Yeah, I know. The police chiefs in Mass are different than cops everywhere else. Right? Yeah.
link to story Police chiefs in Massachusetts are blasting state lawmakers for shooting down a provision that would have given them sole discretion over who can get rifle or shotgun permits.
The Bay State, which has some of the nation's toughest gun laws, has long left it up to a community's top cop to sign off on handgun permits. Lawmakers were considering extending that to include the Firearms Identification Card, or FID, needed to possess long guns. But lawmakers, leery of the constitutionality of the law, which critics say can result in law-abiding citizens being denied their Second Amendment rights, have stripped a proposed bill of that provision. This week, police chiefs from throughout the state and gun control advocates converged on the Statehouse in Boston to blast state senators for removing the provision.
�Our position is really very, very simple,� said Wayne Sampson, executive director of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association. �We, as an association, believe that it�s unconscionable that if we determine a person is unsuitable to carry a handgun, that they can then turn around and apply for a Firearms Identification Card, which allows them, by law, to purchase rifles and shotguns. And there�s no way we can impose any restrictions on that. It just doesn�t make sense.�
and as always, more at the link..........
Why do you not support the police? They know best who should and should not be armed.
Yeah, I know. The police chiefs in Mass are different than cops everywhere else. Right? Yeah.
link to story Police chiefs in Massachusetts are blasting state lawmakers for shooting down a provision that would have given them sole discretion over who can get rifle or shotgun permits.
The Bay State, which has some of the nation's toughest gun laws, has long left it up to a community's top cop to sign off on handgun permits. Lawmakers were considering extending that to include the Firearms Identification Card, or FID, needed to possess long guns. But lawmakers, leery of the constitutionality of the law, which critics say can result in law-abiding citizens being denied their Second Amendment rights, have stripped a proposed bill of that provision. This week, police chiefs from throughout the state and gun control advocates converged on the Statehouse in Boston to blast state senators for removing the provision.
�Our position is really very, very simple,� said Wayne Sampson, executive director of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association. �We, as an association, believe that it�s unconscionable that if we determine a person is unsuitable to carry a handgun, that they can then turn around and apply for a Firearms Identification Card, which allows them, by law, to purchase rifles and shotguns. And there�s no way we can impose any restrictions on that. It just doesn�t make sense.�
and as always, more at the link..........
Bet they can't hold a candle to the NJ Gestapo .
Mass cops showed what they were all about during the marathon bombing, they showed sheer imcompetence, if it were not for a neighbor tipping them off they still would not have found the lone bomber. Their staged show of force to the MSM during the whole thing was disgusting. They clearly believe they rule the citizens in that state.
Police departments seem far more often to be on the wrong side of things (the side of the elites) than Sheriff's Departments. One wonders if that's a manifestation of the fact that Chiefs are political appointees with relatively secure positions while Sheriffs are holders of elective office, directly answerable to their constituency via the ballot box. No mystery to me.
Send them a copy of the Constitution. Wait! Can they read?
Bet they can't hold a candle to the NJ Gestapo .
Mass cops showed what they were all about during the marathon bombing, they showed sheer imcompetence, if it were not for a neighbor tipping them off they still would not have found the lone bomber. Their staged show of force to the MSM during the whole thing was disgusting. They clearly believe they rule the citizens in that state.
Big Plus One.
![[Linked Image]](http://media.komonews.com/images/130419_boston_swat_1a.jpg)
Police departments are controlled by city councils, are they not? Who controls the city councils? As I recall, it's the VOTERS. Why don't more voters take action to replace councils who allow this crap?
And there�s no way we can impose any restrictions on that. It just doesn�t make sense.�
Sounds like they feel their opinion should rank somewhere above the second amendment. Surely, no one would ever abuse such power.
Police departments seem far more often to be on the wrong side of things (the side of the elites) than Sheriff's Departments. One wonders if that's a manifestation of the fact that Chiefs are political appointees with relatively secure positions while Sheriffs are holders of elective office, directly answerable to their constituency via the ballot box. No mystery to me.
Very true, Hawk.
Sounds like a bunch of sour grapes since police can carry nationwide and you can't.
Police departments are controlled by city councils, are they not? Who controls the city councils? As I recall, it's the VOTERS. Why don't more voters take action to replace councils who allow this crap?
That's a disconnected and indirect means of popular control over the police. What happens there is that often all major parties running for council agree on militarizing the police, but differ on other points that earn the votes of their constituency, thus, in that case, the people have zero control over the police. Elites, however, have plenty of control over issues that will be agreed upon by all major parties by prior arrangement.
Sheriffs, on the contrary, are directly answerable to the people in the communities they serve.
Police departments are controlled by city councils, are they not? Who controls the city councils? As I recall, it's the VOTERS. Why don't more voters take action to replace councils who allow this crap?
It isn't crap!! Why do you want police denied the power and tools they need to keep civilians in line?
Police departments are controlled by city councils, are they not? Who controls the city councils? As I recall, it's the VOTERS. Why don't more voters take action to replace councils who allow this crap?
It isn't crap!! Why do you want police denied the power and tools they need to keep civilians in line?
Police departments are controlled by city councils, are they not? Who controls the city councils? As I recall, it's the VOTERS. Why don't more voters take action to replace councils who allow this crap?
That's a disconnected and indirect means of popular control over the police. What happens there is that often all major parties running for council agree on militarizing the police, but differ on other points that earn the votes of their constituency, thus, in that case, the people have zero control over the police. Elites, however, have plenty of control over issues that will be agreed upon by all major parties by prior arrangement.
Sheriffs, on the contrary, are directly answerable to the people in the communities they serve.
There isn't a law on the books or an action initiated by a police officer than the nations' sheriffs & deputies would not assist in seeing it carried out.
Police and the Government or one and the same , it is all about controlling the Sheep they are supposedly serving
Police and the Government or one and the same , it is all about controlling the Sheep they are supposedly serving
Yep, that is why any Conservative worth their salt will support police without question.
I support myself and no one else .
Police departments are controlled by city councils, are they not? Who controls the city councils? As I recall, it's the VOTERS. Why don't more voters take action to replace councils who allow this crap?
That's a disconnected and indirect means of popular control over the police. What happens there is that often all major parties running for council agree on militarizing the police, but differ on other points that earn the votes of their constituency, thus, in that case, the people have zero control over the police. Elites, however, have plenty of control over issues that will be agreed upon by all major parties by prior arrangement.
Sheriffs, on the contrary, are directly answerable to the people in the communities they serve.
Good answer. While they may be enforcing the same laws, you rarely see a Sheriff openly campaigning for something the majority of his constituents are against.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that your Sheriffs are pretty much autonomous with regard to Government beaurocracy...in that he or she can kick the traces and go a different way if he or she considers a particular Government action/law un-constitutional?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that your Sheriffs are pretty much autonomous with regard to Government beaurocracy...in that he or she can kick the traces and go a different way if he or she considers a particular Government action/law un-constitutional?
Correct. Police Chiefs, however, do not have such authority granted to them. Most just take it anyway.
Sherp, miss your thorizine this morning?
Massachusetts cops are NOT your friends
who knew?
Snake
Cops have a real delima. When go out they do know who they will meet. An old law abiding man like me or a group MS 13 members.
One of the wisest men I ever knew ( my dad) told me when I was in high school, a little something I always remember. I told him I was thinking about being a cop, what did he think. He said if you mess with poop you will get some on you. Hasbeen
well then hb, I suppose that if all the Citizens were disarmed, the police would feel safer. Wait, we have already disarmed most of America, and they STILL don't feel safe. Go figure.
That's a disconnected and indirect means of popular control over the police. What happens there is that often all major parties running for council agree on militarizing the police, but differ on other points that earn the votes of their constituency, thus, in that case, the people have zero control over the police. Elites, however, have plenty of control over issues that will be agreed upon by all major parties by prior arrangement.
Sheriffs, on the contrary, are directly answerable to the people in the communities they serve.
You'd have to reach a special level of stupid to not see the irony of this post, after reading the OP.
Travis
MA was a hard place to have a handgun back in the early 70s. In order to take my Ruger single-six out of my house I had to have a handgun permit. That had nothing to do with concealed carry, it was just to walk through my front door with it. I was in the Navy stationed in Newport but living in MA. The chief said no unless I belonged to the local good guys gun club and the fees were way beyond the average sailors means. It made no difference to him I was on the ships pistol teem. I bought a home in the next town and that chief had no problem with me having a handgun and leaving the house with it.
Yeah, I know. The police chiefs in Mass are different than cops everywhere else. Right? Yeah.
They're certainly different than cops in my town.
Travis
That's a disconnected and indirect means of popular control over the police. What happens there is that often all major parties running for council agree on militarizing the police, but differ on other points that earn the votes of their constituency, thus, in that case, the people have zero control over the police. Elites, however, have plenty of control over issues that will be agreed upon by all major parties by prior arrangement.
Sheriffs, on the contrary, are directly answerable to the people in the communities they serve.
You'd have to reach a special level of stupid to not see the irony of this post, after reading the OP.
Travis
Well, yeah.....but in other locals, it often comes into play.
Those particular police chiefs can GFT...
Good answer. While they may be enforcing the same laws, you rarely see a Sheriff openly campaigning for something the majority of his constituents are against.
Exactly.
Yeah, I know. The police chiefs in Mass are different than cops everywhere else. Right? Yeah.
They're certainly different than cops in my town.
Travis
Police are not significantly different from one town to the next. That is why even the smallest departments send representative officers around the entire country to attend training events and funerals in order to associate as friends with those other departments.
Sherp, miss your thorizine this morning?
Can't say that I am on it and apparently you need your dose upped since you seem to believe that since you are on it that I am as well.
I support myself and no one else .
So you are a POS liberal/libertarian. Did you vote 3rd party or just go ahead and vote Obama?
Good answer. While they may be enforcing the same laws, you rarely see a Sheriff openly campaigning for something the majority of his constituents are against.
Exactly.
Yep, they have to talk like they are opposed to firearms safety laws to get elected, but once in office they enforce those laws with gusto and end up having fewer crazy libertarian types to pay lip service to come the next election cycle.
Police are not significantly different from one town to the next. That is why even the smallest departments send representative officers around the entire country to attend training events and funerals in order to associate as friends with those other departments.
I have been in all fifty states and lived in seven. I can tell you your first statement is wrong.
Police are not significantly different from one town to the next.
One of the stupidest statements ever written on the net.
Police are not significantly different from one town to the next. That is why even the smallest departments send representative officers around the entire country to attend training events and funerals in order to associate as friends with those other departments.
I have been in all fifty states and lived in seven. I can tell you your first statement is wrong.
So can I. This whole "people are the same everywhere" line of thinking is a lot of myth and hoooey. Getting together with people in the same business once or twice a year does not make a homogeneous group. Getting together every weekend...more likely. Who do you think your local guys are with weekly?
You 2 can make fun of the statement since that is all you can do. What you can't do is show us many towns that do not send reps to IACP conferences or similar law enforcement get togethers which shows what indicates their views much better than your bogus claims.
Police are not significantly different from one town to the next. That is why even the smallest departments send representative officers around the entire country to attend training events and funerals in order to associate as friends with those other departments.
I have been in all fifty states and lived in seven. I can tell you your first statement is wrong.
So can I. This whole "people are the same everywhere" line of thinking is a lot of myth and hoooey. Getting together with people in the same business once or twice a year does not make a homogeneous group. Getting together every weekend...more likely. Who do you think your local guys are with weekly?
So a carpenter from New York cuts a board looking over their shoulder with a mirro while one from texas cuts the board while facing it? BS. Occupations just aren't that different from one region to the next which is what would be necessary for police in one area to be as different as you all claim.
You 2 can make fun of the statement since that is all you can do. What you can't do is show us many towns that do not send reps to IACP conferences or similar law enforcement get togethers which shows what indicates their views much better than your bogus claims.
What you don't get, is that your point is meaningless. You think that participation in an occasional meeting by an industry group amounts to universal groupthink. If they spent a lot of time together at frequent intervals, that might be the case - but once or twice a year does not make a mindset.
BTDT, sort of.
A few years ago when Iowa went from each of the 99 sheriffs having absolute discretion as to who got a CW permit, to shall issue, the chiefs and sheriffs associations screamed bloody murder that their investigations would be compromised, they'd be forced to issue permits to dangerous persons, and the streets would run red. Yadda, yadda, and of course it didn't happen. Then and now, AFAIK, you also had to get a permit from the sheriff to even purchase a handgun.
I had face to face conversations with both the local sheriff and police chief, who are highly regarded in the community and, believe me, I wouldn't want either to have any significant say as to whether a person should have a gun. Very parochial, tunnel vision, and all about the interests of LE, officer safety, little regard for citizens' rights.
The chief looked me right in the eye and told me that, as a result of the revised CW law, he was certain his officers would have to shoot somebody.
Paul
Police are not significantly different from one town to the next. That is why even the smallest departments send representative officers around the entire country to attend training events and funerals in order to associate as friends with those other departments.
I have been in all fifty states and lived in seven. I can tell you your first statement is wrong.
So can I. This whole "people are the same everywhere" line of thinking is a lot of myth and hoooey. Getting together with people in the same business once or twice a year does not make a homogeneous group. Getting together every weekend...more likely. Who do you think your local guys are with weekly?
So a carpenter from New York cuts a board looking over their shoulder with a mirro while one from texas cuts the board while facing it? BS. Occupations just aren't that different from one region to the next which is what would be necessary for police in one area to be as different as you all claim.
Techniques and hardware are shared, but mindset varies by locality. A carpenter from New York may be more inclined to charge you double for the shoddy work than a carpenter from Texas. And a carpenter in New York has different codes to comply with than a carpenter from Texas.
You must live in a small world to believe that people are the same just because their job looks the same to you from t he outside.
So a carpenter from New York cuts a board looking over their shoulder with a mirro while one from texas cuts the board while facing it? BS. Occupations just aren't that different from one region to the next which is what would be necessary for police in one area to be as different as you all claim.
The police in Boston, NYC, Chitago, and such are a world apart from where I live. Trust me, I have been to all those places.
Yeah, I know. The police chiefs in Mass are different than cops everywhere else. Right? Yeah.
They're certainly different than cops in my town.
Travis
Police are not significantly different from one town to the next. That is why even the smallest departments send representative officers around the entire country to attend training events and funerals in order to associate as friends with those other departments.
Spoken like someone that has never travelled extensively in NJ,NY and MASS.
So a carpenter from New York cuts a board looking over their shoulder with a mirro while one from texas cuts the board while facing it? BS. Occupations just aren't that different from one region to the next which is what would be necessary for police in one area to be as different as you all claim.
The police in Boston, NYC, Chitago, and such are a world apart from where I live. Trust me, I have been to all those places.
Yeah - our cops don't even have the hardware those guys do - and don't feel the need for it.
Sherps "all the same" comment is indeed the most ignorant thing I have read in a while.
Police are not significantly different from one town to the next. That is why even the smallest departments send representative officers around the entire country to attend training events and funerals in order to associate as friends with those other departments.
Get that dick out of your mouth you fuggin' homo.
Travis
Sherps "all the same" comment is indeed the most ignorant thing I have read in a while.
Why of course the CT. cops are the CT citizens friend.
Why do you think there have been no firearm related killings in CT. for years and years.
You 2 can make fun of the statement since that is all you can do. What you can't do is show us many towns that do not send reps to IACP conferences or similar law enforcement get togethers which shows what indicates their views much better than your bogus claims.
What you don't get, is that your point is meaningless. You think that participation in an occasional meeting by an industry group amounts to universal groupthink. If they spent a lot of time together at frequent intervals, that might be the case - but once or twice a year does not make a mindset.
Once again, tell us the tale of the New York carpenter who works over his shoulder via a mirror while a Texas carpenter does not. How things are done just does not vary that much region to region/
Considering they go there for training and the fact they receive federal money that goes double on doing the same things the same way.
So can I. This whole "people are the same everywhere" line of thinking is a lot of myth and hoooey. Getting together with people in the same business once or twice a year does not make a homogeneous group. Getting together every weekend...more likely. Who do you think your local guys are with weekly?
So a carpenter from New York cuts a board looking over their shoulder with a mirro while one from texas cuts the board while facing it? BS. Occupations just aren't that different from one region to the next which is what would be necessary for police in one area to be as different as you all claim.
Techniques and hardware are shared, but mindset varies by locality. A carpenter from New York may be more inclined to charge you double for the shoddy work than a carpenter from Texas. And a carpenter in New York has different codes to comply with than a carpenter from Texas.
You must live in a small world to believe that people are the same just because their job looks the same to you from t he outside.
No difference in quality and we see people like you representing every state in the country on yourube with yuor whiney ass police are abusing civilians videos.
Sherps "all the same" comment is indeed the most ignorant thing I have read in a while.
And once again tell us which states we have not seen making the youtube news with the whiney ass crying of people like you?
You 2 can make fun of the statement since that is all you can do. What you can't do is show us many towns that do not send reps to IACP conferences or similar law enforcement get togethers which shows what indicates their views much better than your bogus claims.
What you don't get, is that your point is meaningless. You think that participation in an occasional meeting by an industry group amounts to universal groupthink. If they spent a lot of time together at frequent intervals, that might be the case - but once or twice a year does not make a mindset.
Once again, tell us the tale of the New York carpenter who works over his shoulder via a mirror while a Texas carpenter does not. How things are done just does not vary that much region to region/
Considering they go there for training and the fact they receive federal money that goes double on doing the same things the same way.
That makes two ignorant statements. Things are indeed done differently from region to region. Evenin the same state, carpenters do things differently from region to region. You mirror example is absurd. There are plenty of other differences.
Sherps "all the same" comment is indeed the most ignorant thing I have read in a while.
And once again tell us which states we have not seen making the youtube news with the whiney ass crying of people like you?
The difference is that in some states such incidents are news and in others they are business as usual. You don't get that?
That is why even the smallest departments send representative officers around the entire country to attend training events and funerals in order to associate as friends with those other departments.
Donuts have a universal attraction you fu(king wierdo and the expenses incurred traveling back forth to the "training events" are passed on to the taxpaypers the next fiscal year.
Police are not significantly different from one town to the next. That is why even the smallest departments send representative officers around the entire country to attend training events and funerals in order to associate as friends with those other departments.
Get that dick out of your mouth you fuggin' homo.
Travis
Why are you badmouthing me since your state has the kind of police I support(and other conservatives do as well) while you are ashamed of them and claim they are not there at all?
![[Linked Image]](http://i45.tinypic.com/24v1zl5.jpg)
That is why even the smallest departments send representative officers around the entire country to attend training events and funerals in order to associate as friends with those other departments.
Donuts have a universal attraction you fu(king wierdo and the expenses incurred traveling back forth to the "training events" are passed on to the taxpaypers the next fiscal year.
And the what they learned gets doled out to taxpayers the next year too. Win win.
Sherps "all the same" comment is indeed the most ignorant thing I have read in a while.
And once again tell us which states we have not seen making the youtube news with the whiney ass crying of people like you?
The difference is that in some states such incidents are news and in others they are business as usual. You don't get that?
Everyt state's officers are represented on youtube.
You 2 can make fun of the statement since that is all you can do. What you can't do is show us many towns that do not send reps to IACP conferences or similar law enforcement get togethers which shows what indicates their views much better than your bogus claims.
What you don't get, is that your point is meaningless. You think that participation in an occasional meeting by an industry group amounts to universal groupthink. If they spent a lot of time together at frequent intervals, that might be the case - but once or twice a year does not make a mindset.
Once again, tell us the tale of the New York carpenter who works over his shoulder via a mirror while a Texas carpenter does not. How things are done just does not vary that much region to region/
Considering they go there for training and the fact they receive federal money that goes double on doing the same things the same way.
That makes two ignorant statements. Things are indeed done differently from region to region. Evenin the same state, carpenters do things differently from region to region. You mirror example is absurd. There are plenty of other differences.
There are not the night and day differences you are insinuating.
Sherps "all the same" comment is indeed the most ignorant thing I have read in a while.
And once again tell us which states we have not seen making the youtube news with the whiney ass crying of people like you?
To the best of my knowledge, nothing happens in South Dakota.
Would you all stop quoting the trolling retard? DFTFT.
Why are you badmouthing me since your state has the kind of police I support(and other conservatives do as well) while you are ashamed of them and claim they are not there at all?
I bad mouth all idiots.
Don't take it personal.
Travis
Police are not significantly different from one town to the next. That is why even the smallest departments send representative officers around the entire country to attend training events and funerals in order to associate as friends with those other departments.
Get that dick out of your mouth you fuggin' homo.
Travis
Why are you badmouthing me since your state has the kind of police I support(and other conservatives do as well) while you are ashamed of them and claim they are not there at all?
What is it with you people who think your argument is validated by linking to websites with agenda-driven stats? Lies, damned lies, and statistics......
Sherps "all the same" comment is indeed the most ignorant thing I have read in a while.
And once again tell us which states we have not seen making the youtube news with the whiney ass crying of people like you?
To the best of my knowledge, nothing happens in South Dakota.
You need to get more involved because it appears many officers in SD have gotten the shaft:
http://archive.argusleader.com/inte...ertified-officers-South-Dakota-2003-2013
Mannlicher,
It ain't cops who make laws. Politicians make 'em. It ain't cops who make regulations. It's bureaucrats who make 'em. Cops are required to enforce laws and abide by regulations. Blame ain't with cops. It's with politicians & bureaucrats.
Instead of sidetracking, it might be a better idea were Americans to demand that the Second Amendment as authored by James Madison and explicated by him in The Federalist No. 46 be strictly adhered. Madison didn't put anything in the Second Amendment about background checks, permits, or proving one is not a felon before Americans can exercise their Second Amendment Right to keep and bear firearms.
My suggestion is to pigeonhole political candidates in to a position of voiding every firearm law and thereby making the Second Amendment controlling before voting for them. I am good with keeping firearms out of the hands of violent felons. I do not think that a guy who was convicted of felony tax evasion should not be allowed to shoot clay pigeons, especially when many prosecutions are politically motivated.
Back door gun control is more dangerous than the overt variety. Bill Clinton, the liberal dirtbag that he is, tried to have misdemeanor drunk driving classified as a violent crime. I instinctively knew where he was going with his scheme. His intent was to prevent those convicted of misdemeanor drunk driving from owning a gun. Good thing that many politicians have been arrested for misdemeanor drunk driving lest he would have been able to deny a guy who 30 years ago was busted for misdemeanor drunk driving while driving home from a fraternity party from owning a gun.
Why are you badmouthing me since your state has the kind of police I support(and other conservatives do as well) while you are ashamed of them and claim they are not there at all?
What is it with you people who think your argument is validated by linking to websites with agenda-driven stats? Lies, damned lies, and statistics...... [/quote]
What do you think is not correct on that other than they are paining the officers involved as being bad while you and I support officers who are active.
Mannlicher,
It ain't cops who make laws. Politicians make 'em. It ain't cops who make regulations. It's bureaucrats who make 'em. Cops are required to enforce laws and abide by regulations. Blame ain't with cops. It's with politicians & bureaucrats.
Instead of sidetracking, it might be a better idea were Americans to demand that the Second Amendment as authored by James Madison and explicated by him in The Federalist No. 46 be strictly adhered. Madison didn't put anything in the Second Amendment about background checks, permits, or proving one is not a felon before Americans can exercise their Second Amendment Right to keep and bear firearms.
My suggestion is to pigeonhole political candidates in to a position of voiding every firearm law and thereby making the Second Amendment controlling before voting for them. I am good with keeping firearms out of the hands of violent felons. I do not think that a guy who was convicted of felony tax evasion should not be allowed to shoot clay pigeons, especially when many prosecutions are politically motivated.
Back door gun control is more dangerous than the overt variety. Bill Clinton, the liberal dirtbag that he is, tried to have misdemeanor drunk driving classified as a violent crime. I instinctively knew where he was going with his scheme. His intent was to prevent those convicted of misdemeanor drunk driving from owning a gun. Good thing that many politicians have been arrested for misdemeanor drunk driving lest he would have been able to deny a guy who 30 years ago was busted for misdemeanor drunk driving while driving home from a fraternity party from owning a gun.
Police do support those laws and ask for exemptions from them.
sherp,
Of the thousands of cops I've known in my life, maybe a small handful were liberals.
I know of no cop who'd support disarming Americans. That's why were Americans to be disarmed, it'll be the military that does it.
Why are you badmouthing me since your state has the kind of police I support(and other conservatives do as well) while you are ashamed of them and claim they are not there at all?
What is it with you people who think your argument is validated by linking to websites with agenda-driven stats? Lies, damned lies, and statistics......
What do you think is not correct on that other than they are paining the officers involved as being bad while you and I support officers who are active. [/quote]
Sorry dude. I am not going to take the time for that challenge. I only point out that the data is suspect because of the source. You posted it as if it has assumed authority, and I question it because of it's obvious bias and because bare statistics are never to be trusted. That is all.
Would you all stop quoting the trolling retard? DFTFT.
I put him on ignore.
If only others would ignore the POS.
if the people dont watch and vote for what they need/want then piss on them.its like these killer kids,pay attention to whats under your nose and around you.people keep getting complacent and figures the local/state/fed government knows what they need,go ahead and let them cut their own throats
Mannlicher,
It ain't cops who make laws. Politicians make 'em. It ain't cops who make regulations. It's bureaucrats who make 'em. Cops are required to enforce laws and abide by regulations. Blame ain't with cops. It's with politicians & bureaucrats.
"I was only following orders" didn't work at Nuremberg, Raisuli.
Mannlicher,
It ain't cops who make laws. Politicians make 'em. It ain't cops who make regulations. It's bureaucrats who make 'em. Cops are required to enforce laws and abide by regulations. Blame ain't with cops. It's with politicians & bureaucrats.
"I was only following orders" didn't work at Nuremberg, Raisuli.
Especially when, in this instance, it's the cops advocating for the unconstitutional law to strip away 2A rights.
I am going to have to say I was wrong in the opening post here. I made reference to police chiefs being much the same as Mass. Another example of 'open mouth, insert foot', so to speak
The National Association of Chiefs of Police official web site should be indicative of how Police Chiefs feel across the country, and according to them:
FIREARMS
14. Should any vetted citizen be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self-defense? .....................................................Yes 86.8% No 11.1% N/A 2.1%
15. Would national recognition of state-issued concealed weapons permits facilitate the violent crime fighting
efforts of the professional law enforcement community? ...................................................................................................Yes 63.1% No 31.8% N/A 5.1%
16. Can qualified, law-abiding armed citizens help law enforcement reduce violent criminal activity? .......................... Yes 72.7% No 23.6% N/A 3.7%
17. Does your department use reality based/active shooter training? ..................................................................................Yes 78.1% No 21.1% N/A .8%
18. Does your department sell confiscated firearms to help meet budget needs or cover budget shortfalls? ...................Yes 19% No 79.6% N/A 1.5%
Should have done my research up front. This is from their 25th annual national survey.
http://www.nacoponline.org/25th.pdf
Sam, I think the NACOP gets confused with the IACPa lot of the time. Slightly different agendas and different membership demographics.
Why are you badmouthing me since your state has the kind of police I support(and other conservatives do as well) while you are ashamed of them and claim they are not there at all?
I bad mouth all idiots.
Don't take it personal.
Travis
Except I am not an idiot. Based on that fact, the map, your locale, and your claims about your area, you are a liar
Sam, I think the NACOP gets confused with the IACPa lot of the time. Slightly different agendas and different membership demographics.
"International Association of Chiefs of Police
Position Paper on Firearm Violence"
Now, find us a NACP member that tells and IACP member to screw off when they need help with anything.
Sam, I think the NACOP gets confused with the IACPa lot of the time. Slightly different agendas and different membership demographics.
"International Association of Chiefs of Police
Position Paper on Firearm Violence"
Now, find us a NACP member that tells and IACP member to screw off when they need help with anything.
That should be easy - since IACP membership includes police from outside the US, who are obviously not interested in any of our constitutional concepts.
sherp,
Of the thousands of cops I've known in my life, maybe a small handful were liberals.
I know of no cop who'd support disarming Americans. That's why were Americans to be disarmed, it'll be the military that does it.
I never said police were liberals. Ronald Reagan was not a liberal, but he supported banning the carry of firearms by civilians when he signed the Mulford Act in to law, when he signed the 1986 machine gun ban in to law, and when the supported Brady and the 1994 assault weapon law. Conservatives routinely support firearms safety laws so why don't you get your claims in order.
I am sure the military would be involved, but just like during Katrina, the police would be there helping out.
Mannlicher,
It ain't cops who make laws. Politicians make 'em. It ain't cops who make regulations. It's bureaucrats who make 'em. Cops are required to enforce laws and abide by regulations. Blame ain't with cops. It's with politicians & bureaucrats.
"I was only following orders" didn't work at Nuremberg, Raisuli.
TRH,
It is spurious to compare USA cops with Nazi Brown Shirts.
Cops are not obligated to follow an illegal order. In fact, a cop who commits a crime by following an illegal order cannot use following illegal orders a defense to his alleged crime.
If an order is legal, then the problem lies with politicians who created stupid laws or bureaucrats to created illegal regulations. In fact, administrative regulations, which have force of law, should be illegal.
Ya gotta know where blame lies, and it ain't with a cop doing his lawful duty.
Sorry dude. I am not going to take the time for that challenge. I only point out that the data is suspect because of the source. You posted it as if it has assumed authority, and I question it because of it's obvious bias and because bare statistics are never to be trusted. That is all.
Why do you not support the police mentioned on that site? You would support an officer shown on video to be doing things that would put them on their tally sheet wouldn't you?
sherp,
Of the thousands of cops I've known in my life, maybe a small handful were liberals.
I know of no cop who'd support disarming Americans. That's why were Americans to be disarmed, it'll be the military that does it.
I never said police were liberals. Ronald Reagan was not a liberal, but he supported banning the carry of firearms by civilians when he signed the Mulford Act in to law, when he signed the 1986 machine gun ban in to law, and when the supported Brady and the 1994 assault weapon law. Conservatives routinely support firearms safety laws so why don't you get your claims in order.
There is nothing more deceptive than Ronald Reagan signing the Mumfort Act. At the time, Black Panthers were exploiting law to carry guns to intimidate and murder. The Black Panthers were very bit as bad if not worse than the KKK. Ronald Reagan's intent was to give cops a tool to arrest Black Panthers. BTW, I don't agree with the law, not do I agree with any gun control law except those affecting violent felons.
I support myself and no one else .
So you are a POS liberal/libertarian. Did you vote 3rd party or just go ahead and vote Obama?
When i vote this year , I'm going to vote for the best man for the job, I'm going to write myself in on the ticket.
Sam, I think the NACOP gets confused with the IACPa lot of the time. Slightly different agendas and different membership demographics.
"International Association of Chiefs of Police
Position Paper on Firearm Violence"
Now, find us a NACP member that tells and IACP member to screw off when they need help with anything.
That should be easy - since IACP membership includes police from outside the US, who are obviously not interested in any of our constitutional concepts.
The IACP president is a Texan. Their position on firearms has not changed, nor has it turned off US police.
I am going to have to say I was wrong in the opening post here. I made reference to police chiefs being much the same as Mass. Another example of 'open mouth, insert foot', so to speak
The National Association of Chiefs of Police official web site should be indicative of how Police Chiefs feel across the country, and according to them:
FIREARMS
14. Should any vetted citizen be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self-defense? .....................................................Yes 86.8% No 11.1% N/A 2.1%
15. Would national recognition of state-issued concealed weapons permits facilitate the violent crime fighting
efforts of the professional law enforcement community? ...................................................................................................Yes 63.1% No 31.8% N/A 5.1%
16. Can qualified, law-abiding armed citizens help law enforcement reduce violent criminal activity? .......................... Yes 72.7% No 23.6% N/A 3.7%
17. Does your department use reality based/active shooter training? ..................................................................................Yes 78.1% No 21.1% N/A .8%
18. Does your department sell confiscated firearms to help meet budget needs or cover budget shortfalls? ...................Yes 19% No 79.6% N/A 1.5%
Should have done my research up front. This is from their 25th annual national survey.
http://www.nacoponline.org/25th.pdf While NACoP's positions appear better than the larger and older IAoCoP I still see many qualifiers of who they deem to allow arms: vetted, permit, qualified, and state-issued
I thinks that translated into Constitutionalese the Chiefs' qualifiers are what is called infringements. Even this 'RKBA friendly' police organization is an advocate for 'shall be infringed' rather than 'shall not be infringed.'
I support myself and no one else .
So you are a POS liberal/libertarian. Did you vote 3rd party or just go ahead and vote Obama?
When i vote this year , I'm going to vote for the best man for the job, I'm going to write myself in on the ticket.
So you will vote in such a way as to support the democrat since you are not voting for the most electable republican.
at the moment there are no electable Republicans
sherp,
Of the thousands of cops I've known in my life, maybe a small handful were liberals.
I know of no cop who'd support disarming Americans. That's why were Americans to be disarmed, it'll be the military that does it.
I never said police were liberals. Ronald Reagan was not a liberal, but he supported banning the carry of firearms by civilians when he signed the Mulford Act in to law, when he signed the 1986 machine gun ban in to law, and when the supported Brady and the 1994 assault weapon law. Conservatives routinely support firearms safety laws so why don't you get your claims in order.
There is nothing more deceptive than Ronald Reagan signing the Mumfort Act. At the time, Black Panthers were exploiting law to carry guns to intimidate and murder. The Black Panthers were very bit as bad if not worse than the KKK. Ronald Reagan's intent was to give cops a tool to arrest Black Panthers. BTW, I don't agree with the law, not do I agree with any gun control law except those affecting violent felons.
It is Mulford, not Mumfort. If you can't get that right....
So why did Reagan, not go after the Black Panthers for terroristic threatening and murder? Are you trying to claim those acts were legal so they had to ban carry so they would have a reason to arrest those committing murder and making threats? The reason why was he wanted a prohibition on firearms for all civilians. A focus he never changed during his lifetime as you pointed out.
at the moment there are no electable Republicans
They stand the best chance as you know and if you do not vote for them you vote for the democrat. How do you like your man Obama?
Sorry dude. I am not going to take the time for that challenge. I only point out that the data is suspect because of the source. You posted it as if it has assumed authority, and I question it because of it's obvious bias and because bare statistics are never to be trusted. That is all.
Why do you not support the police mentioned on that site? You would support an officer shown on video to be doing things that would put them on their tally sheet wouldn't you?
I'm not sure what your actual question is there, Sherp. I do not trust any statistics from any website that is agenda-driven, and neither should you. Statistics are meaningless without context. Those of you who back your arguments by offering such stand-alone statistics are using a weak tactic that usually does not stand up to scrutiny. It is a common logical fallacy that we all see in use on these forums quite often. I am only pointing out that this fallacy doesn't bolster your argument like you think it does. I am not claiming here that the data is wrong or that your conclusion from such is wrong (although I suspect so), but that your argument is relying on a fallacy. Don't worry about it. You're in good company.....
Sam, I think the NACOP gets confused with the IACPa lot of the time. Slightly different agendas and different membership demographics.
"International Association of Chiefs of Police
Position Paper on Firearm Violence"
Now, find us a NACP member that tells and IACP member to screw off when they need help with anything.
That should be easy - since IACP membership includes police from outside the US, who are obviously not interested in any of our constitutional concepts.
The IACP president is a Texan. Their position on firearms has not changed, nor has it turned off US police.
It wold be interesting to see who and where all the members are, but that does not seem to be available.
Sorry dude. I am not going to take the time for that challenge. I only point out that the data is suspect because of the source. You posted it as if it has assumed authority, and I question it because of it's obvious bias and because bare statistics are never to be trusted. That is all.
Why do you not support the police mentioned on that site? You would support an officer shown on video to be doing things that would put them on their tally sheet wouldn't you?
I'm not sure what your actual question is there, Sherp. I do not trust any statistics from any website that is agenda-driven, and neither should you. Statistics are meaningless without context. Those of you who back your arguments by offering such stand-alone statistics are using a weak tactic that usually does not stand up to scrutiny. It is a common logical fallacy that we all see in use on these forums quite often. I am only pointing out that this fallacy doesn't bolster your argument like you think it does. I am not claiming here that the data is wrong or that your conclusion from such is wrong (although I suspect so), but that your argument is relying on a fallacy. Don't worry about it. You're in good company.....
What political office do you hold since you simultaneously call the information a fallacy while you aren't saying it is wrong? You got backed in to a corner and you started the Clinton double speak I see.
I am going to have to say I was wrong in the opening post here. I made reference to police chiefs being much the same as Mass. Another example of 'open mouth, insert foot', so to speak
The National Association of Chiefs of Police official web site should be indicative of how Police Chiefs feel across the country, and according to them:
FIREARMS
14. Should any vetted citizen be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self-defense? .....................................................Yes 86.8% No 11.1% N/A 2.1%
15. Would national recognition of state-issued concealed weapons permits facilitate the violent crime fighting
efforts of the professional law enforcement community? ...................................................................................................Yes 63.1% No 31.8% N/A 5.1%
16. Can qualified, law-abiding armed citizens help law enforcement reduce violent criminal activity? .......................... Yes 72.7% No 23.6% N/A 3.7%
17. Does your department use reality based/active shooter training? ..................................................................................Yes 78.1% No 21.1% N/A .8%
18. Does your department sell confiscated firearms to help meet budget needs or cover budget shortfalls? ...................Yes 19% No 79.6% N/A 1.5%
Should have done my research up front. This is from their 25th annual national survey.
http://www.nacoponline.org/25th.pdf While NACoP's positions appear better than the larger and older IAoCoP I still see many qualifiers of who they deem to allow arms: vetted, permit, qualified, and state-issued
I thinks that translated into Constitutionalese the Chiefs' qualifiers are what is called infringements. Even this 'RKBA friendly' police organization is an advocate for 'shall be infringed' rather than 'shall not be infringed.'
What you and Sherp seem to be overlooking is that both these organizations purport to be "chiefs of police". Appointed bureaucrats. Much like the management team in my line of work, they do not think like the rank and file.
Sorry dude. I am not going to take the time for that challenge. I only point out that the data is suspect because of the source. You posted it as if it has assumed authority, and I question it because of it's obvious bias and because bare statistics are never to be trusted. That is all.
Why do you not support the police mentioned on that site? You would support an officer shown on video to be doing things that would put them on their tally sheet wouldn't you?
I'm not sure what your actual question is there, Sherp. I do not trust any statistics from any website that is agenda-driven, and neither should you. Statistics are meaningless without context. Those of you who back your arguments by offering such stand-alone statistics are using a weak tactic that usually does not stand up to scrutiny. It is a common logical fallacy that we all see in use on these forums quite often. I am only pointing out that this fallacy doesn't bolster your argument like you think it does. I am not claiming here that the data is wrong or that your conclusion from such is wrong (although I suspect so), but that your argument is relying on a fallacy. Don't worry about it. You're in good company.....
What political office do you hold since you simultaneously call the information a fallacy while you aren't saying it is wrong? You got backed in to a corner and you started the Clinton double speak I see.
Do you not understand the difference between a logical fallacy and "wrong"? You need some remedial education. Get out your google-fu and get to work.
It wold be interesting to see who and where all the members are, but that does not seem to be available.
HQ is in Virginia
Unless I missed any, there have been 2 non-USA presidents(Canadians) of the IACP since 1893:
http://www.theiacp.org/IACP-Past-PresidentsCurrent board is almost entirely USA except for "International Vice President Chief Superintendent Barbara Fleury" from Canada.
http://www.theiacp.org/Governing-BodyExecutive Staff is all USA:
http://www.theiacp.org/Executive-StaffLooks to be mostly USA cops with the International part just tossed in as a token.
Ya gotta know where blame lies, and it ain't with a cop doing his lawful duty.
I blame both those who issue tyrannical orders and those who follow them. Remember, the Redcoats were merely carrying out their lawful duties when they set out to confiscate the colonist's guns and powder at Lexington and Concord.
"cops are NOT your friends"But, but, but, but...
![[Linked Image]](http://www.oempromo.com/upload/Prod_736/Coloring-Book---Police-Officers-Are-My-Heroes_21820826.jpg)
that is not what my Department of Justice produced and local police distributed coloring book says.
![[Linked Image]](http://cdn.grumpyelder.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Holder-brainwash-e1357853885112.jpg)
My coloring book says that cops are my heroes.
![[Linked Image]](http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Obama+Honors+TOP+COPS+Award+Winners+White+mItlcT269kIl.jpg)
You do not understand that "members" means everyone - not just the officers? Or are you just being obtuse?
What political office do you hold since you simultaneously call the information a fallacy while you aren't saying it is wrong? You got backed in to a corner and you started the Clinton double speak I see.
Do you not understand the difference between a logical fallacy and "wrong"? You need some remedial education. Get out your google-fu and get to work.
fal�la�cy
noun \fa-lə-sē\
: the quality of being false or wrong
So what is your next bullshit move? Will you admit you made a:
mis�take verb \mə-stāk\ : to understand (something or someone) incorrectly : to make a wrong
or will you just flat out lie your teeth out now if you weren't already?
You do not understand that "members" means everyone - not just the officers? Or are you just being obtuse?
It was founded by USA police and it is, and always has been, composed mainly by, of, and for USA police.
Looks like you just answered the question I posed in the last post too.
What political office do you hold since you simultaneously call the information a fallacy while you aren't saying it is wrong? You got backed in to a corner and you started the Clinton double speak I see.
Do you not understand the difference between a logical fallacy and "wrong"? You need some remedial education. Get out your google-fu and get to work.
fal�la�cy
noun \fa-lə-sē\
: the quality of being false or wrong
So what is your next bullshit move? Will you admit you made a:
mis�take verb \mə-stāk\ : to understand (something or someone) incorrectly : to make a wrong
or will you just flat out lie your teeth out now if you weren't already?
that was about the weakest, lamest, attempt at google-fu I have ever seen.
Let me help you out....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacieshttp://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/There will be a test in the morning....
You do not understand that "members" means everyone - not just the officers? Or are you just being obtuse?
It was founded by USA police and it is, and always has been, composed mainly by, of, and for USA police.
Looks like you just answered the question I posed in the last post too.
Show me who the
members are now. I'm dying to know.
What political office do you hold since you simultaneously call the information a fallacy while you aren't saying it is wrong? You got backed in to a corner and you started the Clinton double speak I see.
Do you not understand the difference between a logical fallacy and "wrong"? You need some remedial education. Get out your google-fu and get to work.
fal�la�cy
noun \fa-lə-sē\
: the quality of being false or wrong
So what is your next bullshit move? Will you admit you made a:
mis�take verb \mə-stāk\ : to understand (something or someone) incorrectly : to make a wrong
or will you just flat out lie your teeth out now if you weren't already?
that was about the weakest, lamest, attempt at google-fu I have ever seen.
Let me help you out....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacieshttp://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/There will be a test in the morning....
Oh yeah, use Wikipedia where any idiot can modify it at will. Hell with Merriam Websters as a resource. They have only been cranking out dictionaries for close to 2 centures now so we really should use you and your agenda as a resource on the English language instead.
FreeMe,
Ask him if he's a Green Beret.
Travis
Show me who the members are now. I'm dying to know.
Show us a complete member list of The National Association of Chiefs of Police since you support their views on limiting who may own firearms.
FreeMe,
Ask him if he's a Green Beret.
Travis
I am not. Are you still a member of the Log Cabin Republicans?
Oh yeah, use Wikipedia where any idiot can modify it at will. Hell with Merriam Websters as a resource. They have only been cranking out dictionaries for close to 2 centures now so we really should use you and your agenda as a resource on the English language instead.
Didn't bother to look at it,
did ya? I gave you two references, of which one was wiki - and the info there was likely cut & paste from another source. It's pretty commonly available all over the place if you look with intent to learn. But you instead just resort to another logical fallacy to bolster your argument.....and your subsequent posts do the same.
I lied about the test. The test is already in progress. Lots of time for you to score 100% before morning. Gotta go. See ya.
You should see a page with sherp and sookie having an arguement. It's as close to a blank page as you can get.
Yeah, I know. The police chiefs in Mass are different than cops everywhere else. Right? Yeah.
link to story Police chiefs in Massachusetts are blasting state lawmakers for shooting down a provision that would have given them sole discretion over who can get rifle or shotgun permits.
The Bay State, which has some of the nation's toughest gun laws, has long left it up to a community's top cop to sign off on handgun permits. Lawmakers were considering extending that to include the Firearms Identification Card, or FID, needed to possess long guns. But lawmakers, leery of the constitutionality of the law, which critics say can result in law-abiding citizens being denied their Second Amendment rights, have stripped a proposed bill of that provision. This week, police chiefs from throughout the state and gun control advocates converged on the Statehouse in Boston to blast state senators for removing the provision.
�Our position is really very, very simple,� said Wayne Sampson, executive director of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association. �We, as an association, believe that it�s unconscionable that if we determine a person is unsuitable to carry a handgun, that they can then turn around and apply for a Firearms Identification Card, which allows them, by law, to purchase rifles and shotguns. And there�s no way we can impose any restrictions on that. It just doesn�t make sense.�
and as always, more at the link..........
I haven't read this entire thread.
I just want to say this , The state of North Carolina has for years (since 1919) had a law that you have to ask permission of the head law enforcement officer of your county (county sheriff) to buy a handgun (Pistol Purchase Permit)
This is nothing but a Jim Crow era law.
In 2013 the PPP law was up for REPEAL.
The repeal of the NC PPP law failed at least in part because it was opposed by a small handful of very influential REPUBLICAN sheriffs.
Those sheriffs that opposed the repeal did not do so because of any concerns for "public safety" , but because THEY DID NOT WANT TO RELINQUISH THAT POWER over their constituents.
Mike
Hate to break it to you, but location, department, and second amendment aside.... none of all that matters! No cop is your friend period!
Phil
Oh yeah, use Wikipedia where any idiot can modify it at will. Hell with Merriam Websters as a resource. They have only been cranking out dictionaries for close to 2 centures now so we really should use you and your agenda as a resource on the English language instead.
Didn't bother to look at it,
did ya? I gave you two references, of which one was wiki - and the info there was likely cut & paste from another source. It's pretty commonly available all over the place if you look with intent to learn. But you instead just resort to another logical fallacy to bolster your argument.....and your subsequent posts do the same.
I lied about the test. The test is already in progress. Lots of time for you to score 100% before morning. Gotta go. See ya.
We already determined you were lying. When you berate someone and tell them to look up a definition and then claim Webster's isn't good enough, do we really need to know anything else about how you like to carry on conversations and debates?
Yeah, I know. The police chiefs in Mass are different than cops everywhere else. Right? Yeah.
link to story Police chiefs in Massachusetts are blasting state lawmakers for shooting down a provision that would have given them sole discretion over who can get rifle or shotgun permits.
The Bay State, which has some of the nation's toughest gun laws, has long left it up to a community's top cop to sign off on handgun permits. Lawmakers were considering extending that to include the Firearms Identification Card, or FID, needed to possess long guns. But lawmakers, leery of the constitutionality of the law, which critics say can result in law-abiding citizens being denied their Second Amendment rights, have stripped a proposed bill of that provision. This week, police chiefs from throughout the state and gun control advocates converged on the Statehouse in Boston to blast state senators for removing the provision.
�Our position is really very, very simple,� said Wayne Sampson, executive director of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association. �We, as an association, believe that it�s unconscionable that if we determine a person is unsuitable to carry a handgun, that they can then turn around and apply for a Firearms Identification Card, which allows them, by law, to purchase rifles and shotguns. And there�s no way we can impose any restrictions on that. It just doesn�t make sense.�
and as always, more at the link..........
I haven't read this entire thread.
I just want to say this , The state of North Carolina has for years (since 1919) had a law that you have to ask permission of the head law enforcement officer of your county (county sheriff) to buy a handgun (Pistol Purchase Permit)
This is nothing but a Jim Crow era law.
In 2013 the PPP law was up for REPEAL.
The repeal of the NC PPP law failed at least in part because it was opposed by a small handful of very influential REPUBLICAN sheriffs.
Those sheriffs that opposed the repeal did not do so because of any concerns for "public safety" , but because THEY DID NOT WANT TO RELINQUISH THAT POWER over their constituents.
Mike
Nothing wrong with that and since Republicans were pushing it Conservatives can support it.
at the moment there are no electable Republicans
or rather, no Republicans I would want to vote for, as all the prominent ones are RINOS.
Mass cops showed what they were all about during the marathon bombing,
They sure the hell did! They thought they were real badasses didn't they.
Hate to break it to you, but location, department, and second amendment aside.... none of all that matters! No cop is your friend period!
Phil
I am a cop. I have plenty of friends, many I've met at CF gatherings. I would say your premise is false.
George
Hate to break it to you, but location, department, and second amendment aside.... none of all that matters! No cop is your friend period!
Phil
I am a cop. I have plenty of friends, many I've met at CF gatherings. I would say your premise is false.
George
I would say the premise is false too. Im one of the folks George mentioned...
at the moment there are no electable Republicans
or rather, no Republicans I would want to vote for, as all the prominent ones are RINOS.
The only RINO in recent memory was Ron Paul and he was not electable.
Hate to break it to you, but location, department, and second amendment aside.... none of all that matters! No cop is your friend period!
Phil
I am a cop. I have plenty of friends, many I've met at CF gatherings. I would say your premise is false.
George
A bit different when they are buying you dinner or something, but as T. Lee posted an article in another thread the average civilian is a terrorist or gang member in tehe eyes of police officers.
Mass cops showed what they were all about during the marathon bombing,
They sure the hell did! They thought they were real badasses didn't they.
Yes they did, they had all those civilians cowering in their homes.
C'mon......at least come out of your schtick long enough to schit on Romney. Nobody, even in character, can defend R(in)Omney.....
Yeah, I know. The police chiefs in Mass are different than cops everywhere else. Right? Yeah.
link to story Police chiefs in Massachusetts are blasting state lawmakers for shooting down a provision that would have given them sole discretion over who can get rifle or shotgun permits.
The Bay State, which has some of the nation's toughest gun laws, has long left it up to a community's top cop to sign off on handgun permits. Lawmakers were considering extending that to include the Firearms Identification Card, or FID, needed to possess long guns. But lawmakers, leery of the constitutionality of the law, which critics say can result in law-abiding citizens being denied their Second Amendment rights, have stripped a proposed bill of that provision. This week, police chiefs from throughout the state and gun control advocates converged on the Statehouse in Boston to blast state senators for removing the provision.
�Our position is really very, very simple,� said Wayne Sampson, executive director of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association. �We, as an association, believe that it�s unconscionable that if we determine a person is unsuitable to carry a handgun, that they can then turn around and apply for a Firearms Identification Card, which allows them, by law, to purchase rifles and shotguns. And there�s no way we can impose any restrictions on that. It just doesn�t make sense.�
and as always, more at the link..........
I haven't read this entire thread.
I just want to say this , The state of North Carolina has for years (since 1919) had a law that you have to ask permission of the head law enforcement officer of your county (county sheriff) to buy a handgun (Pistol Purchase Permit)
This is nothing but a Jim Crow era law.
In 2013 the PPP law was up for REPEAL.
The repeal of the NC PPP law failed at least in part because it was opposed by a small handful of very influential REPUBLICAN sheriffs.
Those sheriffs that opposed the repeal did not do so because of any concerns for "public safety" , but because THEY DID NOT WANT TO RELINQUISH THAT POWER over their constituents.
Mike
Missouri had a similar law in place until a few years ago.
Sheriffs did not want the law to go away either. It had nothing to do with power though. Each permit cost $10 and was only good for 30 days. They made piles of money.
Dink
I haven't read this entire thread.
I just want to say this , The state of North Carolina has for years (since 1919) had a law that you have to ask permission of the head law enforcement officer of your county (county sheriff) to buy a handgun (Pistol Purchase Permit)
This is nothing but a Jim Crow era law.
In 2013 the PPP law was up for REPEAL.
The repeal of the NC PPP law failed at least in part because it was opposed by a small handful of very influential REPUBLICAN sheriffs.
Those sheriffs that opposed the repeal did not do so because of any concerns for "public safety" , but because THEY DID NOT WANT TO RELINQUISH THAT POWER over their constituents.
Mike
Missouri had a similar law in place until a few years ago.
Sheriffs did not want the law to go away either. It had nothing to do with power though. Each permit cost $10 and was only good for 30 days. They made piles of money.
Dink
Money is power.
C'mon......at least come out of your schtick long enough to schit on Romney. Nobody, even in character, can defend R(in)Omney.....
I have defended Romney numerous times. Why did you not vote for him?
Our position is really very, very simple. We do not trust you to be responsible enough to have firearms. We therefore ignore the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.
Hate to break it to you, but location, department, and second amendment aside.... none of all that matters! No cop is your friend period!
Phil
Maybe not where you live but that sure is not true in my part of the world.
Hate to break it to you, but location, department, and second amendment aside.... none of all that matters! No cop is your friend period!
Phil
I am a cop. I have plenty of friends, many I've met at CF gatherings. I would say your premise is false.
George
George, you may have misunderstood him. I don't think he meant that one couldn't have friends who were cops. He meant that cops, in their capacity as cops, are not your friends if you're not yourself a cop also, or his superior in some sense.
In 2013 the PPP law was up for REPEAL.
The repeal of the NC PPP law failed at least in part because it was opposed by a small handful of very influential REPUBLICAN sheriffs.
Those sheriffs that opposed the repeal did not do so because of any concerns for "public safety" , but because THEY DID NOT WANT TO RELINQUISH THAT POWER over their constituents.
Mike
Missouri had a similar law in place until a few years ago.
Sheriffs did not want the law to go away either. It had nothing to do with power though. Each permit cost $10 and was only good for 30 days. They made piles of money.
Dink
That's how it works in New York, too.
If you guys want a real chuckle, ask sherp about rifles, handguns, or anything relating to the outdoors.
Travis
If you guys want a real chuckle, ask sherp about rifles, handguns, or anything relating to the outdoors.
Travis
What would you like to know?
Since the questions you are asking do not pertain to the first post in this thread in any way, why are you trying to obfuscate for the police of Massachusetts? Why are you not proud of the job they are doing and why do you want to lead the focus of the thread away from them?
Police are not significantly different from one town to the next. That is why even the smallest departments send representative officers around the entire country to attend training events and funerals in order to associate as friends with those other departments.
Get that dick out of your mouth you fuggin' homo.
Travis
Why are you badmouthing me since your state has the kind of police I support(and other conservatives do as well) while you are ashamed of them and claim they are not there at all?
One officer out of every 116.4 is involved in police misconduct according to the graph you posted. That's less than 1%. I wonder how that compares to other professions?
Why are you badmouthing me since your state has the kind of police I support(and other conservatives do as well) while you are ashamed of them and claim they are not there at all?
One officer out of every 116.4 is involved in police misconduct according to the graph you posted. That's less than 1%. I wonder how that compares to other professions?
Not sure, but you and I call that "misconduct" pro-active police work. I guarantee you that other occupations lack the camaraderie police have so if they were to do something that bunch calls "misconduct" that their co-workers would not assist them like police do their co-workers.
Hate to break it to you, but location, department, and second amendment aside.... none of all that matters! No cop is your friend period!
Phil
I am a cop. I have plenty of friends, many I've met at CF gatherings. I would say your premise is false.
George
A bit different when they are buying you dinner or something, but as T. Lee posted an article in another thread the average civilian is a terrorist or gang member in tehe eyes of police officers.
Your momma fed you paint chips didn't she?
A bit different when they are buying you dinner or something, but as T. Lee posted an article in another thread the average civilian is a terrorist or gang member in tehe eyes of police officers.
Your momma fed you paint chips didn't she?
Nope. Why are you badmouthing me for siding with police? I simply noticed how the officer in the article stated their views.
Mass cops showed what they were all about during the marathon bombing, they showed sheer imcompetence, if it were not for a neighbor tipping them off they still would not have found the lone bomber.
And if it wasn't for the neighbor's liberal wife making him smoke on the back porch the lone bomber would have bled out inside the boat where he was hiding. That would have saved the dwindling working population of Massachusetts another high priced show.
Why are you badmouthing me since your state has the kind of police I support(and other conservatives do as well) while you are ashamed of them and claim they are not there at all?
One officer out of every 116.4 is involved in police misconduct according to the graph you posted. That's less than 1%. I wonder how that compares to other professions?
Not sure, but you and I call that "misconduct" pro-active police work. I guarantee you that other occupations lack the camaraderie police have so if they were to do something that bunch calls "misconduct" that their co-workers would not assist them like police do their co-workers.
I don't know about that most professions seem reluctant to point out their colleagues errors. Its just about impossible to get a doctor, priest, lawyer, whatever to say one of their own messed up.
I wonder why police misconduct is always big news?
It's hard to tell the difference between Assachusetts cops and most east-coast cops from the East German Stasi.
If you guys want a real chuckle, ask sherp about rifles, handguns, or anything relating to the outdoors.
Travis
What would you like to know?
Since the questions you are asking do not pertain to the first post in this thread in any way, why are you trying to obfuscate for the police of Massachusetts? Why are you not proud of the job they are doing and why do you want to lead the focus of the thread away from them?
Don't get all misty eyed, sweetheart.
But seriously, type something about firearms or the outdoors so I can have a good chuckle.
Travis
It's hard to tell the difference between Assachusetts cops and most east-coast cops from the East German Stasi.
It's hard to tell most east coast American citizens from the euro-trash that watched the Turd Reich rise to power.
Travis
It's hard to tell the difference between Assachusetts cops and most east-coast cops from the East German Stasi.
And your experience with NH cops is........? It gets difficult to take some folks seriously anymore.
'Flave, there are still some "holdouts" in the east.
It's hard to tell the difference between Assachusetts cops and most east-coast cops from the East German Stasi.
And your experience with NH cops is........? It gets difficult to take some folks seriously anymore.
'Flave, there are still some "holdouts" in the east.
NH K9, I don't consider your state, VT or the northern half of ME to be part of the communist occupied northeast.
I apologize for not pointing that out, but I have clarified this with you before.0
Beside, isn't Mas Ayoob your NH police ambassador to the rest of the US?
Yep, New Hampshire is quite a libertarian bastion.
It's hard to tell the difference between Assachusetts cops and most east-coast cops from the East German Stasi.
And your experience with NH cops is........? It gets difficult to take some folks seriously anymore.
'Flave, there are still some "holdouts" in the east.
I was referencing populations as a whole.
I have no doubt there are great Americans on the east and west coast. But they are few and far between. And even those that lean right (in my experience) don't truly lean right.
Travis
Why are you badmouthing me since your state has the kind of police I support(and other conservatives do as well) while you are ashamed of them and claim they are not there at all?
One officer out of every 116.4 is involved in police misconduct according to the graph you posted. That's less than 1%. I wonder how that compares to other professions?
Not sure, but you and I call that "misconduct" pro-active police work. I guarantee you that other occupations lack the camaraderie police have so if they were to do something that bunch calls "misconduct" that their co-workers would not assist them like police do their co-workers.
I don't know about that most professions seem reluctant to point out their colleagues errors. Its just about impossible to get a doctor, priest, lawyer, whatever to say one of their own messed up.
I wonder why police misconduct is always big news?
I also like to call it a mistake or an error when an officer commits what would be theft/rape/arson and so on if it were a civilian doing it. Glad to see we are the same on this one.
If you guys want a real chuckle, ask sherp about rifles, handguns, or anything relating to the outdoors.
Travis
What would you like to know?
Since the questions you are asking do not pertain to the first post in this thread in any way, why are you trying to obfuscate for the police of Massachusetts? Why are you not proud of the job they are doing and why do you want to lead the focus of the thread away from them?
Don't get all misty eyed, sweetheart.
But seriously, type something about firearms or the outdoors so I can have a good chuckle.
Travis
No misty eyeed, and just a regular republican, not a og cabin type like you are so really not in to other males calling me "sweetheart".
You popped it off so ask away.
Try saying something that isn't a lie so we can all be amazed while you are at it also.
Kinda like clergy, teachers, foster home administrators, etc, I guess.
I thought police were civilians, I didn't know they were subject to the UCMJ.
I'm still wondering why police misconduct is big news?
Seriously.. Who here hasn't figured out that sherp is Take a pee?
Kinda like clergy, teachers, foster home administrators, etc, I guess.
I thought police were civilians, I didn't know they were subject to the UCMJ.
I'm still wondering why police misconduct is big news?
The only other occupational group that displays the aid to co-workers that police do are Catholic clergy when someone pipes up claiming to have been abused and I think that after all the negative press they were getting on that they may have stopped. Pretty sure every group that commits rape, gets labeled as a rapist in the press, not as someone who made an error. I am like you with police who commit "rape" and I just call it an error, blame it on the victim, or claim it was because the officer was not getting paid enough.
I'm terrible at math but my Google'fu is strong. Based on Sherps graph 1 in 116.4 officers are involved in police misconduct that's something like 0.8591065292096219% according to percent calculator.
Seriously.. Who here hasn't figured out that sherp is Take a pee?
I am on here under 1 name and 1 name only. I am annoyed by people who make bogus mental deficient claims against people in an effort to defame then in a debate so I do not engage in that ignorant behavior at all.
Your fixation with take a knee and me is making your loco name seem very, very real. Are you horsing around or do you really have problems?
I'm terrible at math but my Google'fu is strong. Based on Sherps graph 1 in 116.4 officers are involved in police misconduct that's something like 0.8591065292096219% according to percent calculator.
Yep, and those are all bogus claims.
Fortunately only 1 in 3 get convicted for it and less than that get arrested prior to the cell phone or security cam footage getting plastered all over the net.
Kinda like clergy, teachers, foster home administrators, etc, I guess.
I thought police were civilians, I didn't know they were subject to the UCMJ.
I'm still wondering why police misconduct is big news?
The only other occupational group that displays the aid to co-workers that police do are Catholic clergy when someone pipes up claiming to have been abused and I think that after all the negative press they were getting on that they may have stopped. Pretty sure every group that commits rape, gets labeled as a rapist in the press, not as someone who made an error. I am like you with police who commit "rape" and I just call it an error, blame it on the victim, or claim it was because the officer was not getting paid enough.
I don't know my buddy's wife who was a nurse finally got fired from the hospital for stealing drugs (3rd time). They sent her to this and that group for help to try and save her career before the third theft finally got her job. At least they didn't press charges against her for stealing narcotics.
I'm terrible at math but my Google'fu is strong. Based on Sherps graph 1 in 116.4 officers are involved in police misconduct that's something like 0.8591065292096219% according to percent calculator.
Yep, and those are all bogus claims.
Fortunately only 1 in 3 get convicted for it and less than that get arrested prior to the cell phone or security cam footage getting plastered all over the net.
I wonder what percent of criminals regardless of occupation get convicted of crimes?
Kinda like clergy, teachers, foster home administrators, etc, I guess.
I thought police were civilians, I didn't know they were subject to the UCMJ.
I'm still wondering why police misconduct is big news?
The only other occupational group that displays the aid to co-workers that police do are Catholic clergy when someone pipes up claiming to have been abused and I think that after all the negative press they were getting on that they may have stopped. Pretty sure every group that commits rape, gets labeled as a rapist in the press, not as someone who made an error. I am like you with police who commit "rape" and I just call it an error, blame it on the victim, or claim it was because the officer was not getting paid enough.
I don't know my buddy's wife who was a nurse finally got fired from the hospital for stealing drugs (3rd time). They sent her to this and that group for help to try and save her career before the third theft finally got her job. At least they didn't press charges against her for stealing narcotics.
So the hospital employees weren't actually assisting her(ie, loading them in the trunk of her car, getting her a cart to roll them down the hall) in stealing the drugs? Big difference in that versus how police/Catholic clergy will assist each other.
Father Jim is accused of rape and gets transferred to another state or country to avoid the hassle.
Officer is forced to kill ex'lover's spouse, fellow officers don't even interview the officer and instead claim thieves stole only a wedding license in addition to knocking off the spouse.
I see sherp is still doing her best not to cry.
Best call Uterus to the rescue.
Too fuggin' funny.
Travis
Kinda like clergy, teachers, foster home administrators, etc, I guess.
I thought police were civilians, I didn't know they were subject to the UCMJ.
I'm still wondering why police misconduct is big news?
The only other occupational group that displays the aid to co-workers that police do are Catholic clergy when someone pipes up claiming to have been abused and I think that after all the negative press they were getting on that they may have stopped. Pretty sure every group that commits rape, gets labeled as a rapist in the press, not as someone who made an error. I am like you with police who commit "rape" and I just call it an error, blame it on the victim, or claim it was because the officer was not getting paid enough.
I don't know my buddy's wife who was a nurse finally got fired from the hospital for stealing drugs (3rd time). They sent her to this and that group for help to try and save her career before the third theft finally got her job. At least they didn't press charges against her for stealing narcotics.
So the hospital employees weren't actually assisting her(ie, loading them in the trunk of her car, getting her a cart to roll them down the hall) in stealing the drugs? Big difference in that versus how police/Catholic clergy will assist each other.
Father Jim is accused of rape and gets transferred to another state or country to avoid the hassle.
Officer is forced to kill ex'lover's spouse, fellow officers don't even interview the officer and instead claim thieves stole only a wedding license in addition to knocking off the spouse.
No I guess they didn't load up the cart with drugs for her, they just let her continue to work and assist treating patients after the first two thefts. But I guess that's different somehow.
massholes......................................
Police departments seem far more often to be on the wrong side of things (the side of the elites) than Sheriff's Departments. One wonders if that's a manifestation of the fact that Chiefs are political appointees with relatively secure positions while Sheriffs are holders of elective office, directly answerable to their constituency via the ballot box. No mystery to me.
Very true, Hawk.
Actually, to my knowledge, Chief's are not "political appointee's". He might be confusing Chief's with Director's of Police/Public Safety.
Sherp,
I know you are a pro police guy so maybe you could answer a question for me. What percent of criminals regardless of occupation get convicted of crimes?
Thanks, LBP
Yeah, I know. The police chiefs in Mass are different than cops everywhere else. Right? Yeah.
They're certainly different than cops in my town.
Travis
Well, all I know is that Mass Troopers have no sense of humor. lol
Sherp,
I know you are a pro police guy so maybe you could answer a question for me. What percent of criminals regardless of occupation get convicted of crimes?
Thanks, LBP
Well, 100%.
Sherp,
I know you are a pro police guy so maybe you could answer a question for me. What percent of criminals regardless of occupation get convicted of crimes?
Thanks, LBP
Well, 100%.
Good point,
Ok what percent of accused persons regardless of occupation get convicted of their crime?
Police and the Government or one and the same , it is all about controlling the Sheep they are supposedly serving
Baaa....click
Honestly, I don't know. There are real variables there that are just facts such as if you are a poor inner city minority who will get a court appointed Public Defender, your conviction rate will be far greater than say some fat cat with unlimited legal funds.
Yeah, I know. The police chiefs in Mass are different than cops everywhere else. Right? Yeah.
They're certainly different than cops in my town.
Travis
Well, all I know is that Mass Troopers have no sense of humor. lol
Not true. A friend is a MA Trooper, and while engaged in a foot chase with a known felon some years ago, decided to abruptly suspend his pursuit. Just long enough to put a round of .40 through the felon's back. Proof positive that some have a *great* sense of humor...
The only other occupational group that displays the aid to co-workers that police do are Catholic clergy when someone pipes up claiming to have been abused and I think that after all the negative press they were getting on that they may have stopped. Pretty sure every group that commits rape, gets labeled as a rapist in the press, not as someone who made an error. I am like you with police who commit "rape" and I just call it an error, blame it on the victim, or claim it was because the officer was not getting paid enough.
I don't know my buddy's wife who was a nurse finally got fired from the hospital for stealing drugs (3rd time). They sent her to this and that group for help to try and save her career before the third theft finally got her job. At least they didn't press charges against her for stealing narcotics.
So the hospital employees weren't actually assisting her(ie, loading them in the trunk of her car, getting her a cart to roll them down the hall) in stealing the drugs? Big difference in that versus how police/Catholic clergy will assist each other.
Father Jim is accused of rape and gets transferred to another state or country to avoid the hassle.
Officer is forced to kill ex'lover's spouse, fellow officers don't even interview the officer and instead claim thieves stole only a wedding license in addition to knocking off the spouse. [/quote]
No I guess they didn't load up the cart with drugs for her, they just let her continue to work and assist treating patients after the first two thefts. But I guess that's different somehow. [/quote]
Police actively assist each other no matter what is going on. Quite a difference.
Sherp,
I know you are a pro police guy so maybe you could answer a question for me. What percent of criminals regardless of occupation get convicted of crimes?
Thanks, LBP
Not sure, but would guess it is normally very high when there is video of the event occurring. Police usually toss that aside in the investigation or prosecutors decline to pursue it when police are involved which is why so many local incidents involving police end up in federal court versus a civilian would be happily charged by the state the incident occurred in.
Well, all I know is that Mass Troopers have no sense of humor. lol
Not true. A friend is a MA Trooper, and while engaged in a foot chase with a known felon some years ago, decided to abruptly suspend his pursuit. Just long enough to put a round of .40 through the felon's back. Proof positive that some have a *great* sense of humor...
Even when retired Mass. Troopers show how great they are:
http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=8860
Police departments seem far more often to be on the wrong side of things (the side of the elites) than Sheriff's Departments. One wonders if that's a manifestation of the fact that Chiefs are political appointees with relatively secure positions while Sheriffs are holders of elective office, directly answerable to their constituency via the ballot box. No mystery to me.
Very true, Hawk.
Actually, to my knowledge, Chief's are not "political appointee's". He might be confusing Chief's with Director's of Police/Public Safety.
around here, the chief of police job is always an appointment. None are elected
While in college, my neighbor when I lived in Foxboro was a Mass State Trooper...Bill was one hell of a wonderful human being...
8 years in the Marine Corp after high school, two tours of Vietnam, came home at 26, and transferred to the Marine Reserves, and became a Mass Statie...
one of the finest people I've ever known...
Not true. A friend is a MA Trooper, and while engaged in a foot chase with a known felon some years ago, decided to abruptly suspend his pursuit. Just long enough to put a round of .40 through the felon's back. Proof positive that some have a *great* sense of humor...
He should probably read
Tennessee vs Garner before he repeats that story...
Travis
Oh yeah, use Wikipedia where any idiot can modify it at will. Hell with Merriam Websters as a resource. They have only been cranking out dictionaries for close to 2 centures now so we really should use you and your agenda as a resource on the English language instead.
Didn't bother to look at it,
did ya? I gave you two references, of which one was wiki - and the info there was likely cut & paste from another source. It's pretty commonly available all over the place if you look with intent to learn. But you instead just resort to another logical fallacy to bolster your argument.....and your subsequent posts do the same.
I lied about the test. The test is already in progress. Lots of time for you to score 100% before morning. Gotta go. See ya.
We already determined you were lying. When you berate someone and tell them to look up a definition and then claim Webster's isn't good enough, do we really need to know anything else about how you like to carry on conversations and debates?
Who's "we"? You gotta mouse in yer pocket?
Nice Red Herring fallacy you employed there. I didn't tell you to look up the definition of "fallacy".
Do you not understand the difference between a logical fallacy and "wrong"? You need some remedial education. Get out your google-fu and get to work.
When you google "logical fallacy", as you would have if you were honestly trying to learn anything - the first hit you get today is this....
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/Fail.
What a gem this is....
Seriously.. Who here hasn't figured out that sherp is Take a pee?
I am on here under 1 name and 1 name only. I am annoyed by people who make bogus mental deficient claims against people in an effort to defame then in a debate
so I do not engage in that ignorant behavior at all. Your fixation with take a knee and me
is making your loco name seem very, very real. Are you horsing around or
do you really have problems?
ya know guys, it is not often that I regret posting something. This is one of those times.
What was, I thought, a legitimate, interesting observation, has become nothing more than a launch pad for loonies. Chit.
Not true. A friend is a MA Trooper, and while engaged in a foot chase with a known felon some years ago, decided to abruptly suspend his pursuit. Just long enough to put a round of .40 through the felon's back. Proof positive that some have a *great* sense of humor...
He should probably read
Tennessee vs Garner before he repeats that story...
Travis
The dude that was shot had a gun in hand as he fled. After the usual hullabaloo he (the MST) was cleared of any wrongdoing. And everyone lived happily ever after. Well, not everyone, but everyone who mattered...
Who's "we"? You gotta mouse in yer pocket?
Nice Red Herring fallacy you employed there. I didn't tell you to look up the definition of "fallacy".
Do you not understand the difference between a logical fallacy and "wrong"? You need some remedial education. Get out your google-fu and get to work.
When you google "logical fallacy", as you would have if you were honestly trying to learn anything - the first hit you get today is this....
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/Fail.
I just go to Webster's and use their definition. Been a gold standard for that purpose before the creator of that site was a gleam in their daddy's eye.
What a gem this is....
Seriously.. Who here hasn't figured out that sherp is Take a pee?
I am on here under 1 name and 1 name only. I am annoyed by people who make bogus mental deficient claims against people in an effort to defame then in a debate
so I do not engage in that ignorant behavior at all. Your fixation with take a knee and me
is making your loco name seem very, very real. Are you horsing around or
do you really have problems? I am able to counter everything he claims without name calling or any other attempts at character assassination. He truly is fixated based on what he is doing. Now, either that is just horsing around (which I enquired about and is something someone bringing up mental state as a bogus argument would never, ever do) or he is a nut job.
Not true. A friend is a MA Trooper, and while engaged in a foot chase with a known felon some years ago, decided to abruptly suspend his pursuit. Just long enough to put a round of .40 through the felon's back. Proof positive that some have a *great* sense of humor...
He should probably read
Tennessee vs Garner before he repeats that story...
Travis
The dude that was shot had a gun in hand as he fled. After the usual hullabaloo he (the MST) was cleared of any wrongdoing. And everyone lived happily ever after. Well, not everyone, but everyone who mattered...
Yep, police should be able to shoot anyone who is armed at anytime and police internal investigations usually back that up.
Take a pee, this is why nobody believes your green beret bullshit stories..
I thought he changed the story, isn't he a combat controller now?
How many handles does take a pee have now? 5?
How many handles does take a pee have now? 5?
You see TAK just about behind every tree now, don't you? You know they have meds for that now, right?
I see him behind you, too..
How many handles does take a pee have now? 5?
You see TAK just about behind every tree now, don't you? You know they have meds for that now, right?
That should be good to get his crazy off the street when he gets in to a dispute with a female 16 year old cashier at a gas station. Just hope they have security cam so we can see him holding the gun om her and repeating "Take a Pee" over and over as part of his demands.
Massachusetts Cops are NOT your friends
Fixed it for you; unfortunately, sad but true & it's where we've evolved to.......obviously a rare exception here or there.
MM
Massachusetts Cops are NOT your friends
Fixed it for you; unfortunately, sad but true & it's where we've evolved to.......obviously a rare exception here or there.
MM
They are friends to each other, but they are here to keep the toes of non-police on the line. Imagine how screwed up everything would be if they treated you like they do fellow officers. That is how it always has been and, with any luck, how it always will be.