Quite the article..

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/contempt-of-cop-america-s-defiance-revolution-1.2498082

And a hearty RIGHT ON for these Americans...

I think it's great. The bar for being a LEO is not nearly high enough. We could do twice as well, with half as many cops, if they were the right ones.

A profound statement, if there ever was one. Couple That culling with a similar one to the tens of thousands of nanny state "Laws" & we'd be moving in the right direction. Back to basics is nearly always the right choice.

I concur.

Those laws are the result of peoples constant demand for specific objectivity.

contempt of cop can, and has, gotten a lot of Citizens killed. All the cop has to do, is say "I was in fear of my life", and cap the disrespectful Citizen.

I'm saving my tags 'til I'm a little closer to retirement. I don't wanna get stuck on a desk job.

I agree. Anytime you have a war against an inanimate object you need a Gestapo like police force and a Nazi like state.

Coming from an LEO perspective, I have two things to say.

1. Bravo. Keep it up. Do not let out of control "leaders" get away with ordering borderline legal, or flat out illegal, enforcement tactics. Do not operate in your daily life in fear of cops. Rather, know your rights (the real ones) and know your laws.

2. Be careful. Being right can so easily and quickly become being wrong. Again, know your actual rights and all laws regarding a situation. If you're not sure, don't push it. Fight it later in court with a lawsuit if you have to. But the line between rightous exercising of your rights and violating a law is VERY thin and blurred. Don't forget to know local laws and ordinances. It doesn't take much to be wrong and not know it.

Furthermore, being polite goes a long ways. Indignation will often lead a less than ethical cop to dig for an obscure violation and have you smack dab in the middle of that blurred line.

Try to remember that less than ethical cops make up a small percentage of overall cops. But that small percentage can and will ruin your day.

There may come a day when violent action is necessary to secure our freedom. It ain't here yet. This rather effective but peaceful resistance is the best route at present. And rest assured it is being noticed across the nation. It is and will continue to have an affect. But you gotta do it right.

I always tell my trainees that we are all one stupid decision away from wearing orange instead of blue. It applies to all of us. One stupid decision, and you're a bad guy instead of a free American exercising his rights. Dont make that stupid decision.

There are a ton of crappy laws. But if you know them, you can use them to your advantage. We can gain back our freedom. And I promise you, the average cop would prefer it. But it doesn't come from the edge of a sword just yet. It comes from behind an educated smile.

I agree. We need to get back to police forces rather than law enforcement forces.

It's always easy to do another person's job.

In order to get back to a police force getting rid of tens of thousands of laws is necessary.

War is hell and lives are lost. Sometimes though it's necessary.

Good article. Thanks for posting it.

No arguments there.

Few things more dangerous than being right when your government is wrong.

You should see me lawyering.

piece of cake...

+1

==========


You should see me copping.

Piece of cake.

Actually, I think we need to get back to "protect & serve" rather than the current "manage & control" mindset.

Some good comments here, though, especially by the Pirate.

MM

the complexity of the issue is why we wind up offering observations, not solution. I don't know if there are, at this time, any solutions.

I go to a restaurant all the time where the food is absolutely terrible, worst food I've ever had. But I figure that since I don't know much about running a restaurant and much about cooking, that I really don't know what good food should taste like and therefore, I'm unqualified to comment. So, I just keep going back and handing them my money. I mean, hey, it is easy to criticize but they are just doing the best they can it really isn't for me to judge since I don't know much about how they do their jobs.

Hmmm...the lawyer/cop relationship.

It reminds me of an art critic reviewing an abstract, not knowing that it was created by a monkey throwing paint.

Exactly. I don't believe I've ever heard it so well put. Welcome aboard. I will have to remember that one.

done with that.

I'll take you surveying though.

Bring your yorkie. It'll distract the snakes long enough to swing the axe.

It's really not that complex, Sam. Government entities do not like LE (or Fire) personnel, because they use so many resources...money that they would rather spend on their personal agendas. It is no different than the way the Federal Government feels about the military. Since there is no way to eliminate these expenditures, they incorporate their agendas into them. The solution is who we elect.

Couldn't agree more,friend.

I deal with cops all the time. It's a tough frikken job without the 34K non cop members of the 24H telling them how they should perform it.

Having said that,I'll smoke the bad cops in a NY second but I believe the good cops would smoke them, as well.

I simply can't offend the diligent in the meanwhile. They,like you and me,are just plodding through life trying to make a living.

I'm tiring of cops getting all this air time though, Sam. Let's have more threads about lawyers,especially awesome ones like me.

Bring your yorkie. It'll distract the snakes long enough to swing the axe.
=========

We were always good until you said that!

I DON'T HAVE A YORKIE! MY DAUGHTER'S DO.

Where would we be if cops got to decide which laws to enforce?

Depends on the cop.

I'm assuming your post was in reference to this, Bob? We have thousands of laws because people are always finding loopholes in the Ten Commandments.

========

I was going to allude to that but Agnostics aren't credible when they do.

Until I went to law school, I never had to read a statute to know how to behave. The back of my father's hand was my law book.

So...I think we're in agreement.

I'm not trying to convince you. I'm trying to convince 100 or so others.

Don't ask me why, though.

Speaking from 25 years wearing both local and federal badges, I can tell you that from my perspective, the problem can be directly tied to one's personal identity. When one's "identity" is based totally on what they do for a living, and when what they do for a living involves statutory authority, it's pretty easy to confront a question of one's authority as being a question of one's integrity. Authority and integrity are only intertwined when both are exercised judiciously.

Cops have to realize that someone questioning whether they have the authority to act, is not an insult to their personal integrity. At the same time, if authority is the only thing that matters, then integrity has already dissolved.

I'm no longer a cop. Retired, happily. Now I'm an oncology nurse. I have the authority to dispense dangerous drugs, but I don't have the authority to make people take them. I wouldn't want that authority and I'd refuse it if offered.

A police state starts with authority from above. It's propagated by individuals perfectly willing to accept that authority and mete it out. A police state cannot exist without souls willing to carry out the unconstitutional orders from above. It's obvious that there is no lack of individuals currently in uniform, who would be perfectly willing to accept even greater authority to suppress a populace. Whether or not their numbers are great enough, is a chapter yet to be written, but the publication date is fast approaching.

Dan

"Convincing" is a challenge you enjoy.

It's simply puzzling to me that the membership here has so much interaction with cops.

I don't even think I knew you were a cop until the 2nd or 3rd pig hunt.

M�nchausen syndrome

It would not surprise me to learn the majority of their interactions with police come from the internet, and not real life.

It would also not surprise me to learn that the bulk of any real life interaction they do have. Has resulted in them doing something that has gained the attention of LE.

And that may be the biggest part of the problem when it easily could be the solution.

Excellent post!

Ed

Here is a retired big city cop giving his opinion on things today verses when he started in the 1970s.

How to serve a warrant then and now

The problem is we are not a free country anymore, cops know it and they enforce the States slavery.

As this cop says, The Drug War is the biggest failure in American History.

Oh, Captain Obvious, why else would there be an interaction?

Excellent!

It is usually hard to tell just who is and who isn't a law man. I read quite a lot of Pat's posts before I realized that he was a cop but people such as G12, Pira, and Dink don't leave much to your imagination. They seem to want you to know about their authority and power and that they are not around to win friends but to make sure that everybody knows who they are.

But you miss the point, not uncommon for a cellar saver


The point being. That there is a good chance that their already formed bias against cops, dictates their attitudes during the encounter, probably determines the quality of their encounter, and they may not wven realize they are coming off with an attitude simply due to their bias

I was somewhat exaggerating to make my point.

I would think the average guy or gal doesn't interact with a cop more than 10 times in their entire lives.

Very true. Too many people base their knowledge of ALL things on Hollywood. Sad.

Good post sir...

...and willing to do anything to enforce that wrong..

IMHO, that's why there's now so many citizens deciding to equip their vehicles with dash-cams; so as to have a verifiable CYA as to exactly WHAT happened, WHERE it happened and WHO has to be taken into account..

I'm serious about this next statement boys and girls - get a dash-cam, learn how to use it and USE it.. They ain't all that spendy and they CAN save yer bacon..

FWIW.

Bob: we don't need to get sidetracked on lawyer issues - you don't wanna go there..

If your are going to psychonalyze why didn't you say that in the first place, rather than state the obvious?

I think you have mischaracterized Pira

"I think you have mischaracterized Pira"

I hope so but after reading his last post a couple of times I get the feeling that as long as we do things EXACTLY as we are told to, we are all right. Just understand who the man in charge here is.

If I read him wrong, then I apologize to him.

Dash cams only work when something is happening right in front of you. Even police departments are going to body mounted cameras.

Get a GoPro, stick it on your dash and then take it with you if you've gotta get out of the car.

Body cams should be mandatory for the vast majority of all officers. In addition each department should have a QA program where a minimum of 30 random officer contacts per month are reviewed.

I DON'T HAVE A YORKIE! MY DAUGHTER'S DO.

Just keep telling yourself that, Sport.... Delusion is the first sign one is in over one's head.

Don't make us check with the Yorkie!

You're a good man,215.

Mischaracterizations are the natural flow for forum discourse.

On a forum, folks can hate me,hate Mannlicher or hate the cops who have been posting with differing opinions

When you meet them, however; trust me when I tell you you'll look forward to the next time you can see them again.

You either misunderstood it or I didn't make my point clear enough.

My point was almost opposite of what you took from it. It was meant to maybe get folks to realize that the type of fighting back as described in the OP is great. And necessary. But that there's a right and wrong way to do it. Basically I was hoping to provide helpful hints to HELP people resist these tactics at "enforcement" without them getting in unnecessary trouble.

I try to stand up against these policies when I can. But I'm one man. So I frequently find myself begging my coworkers to listen to me or analyze what we're doing on their own. When enough of us take issue with something, we can change it. We've done it before and I'm far from the only one trying to rally the troops.

The same goes for every American. One guy can stand up, and should, but the effects he'll have as one man may be minimal. But if a lot of us start standing up, we will probably see the positive effects quicker and more widespread.

Hope that didn't make my point even less clear.

If you go back through my posts on cop threads, you may not see a clear pattern of pro this or anti that. That's because I take each thread one at a time and if I think it may be worth weighing in, I will. Sometimes I'm with the "hang him" crowd, and others I'm not. Frequently, I find myself staying out of them because there's no clear cut answer and I would have little to offer.

My agency had more officers killed in the '70's than before and after combined.

Good idea. Who's gonna pay for it?

Your pattern of comments seems pretty clear to me.

Pro good cop.
Anti bad cop.

Pro good citizen.
Anti thug.

Cities can pay for it out of the saving from lawsuits.

I looked at the linked videos, one was checking for drunks, the other was about Border Patrol checkpoints.

I'd guess for every one guy coming through a drunk checkpoint or Border Patrol checkpoint with a video cam looking to have his rights violated on camera, about 9,999 people come through those things, answer their questions without feeling particularly violated, and then drive on appreciative of the goals of the checkpoint.

Meanwhile out of that 10,000 the checkpoints capture a couple of hundred drunks and I dunno how many illegal aliens and loads of drugs (anyone who crosses BP checkpoints regular will see both these sorts of apprehensions).

I expect even with the rise of these youtube vids the officers manning these points can get still 99% of their job done even with those few folks who insist on just driving on. Just having you pause and wind down the window a bit might weed out the most egregious drunks. With the BP, most times they just ask you where are you from even without taking ID's. Turns out most Americans sound like Americans.

Plus the pause in traffic gives the dogs an opportunity. I've the dog 'em go off on some poor sap in front of us in line one time and even my own relative got zapped that way at Sierra Blanca on I10. The dumb pluck, despite my dire warnings, had a small amount of weed buried somewhere in his luggage. Fortunately for him, the amount was small enough they eventually let him walk. Had to put everything back together hisself tho' whe they were done.


But here's the other side of this argument; do folks here have a BETTER way to troll for drunks or to discourage drug and immigrant smuggling on our highways?

Birdwatcher

Does that go for the members of the 'disciplinary barracks' too?

Gunner

You go ahead and try to sell that to city councils likely they will have a greater(to them) idea on how to spend savings


I cant speak for the nation. But here, the police budget is the toughest to get any appropriations for. The council would much rather spend any extra money from such savings on things like parks and road work. That said cameras don't bother me, I know they will likely protect me more than will ever be able to be used against me.


I also understand what Pira was saying. I think it's easier to equate his statement with the video about the open carry incident. Absolutely those cops handled things wrong. We have open carry here, and it doesn't boter me in the least. I'm glad to see people excerizing their rights. What does bother me is that the ones we seem to get calls about all have one thing in common, their atire. They are all dressed in desert cammies, or tiger stripes or other BDUs and combat boots and usually have shemaghs and boonie hats on. When members of the citizenry see that sort of attire on an individual with an AR-15 draped over their shoulders and a handgun on their hip makes alot of people nervous. Excersizong their right to open carry is fine, but be smart about it. Don't conspicuously dress, and walk down mainstreet in front of all the stores just to draw attention to yourselves and then get pizzed off when the cops come to find out whats going on.

And open carry isn't uncommon here. You would be amazes at folks wearing normal street clothes with pistol on their hip exposed that garner no attention from folks what so ever, but they aren't trying to draw attention to themselves either.

That's exactly what Obama said about health care.

That's about the most retarding thing I have heard in reference to law enforcement. The job has become so administrative that you have forced the majority of the good cops out of it in lieu of what I call 'school teacher cop'; people without the least inclination to be a cop but just wanted a "new job". I worked with a bunch of them and they are what is making it tough. You add more restrictions- especially this one, you are going to have a bunch of people wearing uniforms that have no business being in law enforcement.

You can't mandate all this stuff on the cops- it just won't work. If you forced cameras on them it would be like putting a tachograph on your car with a download every night- every time you broke the posted speed limit-by even 1 mph (that's the standard folks want to hold cops to) you would be fined. If people want robocop, they should stay home because they are going to hate what it really becomes.

That's interesting. You would consider an accurate record of your actions while on duty as a "restriction"?

How would you change your behavior if you knew it was subject to scrutiny, and if you would WHY WOULD YOU??

For one. It may cause good cops to not act when they should have because in their subconcious they know that the camera is going to be picked apart by monday morning quarterbacks

Until technology makes some serious advancements, a "body camera" for routine work would be a serious restriction for anybody. TV is not reality.

And not acting wouldn't get you fired?

Then you department needs new leadership.

http://ccjs.umd.edu/sites/ccjs.umd....resentation_Jerry_Lee_Symposium_2013.pdf

Here's a Powerpoint regarding the results of the year long controlled experiment in Rialto California. For a year 1/2 the shifts at random were assigned body cams, the other half acted as a control and were not. The results speak for themselves.

Contacts actually went up.
Use of force dropped dramatically, but there was still twice the use of force among the control group. Seems cops don't like to beat people when they are being recorded.

Complaints also dropped by around 90%.

Conviction rates were also higher, and police had to spend less time in court, increasing the effectiveness of each officer.

If these results are replicated and hold, each of you will have a body cam with your name on it.

I need to visitbthe world you live in, whete evetything is black and white and seperated by bold go/no-go lines. No not acting probably won't get him fired, but it damn sure could get him dead, because he chose not to shoot the urd with a knife because in the back of his mind he knew he was going to be raked over the coals by some "exert who just KNEW there was another way and he didn't have to shoot him. Then by the time he makes the decision. tandy the Waterhead sinks the butchers knife into his chest

I woukd curious to see the whether there was any increase in medical time off for injuries for officers in that study.

That's a very interesting and perceptive comment.

Who paid for that?

You don't trust your department leadership to review your actions?

Good question.

The study was the thesis for the Chiefs Masters degree from the University of Cambridge.

Here's a new link with some more details:

http://www.dailybulletin.com/genera...ent-camera-project-wins-global-attention

We're not scared of cameras. We pioneered their use in our highway interdiction units. They work to our benefit in every instance. They cost money we don't have.

I figure ten or twenty cameras for the cost of one officer. Simple, cut cops and add cameras.

Then how long until you started complaining about big brother watching your wvery move?

And that my friend is what separates you from the pack.

As for cost, in Colorado taxes can only be increased by a vote of the public. For this, yes, I would vote my own tax dollars. Besides, in the long run, it will reduce costs and increase efficiency.

Maybe...I don't really know, I'm not much of a tech guy. What does it cost for a maintenance free remote camera system that is not obtrusive, simple to use, will record continuously for 12+ hours and the infrastructure to store video/audio infinitely?

The camera is on you, watching what you are watching, so it is not present anywhere that you are not. If you are observing my every move, you need reasonable suspicion. The difference is now, I would have a record of your intrusive behavior that I could present to your supervisor and/or a jury.

I don't believe those sre the cameras Joebob was refering to


However. And where do you get th notion We need reasonable suspicion to observe people in public?

Cost are coming down quickly. Taser offers a body mounted camera for $300.00, as well as a web based system to handle all the data.

http://info.taser.com/free-axon-bod...ody%20camera&utm_campaign=AXON-Trial

My experience runs more toward the voice logging side of things. What we needed a million dollars to do back in the mid 90's we can now do for around 25k with a much more robust, simple to use, versatile system. Prices on technology only go one direction, down. It's only a short matter of time before the cost argument becomes a non-issue.

Exactly.

That's already the case. Now we need to turn those cameras on our would-be masters and their armed agents.

You are the one who mentioned "watching every move". Police harassment laws would still apply.

If you go back and read what joebob said about cutting cops and adding cameras i assumed he was soeaking of surveillance type cameras, thats hwat i meant by big brother watching every move. And as. Longbas we are both in a public place there is mo harrassment law covering anything, atleast here harrassment is defined as physical contact.

Camera on the cop. No cop, no camera. No big brother unless you contend that cops as currently constituted are big brother. The camera isn't for surveillance, the camera is an honest broker on the interaction between citizen and cop.

You read wrongly.

Yep, I should have gone back a page or two and read some of your other posts but I didn't. I apologize for being a jerk and believe you are a good guy. I will be a little more cautious in my judgements from now on. I'm sorry.

Ok your post didn't read that way. But as I said above. I have no issues with wearing a camera. The liklihood that they will benefit me far outweighs the chance they will be used against me

Yep. Bad idea. There will be a picture taking radar unit on every freaking mile of highway.

Here's the actual camera's they used in the study, $500.00 each.

http://www.taser.com/products/on-officer-video/axon-flex-on-officer-video

DVR's are mandatory in Texas. We've been using them in our department for about 20 years. As I stated earlier, we (literally) pioneered their use, back in the '80's. They are a royal PITA. First, they are not durable. Second, the data storage is very expensive, not to mention the tech work involved. If somebody would make some equipment that actually worked it would be better for all.

I concur.

Oh, so you could outfit an entire small police force for the cost of one officer's salary. Sounds like a good trade to me.

Now, what happened to the motor home the BP was demanding be pulled over for search and seizure?

Your technology is outdated. The Cloud is the friend of all.

This part is very interesting...


"What to do with the data?

With AXON Flex, the agency chooses what to do with the data. You can download the files locally to your own data storage system, or upload to EVIDENCE.com, TASER�s hosted digital evidence management solution. With EVIDENCE.com, you can easily store, retrieve and share your digital evidence� all from one secure location.

Learn about EVIDENCE.COM."

I will be looking at this.
Thanks

^^^This^^^

The police here are starting to wear the body cams. The police chief believes that the body cams helps prevent policemen of being charged of any misconduct and proves the case in the courts. The camera is an impartial witness. I would like to think all police would like an impartial witness to all their activities while on duty. After all, what do they need to be afraid of? http://www.wvec.com/news/Body-Cams--232826751.html

There would be no 'trade'. They wouldn't reduce the number officers to use that money on cameras.

They would if they actually had to operate on a budget instead of leeching off the taxpayers.

I didn't realize that digital video was outdated, but hey, about 15 years ago I swore I would retire before they made me use a computer.

You do realize that typically police and fire are the frist budgets to get cut don't you

We get a finite amount of money from the municipality every year. When the municipality cuts that number down. The last place we cut it is personnel. We may postpone hiring to fill open slots, but that just means more money from the budget is going to get used as overtime. We atill have a minimum amount of coverage we must provide

I didn't realize that digital video was outdated, but hey, about 15 years ago I swore I would retire before they made me use a computer. [/quote]

You're data storage is outdated. There is an app now that instantaneously downloads video to the Cloud. In some of those cell phone videos of the cops, they actually confiscated the phones and deleted the video, but it was too late. It was already out there on the Cloud.

You don't work directly for Obama?

Not yet, that starts in March...remember the memo

Joebob. Who can gain access to a cloud device?

Part of the problem might be the DVR requirement.
There's better technology available now.

You're data storage is outdated. There is an app now that instantaneously downloads video to the Cloud. In some of those cell phone videos of the cops, they actually confiscated the phones and deleted the video, but it was too late. It was already out there on the Cloud.[/quote]

Yep, check this out:

http://www.taser.com/products/digital-evidence-management/evidence

Right.

I find this camera stuff really fascinating as that LE are the ones who initiated it. I do however, believe a line needs to be drawn when it comes to recording all activities though. Nobody will do this job without some degree of privacy. Not for what it pays, anyway.

I was looking at that. Security and custody of evidence is an issue that I don't see addressed. At this point in time, we have to physically maintain custody of all original data.

Thats why I asked joebob about access to the cloud device.

Oh, I know. I'm taking notes.

But hey. Those outside the job obviously are better at doing it than we are

Have a good night Pat. I'm going to work

Anyone that works for a company where tax money is used/spent should have to wear a camera. Everyone no exceptions!

I have wore one for a long time. It's about time everyone has to that has anything to do with getting paid by tax money.

Dink

"Physical Custody"
"Original Data"

The devil could be in the details and definitions.....

If it's ok with the higher ups, I'd say give Taser a call and ask. Some departments are using their product, so I imagine they've already wrestled with these issues.

It's not quite that easy. Courts and case law make those decisions. No responsible LEA is willing to save a buck at risk of losing evidence.

[/quote]

Anyone that works for a company where tax money is used/spent should have to wear a camera. Everyone no exceptions!

I have wore one for a long time. It's about time everyone has to that has anything to do with getting paid by tax money.

Dink [/quote]

I'm all for it. There is no valid reason that any public servant from the president on down should expect a moment's privacy while on the job.

Hmmm....

Pat is very bright. And is very thoughtful about law enforcement and its role in a free society.

But...he also has a finely honed sense of sarcasm.

I, for one, can't tell which he is exercising right now!

Sycamore

No sarcasm on this one. I could get rid of half of any police department and make it twice as good. There is not a cop on this forum that wouldn't agree with me. Give the remaining officers a 25% raise and save the tax payers the remaining 50%, (25% salary + equipment). Of course, the key word is "I", and people like me will never make those decisions.

Anyone that works for a company where tax money is used/spent should have to wear a camera. Everyone no exceptions!

I have wore one for a long time. It's about time everyone has to that has anything to do with getting paid by tax money.

Dink [/quote]

I'm all for it. There is no valid reason that any public servant from the president on down should expect a moment's privacy while on the job. [/quote]

It should not be limited to public servants. Any company that receives tax money in any way, shape or form should have to buy cameras for every employee. If a trash company takes any tax money every employee should have to wear a camera.

Dink

I wouldn't waste my time. He was my quickest "ignore" to date.

I'm all for it. There is no valid reason that any public servant from the president on down should expect a moment's privacy while on the job. [/quote]

It should not be limited to public servants. Any company that receives tax money in any way, shape or form should have to buy cameras for every employee. If a trash company takes any tax money every employee should have to wear a camera.

Dink [/quote]

I'm fine with it. If you take tax money, then you should not expect privacy.

Sure you should expect privacy on the job.

Part of keeping your sanity at work is blowing off steam and griping to your friends about management. And I don't particularly care for every testosterone fueled, food and sleep deprived rant I go on to be preserved and stored by....management.

Or my bedtime phone calls to my kids.

Or my (alleged) promiscuous texts to my wife.

Or my groan of relief when I can finally take a leak after being stuck on a call for far too long.

Or my (alleged) affection for late night apple fritters from 7-11.

...or the "emergency" blanket that I had to leave in a dark spot one night when I couldn't make it to a bathroom.

Short, to the point, and so true.

Thank you.

I wish you had a stomach for politics, but I sure can't fault anyone's aversion to it.

Lol...I'm afraid a background check revealing my numerous lawsuits and suspensions at work, known associates and tendency to ride ATVs nekkid would preclude any serious attempt at public office.

Well, it was an emergency.

I'm not suggesting you would. I'm just suggesting they have more experience with this then I do, and may have considered some solutions to your specific needs the we have not.

You know how it is. I work nights, wife and kids are asleep and nothing on TV. Might as well get someone's panties in a wad.

Dink

"known associates" could include the 'fire? That would not look good on a resume.

Yep...he's screwed.

Why would you ever think you could do anything to get my panties in a wad?

I really didn't mean you specifically but...

Your a cop hater with no just cause. You have been a member a month and already showing your axe you want to grind. My guess is you were probably invited here by one of the other wing nut cop haters that only post here in the campfire. You have no other post anywhere but hunters campfire so you are sure not here talk about guns or hunting.

Dink

Dink, the guy has two first names.

Would you really want to take any reloading advice from him??

Lol...that's funny right there.

Dink

Yeah...mostly them.

Hmmm...off the top of my head I have posts on Big Game, Hunting Rifles, and Optics just to name a few. There might be more, but off the top of my head, those are a few. So, you are in fact either a LIAR, or just really stupid.

As for hating cops, no not at all. You've merely interpreted it as such. However, I must say that if you are a representative of cops (I assume you are since your jimmies are so easily rustled) then perhaps I should rethink my position on it and become a more active hater.

You have less than a dozen post outside the campfire(most on the Echols threads and wondering how long a forbes rifle is). I think TRH started out the same way.

Been here less than a month and already posting on cop hating threads. You were invited here by a fellow crony. Your here to grind your axe.

You couldn't bother me if you really wanted to.

Dink

Forgive me. I'll bow out. If there is one thing I've noticed in my month here, it is that any thread in which you are involved is immediately eaten up with the dumbass. I do not desire to get into all that. Go in peace. Continue to lie about me. I will not respond to you.

Sniff...sniff

I also notice none of your post say anything about owning a gun, hunting anything or actually shooting. You don't seem to have a opinion on anything but 4x scopes and hating cops. And you don't have much of a opinion on the 4x scope.

Just saying...

Dink

You're a pretty pathetic person. No, of course, I use 4x scopes for looking a birds and stuff unattached to any rifles. Wow, you figured me out.

I thought you weren't responding to me anymore?

Such mixed messages.....are you a women?

Dink

I am whatever you think I am. Luckily, I'm sure you aren't that imaginative.

That is really interesting, I recently watched a very interesting frontline documentary about life in North Korea and they talked about a similar resistance and push-back on the ground there.

All I can say is the cops of my youth and the cops today are not the same people....

The one I have is easily detached and portable with an internal battery so I can take it with me.. Even in the truck I can swing it around to cover me and anyone at the window.. Made by Genius..

So, your view is that these incidents are wrong? Isn't it more about documenting the interactions so as to have a verifiable record in case that goes south? Or to court?? You mean, sheep...

Does that make it ok then? (serious question)

A valid question - but that still does not give LEOs any right to stop vehicles for NO reason other than a fishing expedition..

FWIW - my .02

Yes.

Sometimes it really is necessary.

!



lmao, hey gitem yours isn't the only job I do better yaknow


you oughta see me watch a football game, the whole thing's recorded you know, well them, not me watching it


and I'll get so mad at that QB or defensive back or linebacker


OMG! What're you thinking, what a dumbazz, you throw, catch, block, tackle (which ever suits at the moment) like my fing Grandma.....and she's dead!


oh hell you don't even want to watch me watch a horror movie, well you dumbazz you don't carry a gun you deserve to have 9 inch nails impale you, or be cut up by a saw. Hell if I was starring in this they'd have to make 10 of these movies cause they'd be over in 10 minutes instead of an hour and a half. (my kids really enjoy this activity with me )



so I guess the lesson here gitem, when I criticize how you do your job pay careful attention, lucky you, due to this format you can hear my criticisms unlike those poor dumbazz ball players, and hey you'll even be able to ask respectful questions after you've received my critique of your performance, or get this, I'll even be able to criticize your MINDSET about your job.

Lucky you, you'll probably be a great cop by the time me and my associates here are done with you.

I'd make the same offer to Lt. Pat, but from what I hear he's kinda a hard headed lil bastid.

Why don't we all just do our own jobs.


We've become bitching whiners on the 24H.

Crap. Am I whining again?

no. but the folks at National Squirrel Appreciation Day are.

==========

No, you've actually had someone point a gun at you.

Well...Roger kinda is a Neanderthal.

I am sorry for doing it,though. Yours and Dan's singing was all I could take.

Don't worry, Bob. No guitars when I fly.

There's always a guitar in hunting camp.

If you want to help, don't let Dan sing.

BINGO!

I'll bring him a harmonica. That Meskin cop from Michigan can sing.

=======

We all know that too, don't we Gene?

=====

Ponch? You know what I think of affirmative action.

I can play this, if you'll learn the words.

I'm going to pop a cap in your ass for that, Pat.

what a great song


moving


destined to be a classic

This is where much of the contempt originates, having our personal lives intruded upon, literally at gunpoint. This, and comments from contemptible LE.

Well said, Sir. A lot of wisdom in these words.

Luckily for you the thread is tired and most people didn't see the Yorkie Song. I did that for you.

Nothing wrong with documenting the interaction; mine would likely go "Hello Officer how can I help you" and maybe they'd ask to see my license which I'd probably have out but probably they wouldn't bother to look at. If its at night I would have turned on the dome light and in any case my hands would be in view on the wheel.

Good to know that if I want I can clam up and not cooperate.

I did consent to a search one time. Some years back we were heading north from the Douglas AZ area (rt 24??) after visiting Greg and did have a Suburban fly by flat out, pursued by about five BP vehicles. A ways up that same long isolated road we were pulled over after dark by a Sheriff Deputy for something like 75 in a 70 or whatever. Mostly he wanted to check the trunk for illegals as our little Toyota was loaded down and said as much.

Sent us on our way in about two minutes, a pleasant interaction all around so far as we could tell.

I dunno, maybe I'm missing something here.



OK, you go through the checkpoint and hold ever'body in line up <shrug>.... ...but expect a cavity search if the dog goes off



As long as you can refuse to anwer questions, refuse to be be "detained" etc etc... .....yes it is OK ('cept fer the dog/cavity search thing).




Can't say its random, its at a defined checkpoint, in response to pressing societal concerns; drugs and illegals on the one had, drunk drivers on the other in times/locations where such things are likely to be most common.

'spect a few drunk driving deaths tip public opinion on the DUI checkpoints, and for the other all ya hafta do is be anywhere close to the Border to realize the extent of the problem.

As long as you can legally refuse to cooperate if ya want; no foul committed.

YMMV,
Birdwatcher

Surely deserves it own thread, maybe they could form a support group.

You're data storage is outdated. There is an app now that instantaneously downloads video to the Cloud. In some of those cell phone videos of the cops, they actually confiscated the phones and deleted the video, but it was too late. It was already out there on the Cloud. [/quote]

Very well said! I think its so funny that of all the cops I interact with the ones on the fire are 75% of the ones I can stand. Gitem12 has common sence as he wrote wise words also. Hats off to you guys as I haven't heard such good thinking come from a cops mouth in quit some time. All the cops here are more concerned about which end of your truck the plate is on. One guy pulls you over cause its on the front and 5 days later another pulls you over for having it on the back cause your pulling a trailer. Give me a f,n break, go catch some dumb azz making meth. Common sence should go both ways but as often as not only the civilian has any, in my area anyways.

Good reply my friends!

As I recall it was a one verse song

The reason I said this is it brought to mind a quote from Cecil De Mille (the movie director) who said, "originally we had the Ten Commandments, now we have 32 million laws" (paraphrase mine), the point of which was because of human nature, there is no number that will ever be enough.

This should tell the thinking person something.

And liberals on their march toward their human Valhalla, can't take a single breath without conceiving of another rule, law, or regulation, to of course, herd the masses toward perfection, and in the process kill their freedoms by a thousand cuts.

I guess whining and bitching are the only job many here know how to do. But most do a pretty sorry job. Amateurs, I say.

This.

left or right, conservative or liberal, with human beings, it's all about control. Always has been.

Perhaps right where we are now.

Checkpoint - DUI, Immigration etc.

Let's start with probable cause, not a fishnet.

That's exactly what it's supposed to be - but too many are letting it go down the road to the seines...

Uh uh.. No more of this 'tolerance'.. We ALL need to push back.

You guys elect the people that make the laws. That might be a good place to start pushing.

Pat, ya want me to round up a guitar for you, and bring it with me?

You don't vote? Methinks you mean "we" elect the people that make laws.. Well, "we've" tried that - and to date it's done us bupkis; especially considering that famous 'conservative landslide' back in '10... Just one of dozens, sir... one of dozens..

Right. Your vote counts.

Yes it is. Recalls are great!!

Why don't they want to be on video?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=245447302283118

I can't see it.

Not in Wisconsin.

...spoken by a Texan in a state steaming full ahead into a demographic ice field.

A little editing for you.

I didn't know that white liberals was a demographic. They're the threat to Texas, the same as it was to California.

From this Texan's distant vision, it looks like Wisconsin is doing pretty well with Gov. Walker. There is no reason the trend can't be continued.

I did some browsing around, turns out we have four million Californians moved in in the last ten years, I'm gonna guess maybe six million folks total from out of State in that time, which would account for a bit more than 20% of our present population.

Now all of these people don't vote Democrat, a lot of them prob'ly left Liberal cesspools to come to a place like Texas still is. But if even half of 'em vote Democrat, that hurts us.

The elephant in the room is our Hispanic population: For the benefit of folks from somewhere else I ain't talking illegals. Texas has around ten million American Mexican Hispanics now, about 40% of the whole population, third and fourth generation Americans, most of whom speak Spanish poorly if at all. Eighteen and under, Texas is already a Hispanic majority state; not just the largest ethnic group but an actual majority, about 52% and growing bigger every year.

As a group they are pro-family, pro-life, and lots of 'em own guns and hunt and fish.

Two thirds of 'em still vote Democrat.

Hoping for a miracle here: But having come to Texas from New York State, like Mr. De Vries in Iowa I already know how totally f&&ked one is when one's party is in the minority, and with the possible exception of Florida's Cubans I dunno ANY Hispanic area that votes majority Republican.

Birdwatcher

You're dead on with your assessment Mike. The only thing you probably don't have a lot of history with is the fact that most Texican Democrats are far more conservative than most NE/WC Republicans. We'll find out when it comes down to the nut cuttin'.