The reason they are not a criminal danger is because criminals don't use them, not because they aren't powerful weapons. Their size and weight precludes them being practical for most criminals, and using them extensively would result in undue government attention; a criminal with too much firepower inevitably finds himself fighting the army rather than the police.

Furthermore, it is silly to suggest that it shouldn't bother people at all that a person is carrying an automatic weapon. An automatic weapon is a weapon for combat, not merely for personal protection or hunting or entertainment. Most automatic weapons can be set to semi-auto as well and are capable of being used for personal protection, but for the most part they are as impractical for that as they are for criminal purposes, and for the same reasons (weight and inconvenience). A person should closely observe another person that is walking around with an automatic weapon in public and if they have suspicion that the person ought not to be carrying it, there is nothing wrong with "bothering" the police. the polcie should come, and determine if the person is entitled to carry it which most likely is the case for anyone walking around with a full automatic in full view.

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

Or let's look at it in a completely different way.

If there was a park and playground where a lot of children were playing and it was in a neighborhood where the adults didn't feel the need to sit on a bench and watch their kids (I remember a time when parks were pretty much devoid of adults). And while the kids were playing, a full grown man in his 30s or 40s with no children or spouse of his own decided to join the kids on the playground and happily play with the kids. Sliding down the slide, playing on the swingset, pushing the other kids on the swings, helping them get the merry-go-round to speeds the children have never seen before. Laughing and having a good time with all the tiny children.

Would other people who witness this in passing not be the slightest concerned? Would you not be concerned in the slightest? Or would you stop and watch this adult? This adult, who is doing nothing wrong and has every right to "play" on the playground as any human being.

Of course everyone here would be a little concerned. And if you weren't, you're **** lying and you know it.

The same goes for walking down the street with an mp5 strapped to your back and figuring nobody is going to be concerned enough to call the cops (those guys knew it was going to happen, and were likely hoping for it).

_________________
Les Zombis et les Loups-Garous!

You're right Foamy, the incident happened last month, I made a mistake. The article was written last week, I guess because the police chief and the mayor are now involved. You can draw one of two conclusions: I went searching for a 2nd amendment bust that was a violation (probably because I can't stomach the thought of some cop, somewhere being praised for a job well done, right?) so I could dredge something up to counter Aizle's video, or it came across my twitter feed, and I thought, "That sucks, it's the complete opposite of what Aizle just found." I'd hope you have no doubt as to which one really happened, but just in case you don't believe me: https://twitter.com/radleybalko/status/ ... 4715431936

DE, as I said in my post, the reasons I thought it was worthy of posting:
"...less than 50 miles from my house, and less than 20 miles from my brother's house."
As well as:
"Aizle's video showed a respectful, knowledgeable officer making a weapon check in accordance with a citizen's Second Amendment Rights. The video I posted showed a group of police sergeants who were all at various times either ignorant of the law, bellicose, disdainful or downright threatening during a detention and subsequent arrest while violating a citizen's Second Amendment Rights."

I'll try to make it even more clear:
The two incidents had radically different outcomes precisely for the reasons I praised the officer in Aizle's video. He was knowledgeable, they were ignorant. He was courteous and respectful, they were bellicose, ignorant and in the end threatening physical violence. I think the reason for "here's the other side" is plain, the incidents could have been resolved exactly the same, but for the attitudes of the officers and their sense of responsibility about doing the job they've chosen properly. These are the exact things I praised the officer for, and then this incident came across my twitter newsfeed. Further, the incidents came to my attention in a very short period of time. I think that sufficiently explains my statements about it not taking long, the other side, and why I thought it was worthy of posting in this august thread.

Numbuk, the reason why you have to "remember a time when parks were pretty much devoid of adults" is because of the pervasiveness of the attitude that an adult cannot be in the presence of children without someone being paranoid about their intentions. Of course it wouldn't concern me that an adult was playing with children. How on earth would I know whether or not he had no children or spouse of his own. That line of thinking leads to people being charged with child endangerment for letting their kids play at the park without hovering nearby.
I would assume legitimacy before malevolence, just as I would an incident of a single male sitting next to a kid on a plane, or even walking down the street with a firearm.

_________________
"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

Ok, fine is that was your intention. However, I don't think it was necessary, nor worthy of posting, beyond it being worth posting to you. I don't think we needed to see the "other side"; we are all aware it exists and more importantly, I doubt very much anyone would have gone out of their way to find Aizle's video had yours been the OP. I realize you didn't go out of your way to get this one either, but that speaks to another issue - the media, much like with every other topic, goes out of its way to report the negative and doles out only the most infrequent positive stories. "Cop does job properly, no one beaten or arrested" does not make for a great 6 p.m. news spot.

In fact,t he only thing I really found worthwhile in your video was at least it showed improper behavior that was unquestionably improper as opposed to the videos we so frequently see where either there's a real question as to what actually happened, where it's improper simply because people don't like it, or both.

Also, frankly, I find it rather bizarre not to worry about an adult playing with children at a park when he has no children of his own there. I do not buy that it's the same as sitting next to a kid on a plane. It's extremely out of the ordinary for an adult to want to engage in child's play with children he doesn't even know, and it really is not at all untoward to suspect he may have ulterior motives.

That thinking is not what leads to people getting charged with child endangerment for sitting next to a kid on a plane, or for not hovering near a kid. That's a slippery slope. What leads to that is people taking it beyond concern about abnormal adult behavior and into concern about normal adult behavior, or concern that a parent exercises judgement differently than they do. It is silly to say, however, that we should never be concerned with another person's behavior around kids until they do something overtly wrong just because it might lead to someone taking the concern too far, and it is equally silly to say that we should not be concerned about an automatic weapon just because that might encourage people to be worried about a person carrying a handgun. the proper solution to both things is to educate the paranoid person, not to tell everyone "don't worry about anything, someone else might take it too far."

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

Hey, DE, I'll be sure to run my posts by you to make sure they are not only worth posting to me, but also worthy of posting according to your standards.

Of course no one should give extensive coverage to someone doing their job at an acceptable level, yet many, many newspapers carry a police blotter that describe exactly what you posted. Yet no newspaper I know of carries the daily doings of the local nurses, computer programmers or waiters, all of whom go through their daily lives at work contributing to society as well.

Regarding the guy at the park, again I ask how the hell would you know if he has kids of his own there? Are you sincerely telling me that a guy playing at the park with kids is really worthy of suspecting that he has untoward motives? That kind of thinking is exactly what leads to all the **** I referenced, because that is thinking of malevolence before legitimacy. It's already led our society to the point where men are viewed as potential rapists and child molesters; no slippery slope needed, because as Numbuk pointed out everyone does it, or at least should, and multinational corporations have followed suit.

As for the concern about an automatic weapon, you will note that I made no reference to automatic weapons, I specifically stated "firearm", because people have about as much chance of discerning whether a weapon is an automatic as they do of being able to tell if some guy has his own, his neighbors, his sister's or brother's (ad infinitum) kids at the park.

_________________
"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

Hey Vindi, I don't see where I implied that was necessary, nor do I see where Foamy said this thread was suppsoed to be nothing but praise for cops. Maybe you should consider being a little less overly defensive about it. I don't know of any particular reason we should avoid expressing our opinions about what you post.



That's because police business is of interest to the entire community, or at least that portion of the community that cares enough to read it. Police blotters really don't usually contain a very accurate representation of what the polcie did, either, they tend to confine themselves to the most minor, pedestrian calls. They aren't there as a pat-on-the back to the polcie, they're there to assure little old ladies that the police really will come by and investigate the suspicious garbage can in front of their house.

Oh, and while we're on the topic, my point had nothing to do with who "contributes to society". My point was that the news likes to focus on the negative as a way to create interest. No, computer programmers don't get a blotter talking about their "contributions"; they also don't get the evening news trying to have a trial of public opinion every time they make a mistake either.



Are you serious?



Yes, if he doesn't appear to have any kids there, he's definitely worthy of at least suspicion as in me keeping an eye on him.

No, that thinking does not "lead to" any of the other thinking you cite, regardless of the way "everyone" does or should think. What multinational corporations have to do with it is beyond me. You are not actually demonstrating how it leads from one to the other; you're just saying it does and using your own incredulity to substitute for evidence. Do you have some reliable psychological research showing that suspicion of adults who are around public common areas where children play for no apparent reason somehow leads to suspicion of adults in proximity to any child that you could perhaps direct us to?



Ok, first of all, you don't know what chance anyone has of determining if someone is at a park with kids or not. You're just claiming they can't because it's convenient. I've got 4 kids and I can't recall ever taking any of the ones that are old enough to have gone to the park and run into an adult that I couldn't fairly quickly figure out "belonged" to a particular kid there. Stop being absurd.

Second, the discussion before you barged in here getting all irate that someone dared question your video, was about automatic weapons. I don't particularly care if you mentioned automatic weapons, that was the topic at hand, and it's what I was talking about.

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

It was left out, but my example was going on the assumption that anyone viewing the man in the park knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that none of the kids there belonged to him or were related to him in any way.

In a perfect world, a grown man could play on the playground with kids who are all strangers to him and nobody would think twice about it. In a perfect world, folks could walk down the street with semi automatic tactical weapons strapped to their back and nobody would think to call the police to ensure they aren't doing anything illegal. We don't live in a perfect world, nor will we ever live in said world. Ever. To think otherwise is just blissful ignorance. Nice, hopeful, optimistic ignorance, but ignorance nonetheless.

_________________
Les Zombis et les Loups-Garous!

Ok, Numbuk, I guess the line "witness this in passing", threw me. I guess if I knew, for some reason, I would think it strange. But, what would one do then?

_________________
"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

I guess my whole point was that it's not uncommon for people to want to err on the side of safety. Safety for their family, safety for themselves. People get upset that some passerbys called the cops on the guys carrying legal firearms? It's a small price to pay to err on the side of caution. Same goes for the man in the playground. Keeping an eye on him is a small price to pay to ensure the safety of the kids.

In the perfect world I mentioned, we wouldn't need to do that. But people today prove humanity just isn't ready for it. All those folks in the theater in Colorado thought to themselves that there was nothing unusual about James Holmes and trusted there wasn't a problem. Even when they watched him leave through the emergency exit, they still went under the assumption that there were legitimate reasons for it and kept their concerns low. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a little heightened caution over out-of-the-ordinary circumstances.

A couple kids walking down the street in broad daylight with an mp5 strapped to their back upset that cops got involved? I'm glad someone erred on the side of caution. But again, I can almost bet that those kids were expecting and hoping for that encounter (so they could video tape them sticking it to the cops with their bill of rights knowledge, and even that backfired on them).

_________________
Les Zombis et les Loups-Garous!

Tangent away from the cop-centric point of the thread, but why do you guys think it's so ridiculous/paranoid for people to be nervous about someone who is openly carrying a gun in public? Threat assessment basically boils down to evaluating two things about a person - (i) intent/willingness to do harm and (ii) capacity to do harm. If a person is armed, capacity is clearly established, and I think you can reasonably assume that someone who chooses to carry has a higher than average willingness as well. Any safety-conscious person is going to have to give an armed individual a closer look, and if there's anything seemingly "off" about said individual or the context is such that the choice to carry seems particularly odd, then I see nothing ridiculous or paranoid about asking the cops to check the guy out. Not doing so would, frankly, be foolish.

I think the context point is particularly important, actually. If you're in a rural area and see a guy walking into the woods with a hunting rifle...yeah, don't call the cops. But a dude who feels the need to strap a gun to his hip and spend three hours walking around a suburban park? Yeah, that guy is probably worth checking out.

Numbuk, you're right, it is common to err on the side of caution, but what do you do when you see the situation you described (in passing)? You stop what you're doing and stick around and watch him?
I really think it's a pretty clear chain of events that have led to where we are today as a society. You state yourself that you can remember a time when parents pretty much didn't go to parks with their kids, then the time was when parents usually went with, then parents always went, now it's unusual enough that if kids aren't with their parents at the park it's cause for concern (not to mention cops and charges for child neglect). I don't think it takes much imagination at all to see why an attitude like that has caused airlines to have a standing rule that single men cannot be seated next to a child.

As for the Aurora theater incident, is there really something that unusual about someone leaving a theater with a cell phone pressed to their ear? What should people do when someone leaves a theater in such a way?
Is it really worth it to live in a state of paranoia about events that are vanishingly uncommon? That's the state we live in now, fear of terrorists, fear of child molesting strangers, fear of the stranger who will abduct a child...

RD, no I don't feel the need to call the cops when I see someone with a handgun on their hip.

_________________
"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

Well, RD, if I see somebody not packing, I have no idea about either their willingness/intent to do harm OR their capacity to do harm. I'm not a trained martial artist, for instance, so there are plenty of people out there that could, I'm absolutely positive, kick my *** in an unarmed fight. Is that guy over there one of them? I don't know. Hell, is he concealing a firearm? I don't know.

So an armed person really just takes the mystery out of it, rather than automatically registering higher. Because if I'm taking this "threat assessment" seriously, anybody I can't pin down has to be assumed to fall within a wide potential range, which includes "deadly."

Now, let's move onto willingness. Same thing applies. While you're right, somebody carrying a firearm probably has a higher than average willingness, the assumption you have to make is that anybody could be willing, unless you know differently.

Finally, let's look at intent. I am, generally, not an *******. So if somebody intends to harm me, it's going to be because they're looking to harm somebody in an illicit/illegal fashion. People who are looking to harm somebody that way generally don't walk around advertising that they're up to no good. When they're not actually in the act, their goal is to not be noticed. Open carry is a damn good way to be noticed.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Says the guy who won't share his schedule with me in the Dragon*Con app!

Lol. I wasn't even aware this was possible.

Not that it'll do you any good. I'm still only halfway through the track lists, and already coming up with like triple-conflicts. I need a time machine to attend Dragon*Con 4 times simultaneously.

And I'm probably going to ignore a bunch of that and spend a bunch of time in the Hilton basement with the board games (and BattleTech pods!!!) this year anyways.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

We've cultivated a society based on fear because fear is what allows authorities to expand their power.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

No, we've cultivated a society based on wariness, because wariness is what allows you to live long enough to breed.

Just being issued a citation is not a "bad cop experience". It's a bad experience, but I've been pulled over by extremely professional and polite officers and issued a ticket.

I even had one thank me for continuing after he turned his lights on until I found a better spot to pull over that would be safer for him. He thanked me as he was handing me a ticket.

I don't mind getting busted if I do something wrong.

On the other hand, I suspect that folks are correct that in the average day, douchebag_cop_01 has more interaction with citizens than officer_of_the_peace_01. Because he's looking for trouble.

No, we've cultivated a society based on statistical anomalies, because math is hard.

_________________

Child molesting and similar problems weren't less common in the innocent days of yore. I have second-hand knowledge of this fact. Back in the mid 20th century it was just as common as it is today, except it was far more taboo to openly talk about. And some parents of the children (again, second-hand knowledge here) wanted to avoid dealing with the reality of it that they used all kinds of blocking-out and ignoring techniques (again, this is the parents I am talking about here). It's like there was a stigma attached to your household if something like that happened to your kid in your quiet little town and the word got out. I personally don't understand it.

Now, in today's world, there is no stigma. And we have far more open communication with the public. Are some parents TOO paranoid? Sure. But as long as it doesn't impact the freedom and growth of the kid, there's nothing wrong with it. If anything, it's better than how it was "back in the day" and I personally wish parents were a bit more cautious back then. It would have saved a lot of heartache for some people I know.

And just like today compared to the days of yore, firearms have gotten more accessible and deadlier. So there's a reason for a little bit of healthy caution surrounding them as well.

_________________
Les Zombis et les Loups-Garous!

I wouldn't be concerned. I would think that guy has the right idea in life - its short and enjoy it with the all the abandon of a child.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I'd have to call the police on myself daily.

Seriously a person who has a gun openly displayed in a holster is a smaller statistical threat to you than lightning.

I was worth checking out when I walked out of my house and across the street to enjoy my first day off night shift with 10 laps in the park? Really? Why? Because you would fear it? Some people fear a black person in their neighborhood - are they worth checking out because of some person's irrational fear? Why or why not?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Nope. Most people will survive their lives without ending if they live without noticing. The sheer numbers of humans and our general ability to get along without killing each other ensure this.

The US has a culture of paranoia to everything that is not considered normal where normal is defined by what you see people on tv doing.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville