Ask A Cop *The Video Series*

Nice one semper, here's a serious question.

If i was speeding in your precinct by well over 60 miles and you were on patrol, would you arrest me? Note: I would be wearing a t-shirt with Paul McCartney's face on the front, and on the back the text: 'your friend from ats: serbsta'.

reply to post by semperfortis


Hi from Oz SF!

Have you ever been told you look a little like Chief Wigam from the Simpsons. Sorry dude but to quote Homer, "It's funny because it's true!".

Thanks for the Q & A.
Sorry to be so suss but I really hope you are as advertised as the Net is SOOOOOO full of fantasist BS!
If you are legit, kudos for this.

Hey semper!!! First I would like to thank you for giving your time to answer the questions the member's have on the topic of Law Enforcement, it's nice to have someone with your experience to bounce questions off of..

My question/s have to deal with the use of tasers..

First, I understand that it is a tool, and advertised as a non-lethal means of subduing a person who may be danger to themselves and to LEOs.

Recently there have been cases where the use of tasers have unfortunately ended with the deaths of some of those tased.

Also recently, there has been a change in the SOP of using tasers, changing the aiming point lower, to move the target further from the area of the heart.

My questions are...

Are there any reviews going on in regards to the use of tasers?

Have the reports of death from employing these tools, given you a cause for concern? I can only imagine how devastated an officer would feel should they employ what they believe to be non-lethal force and end up hearing that someone's life has been lost.

Should there be a stand down of taser use until a better understanding of the dangers posed can be investigated?

Should there be tighter regulations in place to limit use of the taser by LEOs?


Thanks again semper for giving us this venue to hear from an expert

Hi Semper,

What are your feelings regarding the degradation of our constitutional rights and freedoms. Do you feel there is a limit as to how far you will personally go in the enforcement of things you wouldn't want to see your own family subjected to?

Thanks for taking questions.

dear officer I would like to know the truth, is it true that you would arrest more people for being disorderly or aggressive under the influence of alcohol than cannabis? This is something I have heard alot and I would like to get your opinion on people that you might have arrested were they normal average people? white collar people? Just the average person next door? Or was it more likely street gang related? What in your own opinion has done more damage to the community in general.

I know this question you might have heard dozens of times, but I would really want to know a police officers personal view is when it comes down to arresting a person for being under the influence of cannabis and a person for being under the strong influence of alcohol.

Sorry if this question might offend you, It's just something that I would like to hear from a personal viewpoint

Originally posted by semperfortis
Here is your chance folks, your chance to ask a real, live, honest to goodness, 100%, lifelong, career Police Officer anything you want to.

Thanks for the efforts. I've got a few questions please.

I'm sure that many officers are aware of very odd government behavior over the last decade or so. The unprosecuted crimes of this government are reaching heights I did not even think possible.

First question: Will you support and defend the Constitution if the government orders you to take actions that violate it?

---------------

In my small town, I've rented property to three police officers over the years. One officer wrecked the property so I sued and won. Another officer had zero complaints about the property but simply did not pay the rent, so I evicted. Another officer violated his contract but I let that go -- the officer has a serious attitude and apparently also has a behavioral problem. I will no longer rent to police officers in this town.

My second question is: Why are standards so low for police officers in N. Florida?

From what I have seen you are out to help both sides..

For example, I needed the police to remove my drunk ex who was being violent the other night and throwing iceballs around in my house trying to intimidate me etc...

He disagreed over and oer to leave the house with them. They had to keep asking him over and over.

If he would have continued to disagree, would I have been screwed? Would they have to let him stay inspite of his drunkeness and violence towards me???

He is allways telling me the police can't help me so I might as well give up etc...

Hi and thanks for the opportunity to have this discussion.
Is is still really necessary to continue chasing vehicles? There's air support, there's the readout from the license # of address, there seems to be a lot of technology to where you could use another method. It just doesn't make alot of sense to me to have 36 cars chasing one vehicle, and it puts the public at risk as well.
Thanks for your response.

Do you know your iq? If so, what is it? Do you have any skills that would get you a >$60k a year job outside of law enforcement? What city's have you worked? what perecentage of your cop friends think they are above the law, in your opinion? By the way, my dad is a cop. I know his answers. Just want to know yours.

hi, officer.

to start with i dont even understand why ask questions as to if cops are going to defend your constitutional rights if there need be...i dont think one cop can answer on behalf of everyone on this. it is obvious cops will do what they are asked to do by their gummint. isnt it already a case? how many cops do you know who are defending your rights vigorously right now? i hear just about everyday how gubment gets away with trampling our constitutional rights. can anyone give examples? what side cops are on?

my questions:

1. do police have quota?

2. is it legal for cops to use steroids? some cops are so buffed up there`s no way it`s been done without the help of steroids.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by marsvolta]

Will you please stop smoking in your videos.

Although i'm in the UK I'm finding it interesting, but I need to keep stopping the video every 5 minutes to go & have a ciggy

You're a very bad man.

I have a quick question about the legality of some actions that police officers take. Let me begin by saying that i'll be 19 in a few days time, and that i was taught to respect police officers, and authority in general. I don't believe that there are a huge amount of police brutality cases, but there seem to be smaller infringements by police if you are pulled over and searched. I've been in a few situations where an officer has tried to search a truck without asking the truck's owner for permission, he simply said "go wait over by my car with the other officer". If my friend hadn't asked the question why, its clear he would have searched illegally, or at the very least, ignore a few rights. Do you believe that such casual police stances on personal rights are wrong?

thank you for your time keep up the good work

An excellent start so far, keep it up. Maybe a bit ironic that you chose to have a cigarette while filming the video, though, yet gave the distinct impression of "clearing the smoke" at the same time. Dare I say, a breath of fresh air even (the EPA report on 2nd hand smoke report conspiracies notwithstanding).

There is something that occurs to me to ask you in light of your response to lockman's question about armed citizens and the 2nd amendment. As a Law Enforcement Officer, is it safe to assume that either your basic training or a profession inspired interest gives you a more insightful understanding of social contract theories than most laypeople (including myself). In Hobbes "Leviathan", he describes anarchy as a war of all - against all, because we are endowed by nature with the right of everyone to everything - including the right to harm your fellow man.

When, at the end of your video, you said (in regards to the right to protest) roughly "Your rights end, where my rights begin". (Sorry if I misquoted). This reminded me of the line from his second law of nature:

"That a man be willing, when others are so too, as farre-forth, as for Peace, and defence of himselfe he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himselfe."

Or as the Golden Rule states: "Treat thy neighbor as you would want your neighbor to treat you."

A nice sentiment, but ineffective in the face of violent exercise of another's right to everything. To ensure promote peace, each individual agrees to give up their right to exercise use of force over the other in punishment for violating the social contract (vigilante justice) - and both invest that power into a third party mediator who has the authority and means to punish both. This is what forms the core foundation of our government and law enforcement agencies.

Whereas Hobbes argued for unchallengeable strong and centralized government - Locke and others (such as he founding fathers) devised mechanisms to balance power between the people, the government, and the contract. One of such measures being the 2nd amendment right to bear arms.

Now to my question. At what point do think the right to bear arms should be limited? At the time of the Revolution, guns such as the Kentucky Long Rifle were inexpensive and plentiful. It put the the Militias on solid ground vs. the Continental Army. Yet that isn't the case anymore. It creates a bit of a paradox. Clearly private citizens and militias cannot be entrusted with weapons that put them on equal ground with military forces. Not to suggest that a rise in gun violence would follow, but certainly the scale of it would increase. For example, the tragic N. Hollywood Shootout a few years back. The police must be at least comparably (or slightly better) armed than citizens in order to be effective agents for enforcing the contract between those individual citizens and their government. Yet the military weapon superiority then trounces both police and citizen combined.

Wherein then, would the second amendment still functionally protect us against anything in the manner in which the amendment was intended? Would it be merely relegated to a rather situational (preventative/defensive) measure between individuals in temporary lieu of law enforcement? And wouldn't that, in itself, represent a fundamental breakdown of the concept of the enforcement in the social contract by an outside mediator?

Now, just to be clear, I don't mean to argue against the merit of the 2nd amendment - and I don't want to give up my guns either. After all, I use them on a regular basis as a deterrent, .35 cent pest control, and for recreation. Thankfully I haven't been in a situation where I've needed to fire it for survival.

I am just curious as to where a man in your profession stands on what constitutes a justifiable guaranteed level of defensive capability vs. the cost of potential abuse in offensive capabilities. Would you want to see private citizens and organized citizen militias shifted more towards capability to challenge the military should the need arise, or is that sort of balance untenable in today's world?


... Or, if the answer to that ends up eating too much time away from other questions you want to get to, how about this. Assuming Ray Kurzweil is right, and the singularity hits. Will you remain the mortal but quintessential human Alex Murphy, or will you go full-on RoboCop awesome kicking ass with size 13 titanium-alloy boots?


I liked the response you gave in regard to my first reply. That's pretty much the same reason I come here. Though I don't consider myself a Conspiracy Theorist by any means, nor have the arguments I've come across in my time here suggested that my position is likely to change anytime soon - I would not be doing myself any favors by leaving my opinions unchallenged.

As Thomas Paine put it,

Please remember that I have always supported the Right of every person to have their own opinion, even if that opinion is different than mine. Anyone who denies another person of this right, makes himself a slave to his own opinion, because he prevents himself from being able to change it.

I don't feel obligated to respect another's opinion if I find it poorly reasoned, nor to molly-coddle baseless speculation or accusations, nor engage in sifting mountains of misconception in the hopes of panning for a possible gold nugget of truth. To the best of my ability I will attempt to rip poorly justified or rationalized opinions to shreds... especially those which claim to profess absolute or fundamental "Truths". I may not be nice about it. But that's not denying someone their opinion. That's challenging their opinion. And I hope that others extend the same courtesy to my opinions.

Originally posted by JacKatMtn

Also recently, there has been a change in the SOP of using tasers, changing the aiming point lower, to move the target further from the area of the heart.

I know I should not answer questions, but I want to say that it does not matter where you tase them. So it is a valid question, why do not cops tase other parts of the body? The current flowing through the body will always be the same. There is no resistance in the body (I=V/R), so as long as there is a complete circuit. For instance, if you attach a node on each foot, the electricity will only travel throughout your foot, to your genitals, to your other foot. If you attach the node each on your left and right fingers, it will travel through your arm, and to the upper body organs (lungs, heart, etc) and then will travel to the other arm where the other node is. Another thing, the Amperage(Coloumbs per Second) through the heart is what kills you if you die via electric ( taser for instance) shock.

(*All is knowledge learned in Physics II*)

[edit on 19-12-2009 by fordrew]

My question is "how the hell do you guys do it day after day and be able to go home and just be yourself?" It seems to me the stress of the job would follow you home and try to keep you up every night wondering about everything under the sun.
I have my complaints about excessive use of force but in the end I just gotta say that you guys (LEOs) and everyone serving in a combat zone are my heros.
What you must go through seems overwhelming to me, so my hat is off to the people that work day and night to protect the rest of us.
THANK YOU! That means you Semper and all your brothers and sisters in law enforcement. Remember that for every bad guy there is out there, there's a hundred of us that will get your back.
Merry Christmas my friend!

What do you think should happen to the bad police officers that ignore peoples constituational rights and act completely out of line and out of their place.

I want to use 2 examples and then give my opion and I also ask for yours.

The case in Mississippi where cops tasered a boy laying on the ground with a broken back 19 times because he "wouldn't comply".

Another case in Louisiana where the officer had brought in a woman on suspicion of DWI who ended up lying on the floor in a pool of blood when he turned the camera back on from having shut it off previously.

These are 2 examples that I'd like to use where I want to ask you, what should be done to the officers in this situation? I don't know about the first cop, but the officer in the 2nd example was fired, but is that enough.

To me, I believe both of these are extremely infringing upon the rights of these people and the cops are acting more as tyrants than as to peace officers.

In the Declaration of Indepence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

In this text, nowhere does it say what level of government the people can alter or abolish, it just says government. And is not safe to say that police officers are a form of government.

So, is it not the right of the people to alter or to abolish the officers in these two examples?

I have a question concerning common law, can you show me where it says our common law right to travel has been removed by any act, law or legislation?

If not then it is true our common law right to free travel still exists, as part of the freeman movement this is a big concern, inappropriately acted upon legislation and RCMP failing to do their own due diligence.

I have studied this for over three thousand hours, acts and laws, deconstructing legislation in order to find truth in the deceptive words of these various acts and laws.

Can I still excercise my Common Law right to free travel? Are you willing to assume full commercial liability for your answer to the above question?
(I need the truth on this as many others have been deceptive and less than truthful)

Yes I am talking about driving my car unregistered and unlicenced anywhere I want lawfully (except of course lawn jobs on the white house lawn).

Thanks in advance for any answer resulting in clarification of this matter.

reply to post by semperfortis


So, what does a citizen do when dealing with an officer that gets an attitude when his/her perceptions are questioned? For instance, if an officer that tickets someone for not stopping at a sign when that person did in fact come to a full stop, but the officer just happened to look that direction after that person proceeded from the full stop?

(yeah, this happened to me, just curious about police and how to handle one with a bad attitude. He also refused to ticket a semi truck parked illegally on the corner of the stop because the driver was a friend of his... His words "I won't ticket him because he's a friend of mine, and I know he'll move the truck eventually.")

I've gone to carrying a digital recorder, and camera in case I get stopped around here, incidentally.