Does Police protocol encourage police to kill anyone brandishing a "weapon?"

reply to post by Skippy1138


Neither is the average american....

The police force in the United States is here for nothing more than control. They are not here to serve and protect you, their job is to maintain order period.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by WJjeeper

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by WJjeeper

 

Myths and Facts about Social Security

If you wouldnt mind going back and actually answering the questions I asked you, it would be appriciated.

i did, you asked me one question, "where did social security come from and how is it used"?

and FYI- sovereigns do not adhere to the constitution. a sovereign would adhere to common law written in the articles of confederation (the ORIGINAL constitution), thats why i gave you the link to my thread.

Right, and I gave you my response about that thread. To frther reinforce my position, the Articles of Confederation were dropped when the US Constitution was adopted and ratified. Simply ignoring it becasue you dont agree with it, does not make your position valid, or even legal for that matter.

When you decide to come back around to valid laws, let me know.

the articlies of confederation were never "dropped", they simply lay dormant, it is the oldest document in the history of the US (when it was still a republic). where do you think the constitution got its main principles from? can you show me an actual source to show the Articles were usurped?

i dont expect you to have the same standpoint i do, your a cop... "THEY" pay you, and you gladly accept their dirty money and enforce their arbitrary statutes. And you sir, havent answered my question this whole time. Are you a peace officer or policy enforcer/ LEO?

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


There is a culture within Law Enforcement that we are suspicious when we are making contact with people, or people making contact with us. We are taught and encouraged to play what some refer to as the what if game. All it is, when officers are doing their thing, to be conscious of our surroundings and to to the:

What if a person comes into the store im in with a gun
What if I run into a person I have arrested before
What if a person has a medical emergency

There is nothing sinister behind it, and it encourages us to maintain a situational awareness. The one thing people dont take into account are the people we do deal with, coming back to find us. I have had a few incidents over the years where I have been eyeballed while in a sotre or resteraunt. The person eyeballing me are people ive had negative encounters with in the past, and it does send a chill down the spine. You can sense the person watching you, tring to figure out where they know you from, and the chill gets colder when you seen the moment of dawning comprehencion on their faces.

I usually leave the store and come back at a later time. If I am in a resteraunt, I just be very observant. When we are off duty, it does not prevent peope from trying to do harm to us. Some people are under the mindset that once a cop takes the uniform off, they are no longer police, which is not correct.

People do not understand what this line of work entails, so let me try to give an example I hope some will understand. Being a Police Officer is almost like being the Press Secretary for the PResident of the US.

You are constantly in the spotlight, trying to explain actions, the who, why, when, what fors and how comes, while not always having, or being able to provide, all of the information that would place the what ifs in context. The saying dont kill the messenger is very much a fact. People who are wanting answers will go after the first person they come into contact with that is in any way shape or form linked to the parties invovled in whatever the situation is.

Like the Press Secratary and media, good deads go unreported, and to be honest, thats fine with me. We went into this line of work to do a job for the people, not to take curtain calls after every succesful call. The media reporting on the bad deads is also fine with almost all of us, because (at least in my opinion) the media is minding the peoples business by putting the spotlight in the dark areas the general public does not always get to see.

As with any profession, you have people who are part of the here but for the grace of God go I club = Book smart, street stupid = case law and bad publicity. However, lumping all Police into that category is unfair, as well as inaccurate.

We do the best job we can given the resources available. The notion that the Police are all corrupt and aginst the people are just flat out wrong. I, along with several other officers as well a smilitary personnel on this site have gone on record stating that if a tie ever came where the Constitution was essentially chucked and martial law declared, we would be turning our badges in.

The Police answer to Civilian leaders
The Military answers to Civilian leaders
Civilian Leaders, the Military and the Police answer to the People

As with every entity or organization, whether it be corporate, civil, military or law enforcement, ther eis a chain of command that is followed. I ahve seen comments by people who say they are the bosses of the police, and that the police should respond to orders given by those people.

It cannot work that way, and there are reasons for that. In this line of work, or military for that matter, to many chiefs gets people killed. Having a Corporal tell me to do something, then having it countermanded by a civilian, does not work for the obvious reasons.

Working a call between 2 disgrunteled citizens, receving orders from both to arrest the other..... It cant work that way. In addition, there are terms called undue command influence, intimidating a witness, witness tampering, victim tampering, etc All of these terms would come up in any call / action where we obeyed a civilian order, since the civilian falls into those categories (I am hoping this makes sense, if not let me know and I can try to state it in a different manner).

To bring it back around to the topic, we do not shoot to kill (for those who are just now joining the thread, check back over the last 6 pages and you will see answers by LEO's as t why that is). Are officers trained to use their hand gun and versed in the laws surrounding the use of deadly force? we are, to a very extensive degree (we have to go through continuing education each year to keep up to date with new laws, court rulings etc).

To those who are not law enforcement, take a step back and ignore all the preconcevied notions / personal experiences/etc you have, and put yourself in our shoes for the moment.

Its 2am and you perform a traffic stop on a car that was exceeding the posted speed limit. You rin the plate and it comes back not on file (which happens quite a bit, and is usually the fault of the DMV/SecStates office because of computer issues and what not. Just as you start to get out of your vehicle, you see the drivers side door open and the driver is getting out. Since its dark out, and your lights / spotlights add to the shadows, its difficult to make out the action.

As you get our of your vehicle you draw your weapon, because a person getting out of the car during a stop usually can mean a few things. At this point, you hope for the best, and prepare for the worst, so you rely on training and draw your duty weapon to the low ready if not transitioning it up, while giveing loud clear commands for the person to stop. The person does not stop and is now focusing on you, hand movement, and what looks like a dark object in the persons hand.

At this point you target the threat, while still giving loud clear verbal commands to stop and show me your hands.

The person does not comply and continues at you - What would you do?

Same scenario, except this time its the middle of the afternoon, not a cloud in the sky, the sun is in no way interfering with vision. The person gets out fo their car with whats looks like a gun in their hand, so you come out and draw your weapon fully, targeting the threat while giving commands to stop.

What would you do?

Its 1:30 in the morning and bars just closed. Dispatch starts you towards a fight in progress involving 6 individuals, no more infomration is available, other than the location and a few clothing descriptions. You arrive on seen and find the fight and begin to asses the situation, while other units start to arrive.

The group who is fighting seperates now, at which point you seen 1 person on the ground, bloodied and beaten. The 5 standing people then turn their focus towards you. You dont see any weapons in their hands, and all 5 start towards you.

What do you do?


You are patrolling near the mall when you roll up on what appears to be a fight between 2 people. As you get out of your car, you notice one person is now laying on the ground, unarmed, yelling at the other guy, who is now standing above him, pointing a gun at the guy.

What do you do?


I ask people to try to place themselves in the officers shoes, and again try to ignore all preconceived notions and personal experiences with the Police growing up. Try to answer the questions as if you were the officer.

reply to post by holtdani

Whoever is waving a gun about should be shot.

Does your reference to "whoever is waving a gun" also apply to the trigger happy and criminally corrupt pigs who are walking the fine line of lawman or criminal, who use their corrupt manmade laws to justify their insatiable blood lust to intentionally MURDER another human being because they want to feel what it's like?

Originally posted by WJjeeper
the articlies of confederation were never "dropped", they simply lay dormant, it is the oldest document in the history of the US (when it was still a republic). where do you think the constitution got its main principles from? can you show me an actual source to show the Articles were usurped?

Lay dormant?

dor·mant (dôrmnt)
adj.
1. Lying asleep or as if asleep; inactive.
2. Latent but capable of being activated: "a harrowing experience which . . . lay dormant but still menacing" (Charles Jackson).
3. Temporarily quiescent: a dormant volcano. See Synonyms at inactive, latent.
4. In a condition of biological rest or inactivity characterized by cessation of growth or development and the suspension of many metabolic processes.

Ursurped?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4bf154e542fc.jpg[/atsimg]

Doesnt look ursurped to me.

Dormant means inactive, not is use, invalid until activated. The Constitution did indeed use the articles, but not in their entirety. The delegates sent to the convention by their respective colonies were acting on behalf of the people in those colonies. They eventually decided on the Constitution, which also included amendments to the Constitution to ensure the Government is kept in check and to protect the people from the Government.

The Constitution was ratified by the colonies, making it what it is today, our guiding principle as to how our Government acts, and is a reminder to the Government that they are only legitimate when they govern with the consent of the majority of the people.

The US is still a Representative Republic.

Originally posted by WJjeeper
i dont expect you to have the same standpoint i do, your a cop...

Actually I am a citizen of the State I reside in, as well as a citizen of the United States of America first and foremost. My profession by choice is Police Officer. But thank you for proving my point about how steryotypes work.

In your argument about soveregnty, how the Constituion is invalid for this and that, corporate law, taxes etc, do you view people who do not share your same viewpoint with the same level of contempt you have for the Government and Law Enforcement? If you do not, why the double standard? Also, are you not doing to the people who disagree with your view, the exact same thin you accuse the Government of doing to you?

Originally posted by WJjeeper
"THEY" pay you, and you gladly accept their dirty money and enforce their arbitrary statutes.

By THEY, I am assuming you mean the people I work for, law abiding citizens, non law abiding citizens, etc.
I pay taxes, so I pretty much pay myself. The statutes are not arbitrary at all. You keep using that term, even after I have explained how it works.

Please make your argument and provide supporting sources that statutes are arbitary?

Here is my argument for you arbitary statutes etc -

Originally posted by WJjeeper
Law-enforcement officers have the result of generating revenue for the political machinery,and this generation of revenue focus; often means that they actually disturb the peace (ie. causing violence and anarchy by arresting peaceful users of marijuana, prostitutes, etc)

Any citation, regardless of who issues it, has a monetary fine, however that fine is up to the judge, not the Police nor the Prosecuting Attorney.

While prostitution and drug use is illegal, the Police are not the ones who made it that way, nor are we the ones who force people to use drugs or prostitutes, and blaming us for that is absurd, since the choice was freely made by the person who violated the law. If you dont like those laws, quit bitching at the cops and get involved with Government to have them changed. Before anyone whines about this, I will point out that in some cities in Michigan, marijuana use is an infraction (below a misdameanor and only carries a fine, usually 25 dollars), medical marijuana allowed in several states, and prositution allowed in Nevada (8 out of 16 counties).

Even your beloved Peace Officers fall into this category. Whats even funnier in my opinion is the amount of revenue generated by Peace Officers when compared to Police Officers. In addition to generating an income in the exact same manner as Police, Peace Officers also generate revenue through civil process (from filing fees, to serving fees, to mileage for serving the paperwork, court costs etc), where as the Police do not.

Originally posted by WJjeeper
a Peace officer is one who is trained to keep the peace, and does not enforce arbitrary statutory law. a peace officer adheres to the enforcement of the common law.

Common Law vs. Statatory Law - Yet another paring that people invoke, but do not completely understand their own argument. Common Law is based on precedent. If a case is brought and a ruling is made, it creates precedent to create uniformity, meaning people accused of and found guilty of the same crime, share somewhat the same fate, with discretion allowed by the judge as to severity of the established rulings.

Statatory Law - The elected representatives of the people who are part of the Legislative Branch of Government, whose powers are outlined in the Federal and State Constitutions that allow them to create and pass laws that promote the general welfare of the people they serve (whether you agree with their laws or not is irrelevant).

What people fail to understand is how statory law is applied by the judicial system. A person can be found guilty, and can appeal that decisions, all the way through the State courts, and then Federal Courts if there is standing. If a Federal appeals court decides the lower courts errored, they can overturn that decision, creating case law or in other words, a precedent (see common law). Their ruling is now binding on all federal as well as State and Local courts within that Federal Appeals circuit (which is a precedent or case law).

The concept behind Common Law in addition to same crime same punishment, is the abilty of the Judge to use his or her own discretion, which we see today in our legal system with a few small, yet major, problem areas. Under some state law and Federal Drug Laws (CSA) there is whats called a mandatory minimum, which in theory and application meets the requirement of common law, since the same crime gets the same punishment. The issue is it removes the ability of the Judge to exercise discretion and take into account mitigating circumstances, which violates the theory of common law.

Common Law is still in use in some States, and for the most part the common law rulings are not compatible with other states.

Article IV - Section 1 US Constitution - Full Faith and Credit Clause

People often invoke the Full Faith and Credit Clause when they make their arguments about Common Law. The State I am in does not recognize Common Law, and we have run into issues where an incident / issue from a surrounding state makes its way into ours. The largest issue we have is Medical related, and comes down to care issues. One of the surrounding States allows and recognizes common law marriages, where as my state does not. Becuase they are not legally married (recognized) the significan other has no legal standing to make medical decisions.

People have argued the Full Faith an dCredit Clause, which essentially says legal proceedings in one state must be accepted in another. The part they fail to understand is Congress is the deciding body as to what will be accepted and what wont be accepted under the clause. Conversley, Full Faith and credit supports the concept of common law by forcing other states to use court rulings as precedence when dealing wiht the same issue.

Common Law - Wikipedia

Originally posted by WJjeeper
And you sir, havent answered my question this whole time. Are you a peace officer or policy enforcer/ LEO

I did answer your question, and in an indepth manner as well. Since you ignored it, I will repost it for you.

I am a Police Officer because I work for a municipality and I do not enforce Civil law (which is reserved for the Sheriffs Department and in some states the Courts by use of constables / court officers by law). The only civil law Police come into contact with and enforce is whats called a Writ of Body Attachment - Civil arrest warrant by the court.

Peace Officer
Police Officer

Law Enforcement Officer

A Peace Officer and a Police Officer are essentially 1 in the same with one exception. A Peace Officer also enforces civil law in addition to criminal law, making a Peace Officer a Sheriffs Deputy. A Peace Officer enforces all the same things Police Officers enforce, with the added civil protion.

That is the only difference between the 2. I am not sure where people are getting the mindset there is a huge difference, with Police = Bad Joojoo and Peace= Happy Hug-a-thon.

I work for a municipality, and as such carry the title of Police Officer. Both positions carry the same requirements and both are subject to 42 USC 1983.

Here is some more material for people -
Bureau of Labor Satistics
Law Enforcement Position - Police, Peace, Constable, Town Marshal - This link also shows how each individual state views the difference between the 2 and includes a list of states where there is a distinction and what those distinctions are. However, as stated above, it comes down to authority to enforce certain portions of law, namely civil.



Police vs. Peace Officer -
Common Law vs. Statutory Law -

For people who argue that Peace Officers are the lesser of 2 evils, and for those who argue the Government violates peoples rights by using statutory law instead of common law I ask this.

What is your point / motive behind your arguments? To me, it appears that the choice of Peace over Police Officers is based on a misunderstanding of the 2, with the thought process that Peace Officers would have no authority to enforce some laws, namely prositution and marijuana / drugs laws.

The argument between Statutory Law vs Common Law is in the same realm, where Common Law would allow a person to use / be a prostitute and also allow the ability to freely do drugs.

The argument people make, that is against the Consitution, is without merit because the Constitution specifically grants authority to the Legislative to create and pass laws, allows the Govenor / President to sign or veto those laws, and allows the courts to review / challenge / strike down those laws.

How is abiding by the Constitution illegal and Unconstitutional?

edit on 25-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Revealation


Lemme guess... You were in trouble a lot growing up because authority figures wouldnt let you do whatever you wanted right?

If not, please educate all of us how all cops are like that. Please be sure to cite your sources, studies etc so we can go back and verify your opinion, err claim.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


Yeah and to all the cops who have taken lifes...I hope they have nightmares for the rest of their life

reply to post by holtdani


I take offense to that..I carry a gun so u suggest I be shot or do I have to wave it...I dont really get u moderators u remove offtopic posts but u leave this offensive post thats suggest people should be shot

reply to post by Xcathdra


so, you represent yourself as a law enforcement official.

once again, we have different viewpoints... im a radical libertarian who thinks those in your line of work (the current justice system) should be stripped of MOST authority, and you dont like that... OH WELL. just because you see things differently than i doesnt mean i have a problem with you. i may have been going to far to say i dont respect you cause your line of work. however, i stand by in saying i DO NOT respect your line of work or the laws you enforce. i apologize for seeming irrational, you just remind me so much of a fascist, big government loving, political slave.


Once again- Law-enforcement officers have the result of generating revenue for the political machinery...and this generation of revenue focus often means that they actually disturb the peace (ie. causing violence and anarchy by arresting peaceful users of marijuana, prostitutes, etc)

i cannot respect your line of work until you stop enforcing these ridiculous laws and statutes. that does not mean i will not show you or any other LEO respect when im forced to deal with you guys.


P.S.- you proved my point in showing that the articles have not been usurped, dormant also means "lying in wait"- the articles are just waiting for everyone to pick back up and start practicing common law.

Cops should not be allowed unfettered access to guns. Period. Most of these people have personality disorders of some kind or another, they are beligerant, racist sarcastic and clanish. many of them are alcoholics and abuse their position at every possible turn. They will behave like excited pack animals when pushed. It's very easy to end up dead by saying the wrong thing to a cop.

I propose all their guns should be taken away and instead they are all issued with tazers. A few qualified armed response teams within every force is acceptable but they should have to pass numerous tests and preferably have military backgrounds.

Military pretentions is not a military background. many mistake the two. I hate to say it but most cops are hugely irresponsible with their weapons and some of them even look for excuses to use them. They have supreme power of instant death over anyone they encounter. Some of them are drunk on this power.

Originally posted by SirMike
I am a part time LEO. I was trained using the “force pyramid” as a guide on what level of force was and was not acceptable. Basically, it states that an LEO can use one level of force higher than a suspect to get them to comply with a lawful order. The levels of force are verbal, physical, less than lethal, lethal. For example, I ask you to get out of your car and you say no, I can’t shoot you or even use OC spray because you are still at the verbal force level but I can grab you and use physical force to force you to comply. Another example, building on the first: I am now physically removing you from the vehicle and you grab onto your seat to prevent me from removing you … since you still haven’t used physical force on me, I cant break out the ASP, but if you put your hands on me or push me away I can.

The legal standard in my state is anyone with a weapon of any kind within 21’ is fair game.

To answer the question posed by the OP, yes, barring some extraneous circumstances, lethal force can be used on someone wielding a golf club within 21 feet.

Here’s why: www.youtube.com...

I don't see how telling someone to get out of their car is a lawful order. I can't go up to someone's car and order them to get out, so why can you as an LEO? Unless of course you've already got probable cause to believe if they do not exit the car that person will cause harm. But that is not what is implied in your post at all. Your post implies that ordering anybody in any circumstance to get out of their car is a lawful order.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
*SNIP*

I've had about enough of you now. I've been a lurker here for quite some time, but you however, just made me sign up to point out exactly WHY you are a bad officer AND only breed more hate for officers like me.

Lets just focus on the subject of the "shady character."

It's not against the law to look shady.

This statement alone proves that you do NOT know the law, as most LAW ENFORCERS don't. Did you go to law school? Why does lawschool take 8 years? How could a police officer who has signed up, pushed through his month/2month academy ever understand the law that it takes 8 years to teach?

You don't know the law better than anybody here, and I will attest you missed the entire argument at hand.

In plain English, IT IS ILLEGAL TO LOOK SHADY IF I SAY IT IS(By definition of "Officer Discrection" -- not directly, how ever I have the power to lawfully stop anybody I please and bait them into resisting my commands for any reason I deem necessary.) This is Illegal, but also nigh impossible to prove, and also cost a small fortune to even bring it to attention, only to fight the law itself, and we all know -- the law almost always wins. This is what the people here have a problem with and by extension this same logical fallacy applies to all reaches of LE.

If some one were to look "Shady" that entitles me to have "Reasonable Suspicion" which grants me the power to detain the "suspect." Once I issue them a command, (even though I'm infringing on their rights as free citizens) if they decline any of my unreasonable commands, they are now in violation of the law for not obeying a lawful command.

This is the argument you keep spinning useless rhetoric around, as we are all trained to do. It's how you justify what you CHOSE as employment.

Police Officers come in TWO fashions. Law Officer & Peace Officer. You seem to lack all knowledge on the differences between these two representations of law enforcement. I am a Peace Officer, you are a Law Officer.

The entire problem with the Law Enforcement Agencies is that too much is left to the individual officers discretion. I can do what ever I want to anybody I want to and all I have to say when filling out my paperwork is that "I felt it was necessary" and cite any covered arbitrary reason covered by the books to back my claim.

I.E. The problem lies with police making stuff up in situations to A.) Cover themselves, B.) Meet quotia, C.) Descrimination, D.) Anything I personally don't agree with.

To put it more plainly, we have the power to ruin peoples lives. You also stated earlier in this thread that YOU don't make people break laws. Yet, the contention is that you don't investigate to know for sure if you do or not, and the process of even going to court to defend yourself against a false claim is a blatant case of Public Defamation. Not only this, but in states like FL, where I reside, that are "Right to Work" states -- It's entirely LEGAL AND LAWFUL for an employer to fire an employee for missing the day of work that you had him unlawfully detained.

The effects of this are DRASTIC. If they really were "grade A" criminals, this is fine.... but if a kid is sleeping in a vehicle at the time of a vehicle crash, you can assume all you want that he knows what happened..... A smart officer will know that he could be potentially hurting an innocent persons quality of life status, and as such will not proceed. A terrible officer will arrest him for "falsifying a police investigation" which is a class 3 misdemeanor, and submit a totally phony police statement himself claiming the defendant gave him a "verbal statement."

That officer then has to proceed to court as a key witness in the trial, and you and every other officer on the earth knows in a 1v1 cop vs suspected criminal, the cops word will nearly ALWAYS be honored. Ipsofacto, you being the direct REASON he was convicted.

The events I speak about are real -- as in not hypothetical. This altercation actually took place. Officer Michael Moore from Cape Coral, Florida was forced to resign over numerous cases of falsifying police statements to garner convictions himself, as well as 4+ $80,000 suits for excessive use of force.

Mind you, this same individual, only a year prior to being arrested and convicted of falsifying a police report, gave a tip about a possible armed robbery that would take place later in the evening, in which the manager of said establisment was shot BY LE. The kid gave them the liscense plate, make, model, supplied pictures of the suspects, was needlessly put into danger by being sent into the establishment to "warn" the staff. LEO had officers INSIDE the establishment as well as had it surrounded before the suspects arrived. LEO shot the manager, and the assailent only to find out that the weapon didn't even have any bullets.

If LEO was doing it's job correctly, they would have issued phony traffic stop (which is legal, when you are suspected of conspiracy to perform armed robbery) and nipped it in the bud all together.

NO, LEO PURPOSEFULLY WANTED TO ESCELATE this situation, in hopes it would play out like a movie. They were all addicted to that police force adrenaline and as such, let the situation deteriorate in order to satisfy their addiction. They were all vindicated of the unesessary shooting.

Mr. Paul Price was the manager of the Taco Bell that was said to be robbed. He launched an official complaint against the "City of Cape Coral" and had drawn up a million dollar law suit. LEO retaliated by setting him -- arresting him for purchasing marijuanna from an undercover cop in order to squash the lawsuit.

Once he was a convicted criminal, the case was dismissed. For the kid to have done such a heroic deed as to put his OWN life in danger to potentially save another, is enough reason alone to let him slide on a situation you had no empirical evidence of, and that aparently wasn't a charge that placed anybody in any position for harm.

The sheer fact that you seem to be backing these same crazy addicts, and claiming to be well versed in law yourself proves your inadequacy to protect people, let alone not infringe on the rights of citizens on America.

One LE to another. You don't deserve respect, or your job -- as you justify ruining peoples lives by claiming it's the DA's of the state that do it.

They base their case on your report. They are an extension of YOU, you aren't an extension of THEM, for there would be no THEM without YOU.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

P.S.

Just to further indicate how poor police officers ruin peoples lives..... Arresting some one who is innocent and forcing them to court -- even if they are found in the court of law to be innocent, can cost some one their job/carreer, which by extension can cost them to lose their home, the legal fee's and the time restrictions of court, 3-36 months of their time, christmas for their kids, planned vacations with loved ones, or even death if they have any kind of bad medical history that stipulates they be on beta blockers or nitro pills because they can no longer afford their medicine because they have a budget that has been significantly reduced by YOUR bad decision making.

You are directly the cause of lowering peoples standard quality of living.

How is this in the peoples best interest? It's not, it's in your own. You do it to get paid, and you see them as criminals that get what they deserve. Hence the reason you will never be able to command true respect, because you don't respect the people you command it from.

When you become an employee to any law enforcement organization, you are given a power that can be easily abused, and if you can cover up your abuses with legal fronts, some how this makes it FINE by you. We accept this job knowing the dangers it poses... it is a concious decision that we put ourselves at risk, and as such -- should respect the legal bounderies of citizens more over our own safety. We are supposed to lay down our lives for the citizens we swear oath to protect, not shoot them and claim "I felt I was in danger" only to have it be a horrible mistake in an otherwise completely avoidable situation. The worst part, your city with defend you to the end of the earth.

As for the hidden weapons argument, how many have you ever seen. I'll bank on none. And if you have, I bet it's because the citizen disclosed that he had it on him willfully. There is less than a 1% chance you are gonna get shot by a cellphone gun, we operate on what is "Probable" hence, "Probable Cause." It's very IMPROBABLE you are going up against a golf club gun, and hence doesn't require the use of lethal force unless the suspect in question is a registered deadly weapon. I.E. A black belt in any kind of Martial Art, as it's required by FEDERAL LAW, that you be registered as a deadly weapon if you are formally trained.

In short, you're entire line of reasoning is based on a logical flaw, and as such -- is why you command no respect from the citizens you risk your life to supposedly protect.

P.S.S.

I apologize for any mispellings or typo's as I spent a lot of time writing this, and am to tired to proof read it at the moment.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by RRokkyy

 

Care to point out in the Constitution where it says drugs are legal?

Haven't finished reading this thread yet but I had to reply to this as soon as I read this sentence. Would you care to show me in the US Constitution where it says drugs are illegal? There's just the 18th Amendment about alcohol which they realized was a horrible idea.

Why in the world did it take a constitutional amendment to make alcohol illegal but the Controlled Substances Act just gets to bypass the amendment process?

Originally posted by thov420

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by RRokkyy

 

Care to point out in the Constitution where it says drugs are legal?

Haven't finished reading this thread yet but I had to reply to this as soon as I read this sentence. Would you care to show me in the US Constitution where it says drugs are illegal? There's just the 18th Amendment about alcohol which they realized was a horrible idea.

Why in the world did it take a constitutional amendment to make alcohol illegal but the Controlled Substances Act just gets to bypass the amendment process?

Indeed. It's also NOT ILLEGAL to ingest drugs. It's only illegal to possess, obtain, or sell them.

He also basically said the state could do whatever it wanted as it wasn't superceeded by federal law. States can use their own discretion to deem things legal or not, but only if it doesn't contradict the very doctrines our nation is founded on... which is Federal Law. I.E. The state cannot issue a law that is directly, or, indirectly in violation of the constitution.

Something this clown thinks it would otherwise be totally okay to do. His entire position about nearly everything in this thread is completely off kilter. Hence the reason why Citizens don't respect US.

Yes, LE here too and in complete opposition to this maniac. He represents all the bad in Law Enforcement, while masqeurading about like he's one of us...... (the good guys, not many of us left.)

When I was a kid I avidly smoked Marijuanna, and I can also attest to the fact that it doesn't impair your ability to drive whatsoever. Marijuanna is NOTHING like alcohol, and Truth be told -- however bad it is, most people never wreck their cars whilst drinking either. Yes this one does happen, but for every 100 cases of it happening there are 5,000 or more that it just simply doesn't.

Alcohol can severly impede ones ability to drive, but in most cases, people who are "drinking and driving" have about an alochol level between .08 and .1 which is not anywhere near the level of impairedness it would take to run red lights, let alone swerve your vehicle accidently.

Statue law was created as a form of revenue and nothing more, and I'm not obligated as an LE to enforce those laws, so I only do, when judgement dictates.

P.S. I didn't give my position on drugs and alcohol to advocate driving whilst intoxicated by anymeans, I just hate to see people who have no idea the true effects of the drugs they swear are unsafe. Marijuanna is 100% safe in all ways.

You cannot die from smoking it, it will not impair your thought process (it may actually enhance this, hence the reason why most musicians use it), It will not noticibly reduce your reaction time in fight or flight moments, as once you go fight or flight, you lose your high instantly. It will not make you crazy, you will not murder anybody or commit any other act of crime as a result of the marijaunna. This isn't to say, you won't commit a crime under the influence of marijuanna, but the marijuanna has no toll on these events.

I.E. It's the same as saying, since a kid played video games, and he shot someone, video games made him do it.

It's just a completely failed statement.

Originally posted by Laokin

Originally posted by Xcathdra
*SNIP*

I've had about enough of you now. I've been a lurker here for quite some time, but you however, just made me sign up to point out exactly WHY you are a bad officer AND only breed more hate for officers like me.

Lets just focus on the subject of the "shady character."

It's not against the law to look shady.

This statement alone proves that you do NOT know the law, as most LAW ENFORCERS don't. Did you go to law school? Why does lawschool take 8 years? How could a police officer who has signed up, pushed through his month/2month academy ever understand the law that it takes 8 years to teach?

You don't know the law better than anybody here, and I will attest you missed the entire argument at hand.

In plain English, IT IS ILLEGAL TO LOOK SHADY IF I SAY IT IS(By definition of "Officer Discrection" -- not directly, how ever I have the power to lawfully stop anybody I please and bait them into resisting my commands for any reason I deem necessary.) This is Illegal, but also nigh impossible to prove, and also cost a small fortune to even bring it to attention, only to fight the law itself, and we all know -- the law almost always wins. This is what the people here have a problem with and by extension this same logical fallacy applies to all reaches of LE.

If some one were to look "Shady" that entitles me to have "Reasonable Suspicion" which grants me the power to detain the "suspect." Once I issue them a command, (even though I'm infringing on their rights as free citizens) if they decline any of my unreasonable commands, they are now in violation of the law for not obeying a lawful command.

This is the argument you keep spinning useless rhetoric around, as we are all trained to do. It's how you justify what you CHOSE as employment.

Police Officers come in TWO fashions. Law Officer & Peace Officer. You seem to lack all knowledge on the differences between these two representations of law enforcement. I am a Peace Officer, you are a Law Officer.

: (no reason given)