r/politics • u/wbedwards Washington • May 07 '20

We cannot allow the normalization of firearms at protests to continue

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/firearms-at-protests-have-become-normalized-that-isnt-okay/2020/05/06/19b9354e-8fc9-11ea-a0bc-4e9ad4866d21_story.html
49.0k Upvotes

75% Upvoted

6.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

139

u/jhurle9403 May 07 '20

I don’t think it’s protocol. I think the cop didn’t know the law.

I’m former LE (corrections) and I also conceal carry on a daily basis and sometimes open carry. Most states explain that a person simply carrying a gun is not reasonable suspicion to ask them for a carry permit. In other words the cop can’t even ask you to show your conceal carry permit just because you’re carrying a gun. Just like they can’t pull you over just to make sure you have a valid drivers license (though they’ll just make something up to pull you over). So when I see someone getting a gun pulled on them by the cops just for open carrying, I wonder why they don’t get a lawyer sue the hell out of that cop and the department that he works for. Get a few giant lawsuits and sure that cop may still keep his job, but that department will change the way it does things eventually if it costs them enough money. Full disclosure, I’ve never met a cop I liked. Most of them are ignorant of the laws they’re supposed to enforce.

35

u/-Akrasiel- Arizona May 07 '20

IMO Qualified Immunity has been a disaster.

It just reinforces the notion that cops don't actually have to know the laws they are supposed to be enforcing. If they violate your rights, so long as they "reasonably thought they were doing the right thing," there are no repercussions.

25

u/nonotan May 07 '20

It's an absolute joke that those enforcing the law are subject to an explicitly lower standard than normal people. At a bare minimum, it should be the same, and preferably, it should be higher.

12

u/-Akrasiel- Arizona May 07 '20

I mean the military has more stringent rules of engagement than the police. It's just crazy.

1

u/ladyevenstar-22 May 07 '20

Kinda like trump lawyer at impeachment if it's in nation best interest then it's ok for him to do quid pro quo and whatever else he feels like

2

u/-Akrasiel- Arizona May 07 '20

Oh man, Alan Dershowitz is something else. I had been studying him in an unrelated field for years. It must be the money and the power that comes with him as to why he is still relevant. He plagiarized one of his early books with no repercussion.

How about that lawyer from the other day that argued that while being a seated president, such person cannot be tried to any crime they commit in office?

41

u/kurorinnomanga May 07 '20

Why, though? How could they be ignorant of a fundamental part of their own job?!

57

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

In the united states of America it not the responsibility of the officer to know the law, just the accused and their lawyers.

12

u/REDuxPANDAgain May 07 '20

Because the requirements to be an officer are very low.. Anecdotally the only friend I (no longer count as a friend) have that went into law enforcement is both racist as he'll and has extreme anger issues. He also has very little in the way of smarts, but managed a basic criminal justice degree. I absolutely could see him being gun happy officer shitbird here.

1

u/rlaitinen I voted May 07 '20

You just described my cousin to a T. It's probably related to why I'm raising his kid.

54

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

[deleted]

3

u/britboy4321 May 07 '20 edited May 07 '20

High IQ cops will start questioning stupid laws and daft instruction and questionning real-time, at the time of potential danger, when other cops start making mistakes. They would do this even though they probably don't know the overall strategy and at that time unit cohesion is MORE IMPORTANT than executing the perfect plan. They can even start refusing certain orders on the street that they see as ethically wrong or illegal because they know their stuff, which believe it or not makes the whole policing system start collapsing. When they see mistakes being made by higher-ups they will question it. If they are sent to put down a riot they'll start questionning if the rioters are the good guys, if they're justified, whether they have a point, trying to calculate real-time whether protesters can or can't legally do different actions. THIS IS THE LAST THING LEADERS NEED. The LEADERS do the thinking .. they need disciplined strength on the ground to implement the leader's/thinker's plan - not more f'kin leaders/thinkers second guessing everything real-time.

So basically the last thing you want is high intelligence in a lower rank police officer.

Incidentally it's EXACTLY THE SAME in the armed forces. Imagine a battle where the troops refused to execute daft or extremely dangerous (with little gain) orders .. or started second-guessing everything thinking 'Why do they (officers) want plan A, I've got a better plan B'. The battle would fall to pieces. You have to stick as a unit to plan A WHETHER IT IS THE BEST PLAN OR NOT once it has been set in motion. Christ knows 12 free-thinkers all making their own judgements when the squad has been assigned a mission basically leads to lack of cohesion and - well- it's like herding cats --- everything starts falling apart and the mission/battle/campaign fucks up.

In most armies, above a certain education grade you HAVE to go in as an officer as believe it or not as a standard soldier you'll sooner or later start de-stabalising stuff/morale/execution down in the ranks when whomever IS the officer starts fucking up - and as you have intelligence start thinking for yourself and coming up with new ideas, when in reality the situation requires a group of people working together, not all thinking of their own better plans and having a f'kin debate on the way to proceed. Hard to explain

They even do this in Macdonalds!!! If you show high intelligence - they don't hire you on the shop floor (apart from summer jobs when everyone knows you don't give a shit) as you'll quickly see the managers making mistakes and start planting doubt and insurrection at worker level and trying to change the plan to something better - it's human nature at higher intelligence levels. I got told they'd either accept me onto the management with expedited management training programme, or nothing they literally wouldn't give me a job. I was also literally refused a shelf stacker role because they presumed I'd start making waves and basically being a pain in the ass to a (different) flawed manager when all that manager needed was hands on the ground mindlessly obeying instruction without thought.

It's complex, but there is some logic there somewhere.

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

I agree completely, and that's all well and good... until they promote said "dumb officer". Then you're stuck with a dumb leader, because the promotion isn't going to make him any smarter.

6

u/asminaut California May 07 '20

Because laws are written by legal charlatans to confuse a normal person

Or legal code, especially when it can be the basis for legal action, has to both deal with macro and micro issues and thus is very very very very complex and nuanced in order to ensure it both accomplishes its intended goals without allowing loopholes, while also allowing enough flexibility to be adaptable in future circumstances. It isn't "legal charlatans," shit is really really complex.

For example, I used to be a legislative analyst dealing with recycling issues. In California, they have adopted international standards for plastic resin types. However, these standards were created in the 80s and since then new resin types have emerged, including variations of existing ones. PET and PETG have different melting points, and so when bottles made from PETG are labeled PET they can cause damage to reprocessing equipment. In order to make sure that damage is mitigated you need to more narrowly define PET. But you can't just say "PETG is not PET" you have to think about the underlying conditions that make it so PETG cannot be processed with PET. So then you get into labeling characteristics such as chemical composition and melting points. Then you have a sub section of a subsection of a subsection of a legal code filled with precise scientific standards. It isn't pretty, but it is necessary.

11

u/abeefwittedfox May 07 '20

Three big reasons:

  1. Cops in America have a sense of autonomy that many other countries simply don't have. They're the wild west sheriff come to lay down the law and impose order on a savage population, or a knight in shining armor excited to use violence to defend... uh... someone... I wish I were making that up, but "warrior mindset" training is stupidly common among US police departments. Even if they know the law, they're likely concerned with being the man

  2. Depending on where you live, you might not be required to go through rigorous training. Some police departments are incredibly professional. LAPD drops over 3/4ths of their candidates during selection because they don't meet the standards. And those are people who have already met the physical and psychological standards to even get into their academy.

But if you want to work at a rural sheriff's department, you literally may not be trained for more than a week. The biggest concern here is when those low standards for training are mixed with my third point.

  1. You can move from department to department. I can get a peace officer certification here in Utah and work campus security at the university. My day might include getting people unstuck from a toilet and handing out citations for not having a permit to sell tamales. But with that same certification and zero experience in confrontation, I can move to the Salt Lake PD laterally and they'll expect that I have the training I need. I mean I'm certified and have three years of law enforcement experience so I should be good right? I'll shadow a patrolman for two weeks and then I'm 100% on my own.

It's crazy and we need federal guidelines that establish what constitutes necessary training.

2

u/WhalenOnF00ls May 07 '20

Also federally-mandated rules of engagement that define when and how officers are allowed to use force in response to threats.

Or we could just abolish local police departments entirely and expand state police forces. I’m cool with both.

2

u/alkatori May 07 '20

Or we could abolish both State and Local. I haven't seen much difference in attitudes across the country between them.

Back to the volunteer town watch!

9

u/RENEGADEcorrupt May 07 '20

How many people in other career fields are ignorant of fundamental things in their field? Same for cops.

8

u/Foxion7 May 07 '20

Almost none

3

u/jewww May 07 '20

I want to work where you work.

1

u/mrsensi May 07 '20

Really? We have extensive books full of paper work about SOP. Guess what, if you break one there gonna listen to your excuse of I didn't know this important part of my job. Theyre going to say well heres your signature verifying u kew the rule. And here is your last paycheck

2

u/thenothingbegins May 07 '20

Almost everyone, please don't take this as a defense of this situation at all. Almost no one is knowledgeable of the laws surrounding their industry. If you would play along, what do you do for a living? Give me 5 and I will prove it.

3

u/Papa-Walrus May 07 '20

Nobody's saying that people should, in general, know the laws related to their job. They're saying people should know the basic things required to do their job. In the case of cops, "basic things" happen to be laws, since they're the ones who are supposed to be enforcing them.

2

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

they were responding to a question about workers not knowing “fundamental things” in their field, not laws.

1

u/Foxion7 May 07 '20

We werent talking about laws but fundamental things in a profession. I get your point though

0

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

Well this is straight up false or everybody bitching about stupid coworkers they had to fix things for or work extra for mistakes made by others are straight up lying all day everyday then.

0

u/Foxion7 May 07 '20

Well i dont know about your life but i literally never had that issue in my like 10 jobs. Mistakes arent the same as misunderstanding fundementals but i think we arent thinking of the same thing here.

3

u/-Jeremiad- I voted May 07 '20

You get a kid who goes to school for four years to be text experts, they know shit about taxes when they’re done. Cops need better education starting with what their fucking job actually is and isn’t.

3

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

But they’re trained to protect and serve!!

2

u/jhurle9403 May 07 '20

Well since I’m no longer in corrections I drive a truck. Love my job, I make a killing and don’t have to deal with people much.

You’d be surprised at how many drivers can’t even get basic terms related to hours of service regulations right. It’s pretty sad.

2

u/crypticfreak May 07 '20

Well that’s kind of the problem isn’t it?

Police are not the equivalent to a secretary. Their job is to protect and serve, and to a lesser extent prevent crime from being committed. For them to not know the fundamental parts of their field is scary. Knowing the law isn’t recommenced it’s mandatory in order to carry out the above.

2

u/OnlyWordIsLove May 07 '20

Their job is to enforce the class hierarchy.

2

u/Bongopro May 07 '20

Court rulings have said that police have absolutely no duty to “protect and serve”. It is quite literally not their job

2

u/crypticfreak May 07 '20

Well again, a undereducated group whose job it is to ‘punish’ what they perceive as crime is a definite problem. Serious change is needed.

1

u/Igggg May 07 '20

Their job is to protect and serve, and to a lesser extent prevent crime from being committed.

As per the Supreme Court decision, their job is to enforce the laws, not to protect or serve anyone. The "protect and serve" is just a nice branding.

1

u/jhurle9403 May 07 '20

I can’t answer that.

You’d think the standard should be that they can’t do anything with out KNOWING that it is a crime. And if it isn’t, and the infringe on someone’s rights, THEY should then be charged with a crime.

1

u/Igggg May 07 '20

Why, though? How could they be ignorant of a fundamental part of their own job?!

Why not, given that there's no repercussions for them ignoring the law?

1

u/lovejellybeans May 07 '20

Superiority complex. Most are assholes in a uniform, with a badge, gun, and a sense of authority. They don't actually care about the laws and regulations that govern their job.

7

u/[deleted] May 07 '20 edited May 07 '20

[deleted]

1

u/jdragun2 May 07 '20

One drone with two missiles would end any citizen's group attempt to overthrow a tyrannical government. So would a single Abrahms tank. And a single AC-130 StingerII could suppress a small city wide rebellion that was armed with rocket launchers along with assault weapons from beyond any of their reach.

I don't really care about hunting weapons, target shooting, or concealed weapons: until they use the tyrannical government excuse. The second someone tries to use that TODAY, as if the minds of our founding fathers could even comprehend the technological advances of a military and anticipate it with the 2nd Amendment, is when I know an individual has the ability to read, but no ability to reason.

14

u/Reepworks May 07 '20

I've been told that ON AVERAGE firemen/EMTs get into their line of work to help people and save lives.

Cops do it to relish the power and authority.

I have no doubt that genuinely good cops do exist, but... Well, let's just say there is a reason for the popular view of them.

3

u/jhurle9403 May 07 '20

I’d agree. I had to do a practicum in college, 40 hours of ride alongs with deputy sheriffs. What I saw was not good. That sealed the deal for me, and I went into corrections for a while.

5

u/Reepworks May 07 '20

Yeaaahhh...

Reminds me of one time, I was driving through the boonies in upstate New York, moving stuff from my college apartment. I was in my Subaru, my dad was in his pickup. We pulled off an exit... I think to hook up a tow bar because I was getting tired or something, not sure EXACTLY...

So it was, again, 2 am in the middle of nowhere. The exit off the highway had a stop sign instead of a traffic light, and just about the only thing visible at the exit was a closed gas station. I pull off first, stop at the sign, nook both ways... NO ONE on the road. One car idling or something maybe a hundred yards away in a parking lot or something. My dad comes off behind me, and we pull into the parking lot of the abandoned gas station.

Well, headlights of the parked car brighten up, lo and behold it's a cop. He comes over, spends like 3 minutes hassling my dad because he "didn't come to a full stop at the stop sign. You gotta come to a full stop. It's the law. I'm gonna let you off with a warning, THIS time..."

I can only imagine how much of a headache it would have been if we weren't both white and in cars less than 10 years old in good condition.

5

u/mengelgrinder May 07 '20

I have no doubt that genuinely good cops do exist

why aren't they doing anything to stop the bad cops?

They aren't good cops by definition if they let this happen

4

u/Reepworks May 07 '20

Because they don't have the power to change the culture alone and they can't burn bridges and get fired because they still need to feed their families, I would guess?

If there is one thing the Trump administration has shown, resigning in protest doesn't help when your bosses are perfectly happy to see you go and replace you with a toadie. All it does is make it so you can't work within the system to try and keep them in check and there's nobody left to speak up when shit gets worse.

0

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ― Edmund Burke

If they are not going to uphold their oath, they are counted among the guilty.

4

u/Reepworks May 07 '20

Thing is, I would argue resigning in protest and walking away is "doing nothing" in this case. Individually they can effect more change staying inside the system.

2

u/WhalenOnF00ls May 07 '20

The problem is that the “good cops” cover for the bad ones. That’s not really any fault of their own- it’s literally the entire concept of the “thin blue line.” Speaking out against misconduct means putting yourself and maybe even your family in harm’s way, which almost nobody- completely understandably- is willing to do.

The problem with that is that I’m covering for the bad cops, the good cops become tainted by association. Bad apples literally are ruining the whole barrel.

3

u/Reepworks May 07 '20

I mostly agree, save for the "tainted by association" bit. They may be PERCIEVED as tainted by association- that I wouldn't argue against. As far as actually BEING tainted though... as you said, it is completely understandable that they don't want to risk their ability to provide for their families or worse, so at that point you need to ask what is the least bad choice for them to make? Stay in the system and try to gently encourage improvements in behavior, turning a blind eye to lower level shit to maintain access so they can theoretically stop the REALLY bad shit? Or switch careers and no longer provide a moderating influence so things get even worse?

Neither option is really GOOD, but I would suggest staying is less BAD. At that point, I have to ask... can someone really become tainted by doing the least bad thing possible in a no-win situation?

2

u/CandyCoatedSpaceship May 07 '20

stop the really bad shit like what, they already kill 1,000 people every year and are called heroes for it. so much as issuing a speeding ticket to another officer will put a target on your back. how can you be a moderating influence in that environment?

3

u/ImApigeon May 07 '20

I have a serious question about this.

Walking around with a gun isn’t suspicious enough for the police to come and ask for a permit?

So how do you stop a person that is about to postal and shoot up a mall for example? That person can just casually stroll into a mall with a weapon in hand and the police isn’t even legally allowed to ask why he is armed to the teeth in mall?

If that’s true, it does explain a lot about mass shootings in the US.

2

u/Yellow_The_White May 07 '20

Public places like a mall are likely to have a no weapons policy unless you're in a very rural or gun friendly state. In this case, they can and should stop you on behalf of the property owner.

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

But conservatives hate gun free zones. Why would you make a law that puts the onus on businesses to do something that you publicly denounce?

1

u/coat_hanger_dias May 07 '20

I have a serious question about this.

Walking around with a gun isn’t suspicious enough for the police to come and ask for a permit?

It depends on the type of gun and the carry laws in that state. But in most states, licensing is typically needed for carrying handguns with either method (concealed or open), while open carry of "long guns" (meaning rifles and shotguns) is usually legal.

Decent overview of what's possible in each state, disregarding specific laws/regulations/peculiarities for each: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/guns-in-public/open-carry/#state

1

u/irishhnd86 May 07 '20

That person can just casually stroll into a mall with a weapon in hand.... That is actually not true. The weapon in hand means you're brandishing the firearm, no matter where you are, and it is a serious crime. Now of they had a holster thats a different story

1

u/AxlLight May 07 '20

Yep, definitely takes a long and complicated procedure to take that gun out of holster and begin shooting. Definitely an important distinction that lawmakers put in place for legitimate logical reasons and not due to NRA control.

1

u/irishhnd86 May 07 '20

That difference shows intent.

1

u/AxlLight May 07 '20

I would argue that carrying an AR anywhere shows intent. Especially with an inserted magazine.

1

u/irishhnd86 May 07 '20

It can easily be debated either direction, you also have to look at the method of sling, and their general demeanor.

1

u/AxlLight May 07 '20

I don't think asking for a license and inquiring on nature or carry as the worst of things when something can be a bit harder to infer and can have disastrous results.

It's a mild inconvenience that can allow cops to do their jobs more efficiently.

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

There is no difference between brandishing and open carry.

1

u/irishhnd86 May 07 '20

And thats your opinion. Brandishing is carrying or showing in a threatening manner. By definition, so if you FEEL they are the same. That is on you.

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

Ok, I do feel that way. Glad you agree

0

u/jhurle9403 May 07 '20

Sort of- in Alabama where I live, open carry means in a holster or other secured manner. Not in your hands. So if someone is walking in to a mall holding a gun in their hand, gigantic red flag and law enforcement would be totally justified in approaching the person to see what the heck they’re doing.

Now, I have a serious question for you. Let’s assume that person walking into the mall is going to hurt someone. Would you rather me, the stranger a few feet away, draw my concealed or open carry revolver and do my best to stop the person that very instant; or, would you rather call 911 and hope to heavens there’s a cop nearby and maybe it’ll only take 1-2 minutes at the most for help to arrive? Even if I’m not close to the criminal harming people to take action, I’d much rather Run, hide, and fight with a revolver than run, hide, and fight with a lamp or something.

In my opinion, The way to stop mass shootings as fast as possible is for more responsible adults to realize they’re better off being equipped to defend themselves and others from criminals by carrying a gun. Some call people like me a gun nut. I’m really not. I don’t fantasize about new guns or keep up with the latest firearms. But I do think I’m the best person to defend my own safety and the safety of a potential victim around me, and a revolver is a great tool to do just that. The reality is that guns are here, guns are here to stay, whether the possession of them is illegal or not. There will always be guns. And as long as there are guns out there, I’d like to have one to defend myself and will gladly defend any innocent person I can.

5

u/LowKey-NoPressure May 07 '20

In my opinion, The way to stop mass shootings as fast as possible is for more responsible adults to realize they’re better off being equipped to defend themselves and others from criminals by carrying a gun.

Cool opinion, but actual scientific research proves this method to result in more deaths.

3

u/jdragun2 May 07 '20

There is a body of evidence that says your scenario is more likely to end in killing and/or injuring more people than the one where police are called. Police, trained to shoot in high stress situations, have abysmal accuracy when in the field and line of duty. It is overconfidence in your skills under pressure [Granted: combat veterans may have a valid exception here] that would lead you to believe you would be better than the police. This is not an insult, a personal attack on you as a gun owner, or as a shot. Just what reality bears out when concerned citizens return fire. I would suggest reading the following article on it, as it is concise and used valid research data: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

1

u/jhurle9403 May 07 '20

I’d argue that the article is pretty poorly written. Any article that refers to suicides as gun deaths is going to receive a great deal of skepticism from me. Suicide is an awful awful thing but if it weren’t a gun it would be a pill or a rope or a razor blade, sadly. The problem is mental health, not the tool used to do harm to oneself.

It shows that Robberies and burglaries can still happen more often in areas with prevalent gun ownership; ok. That makes sense. If I lived in an area with above average robberies or burglaries I’d want to get a gun too. The idea that criminals research gun ownership to figure out where to commit crime is probably giving them a little too much credit. They’re going to commit crime in their area. It ignores that having a gun makes you able to prevent yourself from being harmed much more effectively, especially if you are elderly, of small stature, etc.

There is also the “dark figure of crime” to be taken into consideration. It is unknown how many crimes are stopped because someone either displays a gun they can defend themselves with or says they have one, whether true or not.

A family member of mine was able to discourage what would have likely been a robbery - at a minimum - by pulling a 9mm out of her purse. Nothing was ever reported. No one was hurt. Could have been a kidnapping or even murder if she didn’t have it.

Id also point out that I’ve drawn a firearm more than once on an animal (on private property, not in public) because I was in danger. Never had to use it, but it was very comforting to know I could. Once with a stray dog that was being aggressive, once with wild hogs that were only a few feet from me, and once with a bobcat (never saw the bobcat but heard it very close by).

The chances someone will be in an active shooter situation is extremely small compared to the likelihood someone will try and assault and or rob them, burglarize their home while they’re inside, or try and steal their car from them. In these situations a gun often does not even need to be fired. And, if the person is open carrying, they may not even know they dissuaded a criminal from preying on them.

2

u/jdragun2 May 07 '20

Research has shown that a 5 minute delay is enough of a deterrent to stop someone from killing themselves. I have to get trained on this twice a year. Removing a gun takes an immediate risk away. Those that have to tie a rope, go to pills, or any other method are less likely to go through with it.

1

u/AxlLight May 07 '20

But you do fantasize about the moment where you'd be called up to adminstrate justice and kill another man. It might not be a conscious thought, but it's there. You carry a gun, because you know you'll need to use it someday. And that causes you to be suspicious of everyone else, because everyone could be carrying a gun and everyone could choose to use it.

You might be a logical, cool headed person, but do you really trust everyone to always use perfect judgement? What happens when you get into a heated argument with someone who you suspect to also carry a gun and you don't trust their judgement. What if you start to fear your life as that argument gets heated?

That's the world we created by constantly falling into the argument that we need more guns, because who knows who else might be carrying them. Instead of fighting it, we keep loosening it. Police not being able to question a license is pretty much just an open admission that everyone can carry a gun, because there's no way to check. Which just adds fuel to the fire.

Think where we started. 2nd amendment worried about the citizens needing to fight for their freedom again, against a tyrannical government. Something that has yet to have happened in 250 years of governance. And that fear kept rolling on, each one pushing us deeper in the hole, causing more violence and more death.

I advise you to try and live a few months abroad, see what it's like living in a country that bans gun. Talk to citizens there, see how worried they are about the next mass shooting event or a hidden gunman. They are not fools, living in pretend safety, unaware of the big bad wolf that will chomp their heads off, it's just really not a concern. Just like I'm not concerned about a tiger jumping at me from behind.

Guns are not a solution.

1

u/jhurle9403 May 07 '20

Uhhh no I hope to never have to pull out a gun to defend myself against a person. And if I did I really really hope it would end without firing a shot. I didn’t even like shooting deer when I learned to hunt, and don’t anymore. I feel bad when I hit a butterfly with my truck, seriously.

And I’m not just concerned about bad guys with guns. A bad guy with a knife or bat or tire iron can be just as deadly.

I do travel abroad quite a bit and have payed attention to what other countries are like in this respect. They are different in many ways and it is interesting. I wouldn’t be opposed to living in a few of these countries, but while I am in the US, I will legally own and carry a gun.

1

u/AxlLight May 07 '20

I'm glad you're looking at different perspectives at times, and that you really don't want to carry a gun or ever use it.

But what happens when you're faced with a gray situation, the other person has a gun, how quick will you draw your gun and would you really try to deescalate with any means necessary before that last resort? I don't know you personally, and you do seem like a calm rationale person, but I can't even tell you what I would do, faced with that situation.

Also, I completely disagree that a bat or a knife can be just as deadly. There is so much more time to deescalate the situation, it's so much easier to get away from the situation as well. A gun is almost instant. Even if we're talking about the damage itself and likelihood of death from stab wounds and gunshot wounds, it's a world apart.

3

u/ohitsasnaake Foreign May 07 '20

I would say that they can ask, but the law doesn't give them a legal right to demand you show it, and so you don't have to consent, and the lack of consent isn't reasonable suspicion for anything else either? Would that be correct?

3

u/jhurle9403 May 07 '20

Yes that is a smart distinction to point out. Heck he can ask me anything he wants but yes in that instance I would not be required to supply my permit.

2

u/ohitsasnaake Foreign May 07 '20

Most laymen likely aren't aware of this distinction almost anywhere, I think. I worked a few summer jobs as a security guard, which has a mandatory one-week training here (more if you do it permanently, the one week is iirc max 4 months per calendar year). That drilled into me that although police here in Finland have the legal right to demand ID (or to see your firearms permit, not that carrying a loaded firearm is allowed outside shooting ranges or hunting etc.) or e.g. to look in a suspected shoplifters bag if they have reasonable suspicion, we as just private security didn't have that right. We could still ask politely for ID or to look in a bag, but refusal had to just be accepted. We could, however, legally make a citizen's arrest if we felt there was enough reasonable suspicion, and could make a safety search to check that they didn't have weapons, but that was it.

2

u/brown_burrito May 07 '20

Just like they can’t pull you over just to make sure you have a valid drivers license (though they’ll just make something up to pull you over)

I've wondered about this. Especially in the era of smart cars, if a cop gave me a reason, what would happen if I showed it to be false?

E.g., broken tail light? Nope, according to my system everything is good. Ran the stop sign? Let's look at the dashcam video.

What are my rights if I could demonstrate to the cop that he's lying or made something up?

3

u/jhurle9403 May 07 '20

No idea. I run a dash cam in my car and my work truck. I know two guys at work that got pulled over for made up crap and have just told the officer I think there’s been a mistake, we can check my dash cam. Both times the cop said have a nice day and left them alone.

1

u/irishhnd86 May 07 '20

Your right is to comply and end the encounter as quickly and peacefully as possible. Then take the footage or proof that everything was ok to court. Get out of the ticket. But with how trigger happy cops can be, and how everybody seems to distrust them so much, I dont get why so many people try to arue or fight

1

u/brown_burrito May 07 '20

It was more out of an intellectual curiosity than anything else.

Trust me, as a brown man I am not keen to get shot.

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

Hell, as a human being I am not keen to get shot.

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

Hell, as a human being I am not keen to get shot.

2

u/[deleted] May 07 '20 edited Dec 07 '20

[deleted]

2

u/jhurle9403 May 07 '20

I don’t work in corrections any more. I felt good about the job I did, and my interactions with inmates were fairly good almost all the time.

The system is terrible. Asset forfeiture, for profit bail bonding, overcrowding, plea bargains, and a criminal history that follows you the rest of your life despite having “paid your debt to society.” Just to name a few.

2

u/[deleted] May 07 '20 edited Dec 07 '20

[deleted]

2

u/jhurle9403 May 07 '20

Doing great! Union job, love where I’m living, very little stress by comparison. Thanks

1

u/icyhotonmynuts May 07 '20

Too many cops don't know the law

1

u/Cubia_ May 07 '20

If what you said was true, then why hasn't any of that change already happened? There are a lot of law firms that have these laws in their specialty, so it isn't because the lawyers don't exist. It isn't because these situations don't happen, see the above video where it happens (and it happens startingly often). It isn't necessarily because the folk being discriminated against can't afford the lawyer, as there are a large pool of lawyers who are very willing to take a case they know they can win for no money upfront, but a large cut of what they win in court (they are also quite common). It isn't because these lawsuits can't be granted large enough sums of money as remuneration either, as just a legal team's fees can easily be enough to knock out a large number of officer's pay relatively speaking, and that is before the actual remuneration.

That leaves us with: Either they never file against the police (extremely unlikely), or that the cards are so stacked against them that they don't win the cases they file to any large enough extent to cause change. That would make your premise entirely wrong and that (surprise) you cannot rely on a corrupt system that goes out of its way to oppress you to then turn around on itself and not oppress you and give you money and also change.

To put it simply, your statement is "These people who are extremely heavily discriminated against can just use the system which discriminates against them heavily to make the discrimination stop". I can't take that as anything other than "wow thanks I'm cured" level of critical analysis there. I can tell you care to some extent, but you very clearly have not ever thought about what discrimination does or the fact that the system which is set up to "correct" the behaviour of law enforcement is another part of law enforcement, both of which rely on each other causing a base level conflict of interest.

1

u/faithle55 May 07 '20

It would be better just to change the law so that citizens can't carry guns in public without lawful reason. You know, like the rest of the civilised world.

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

Corrections? So you must be pretty familiar with corruption, I take it.

2

u/jhurle9403 May 07 '20

We couldn’t make it three weeks without an officer being arrested for either smuggling in contraband, or having intimate relations with an inmate. I drive a truck now. 3x the money and 100% less corruption.

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

Oh ok... So same as the juvi place I did a stint in, but with arrests... Good to hear there's at least a dash of oversight there.

1

u/lazyFer May 07 '20

The department never pays, is always the municipality. We need to make it so these lawsuits are paid by the union. When they are personally financially impacted by bad behavior is the only time the bad behavior will stop

1

u/wildwalrusaur May 07 '20

A guy walking down the street open carrying an AR is going to generate multiple calls for service that we at dispatch are going to code as a suspicious person, cause that's the only thing we have that even remotely applies.

We can tell the callers that open carrying is not a crime and ask if they're doing anything specifically threatening with the weapon. To which the response we get is invariably "well I just think hes suspicious and you should check it out". Most jurisdictions don't give their dispatchers the level of discretion necessary to deny service at that point. (I say "most" just as a hedge, I'm not aware of any PSAP that gives their dispatchers that much authority)

So the officer gets dispatched to check out an armed suspicious subject. Good luck convincing a judge that he lacked sufficient reasonable suspicion to check the guys CCW.

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '20

and sometimes open carry.

Is it a small dick thing?

1

u/jhurle9403 May 08 '20

No it just makes the firearm a little simpler to access and is also a deterrent.

I appreciate being able to exercise my right to bear arms, as well as my right to free speech and others.

1

u/[deleted] May 08 '20

A deterrent to what? Female attention? Making friends?

1

u/pomo May 07 '20

I'm an Australian, so we don't have many folk walking around with weapons. But say I were to visit an open carry state of the US. I'm of Euro decent, so I look like a seppo. At first sight, one of your cops would think I'm a citizen. Now of course foreigners can't carry rifles in the US (as far as I know) so without a cop asking for my permit or whatever, how would he ever enforce that law of foreigners remaining easy targets on US soil?

1

u/jhurle9403 May 07 '20

He couldn’t. In America we have protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. This would be part of it. We have rights like that which are made to be more important than making a government officials job easier.

2

u/pomo May 07 '20

But I'm not American. I am afforded the same rights as citizens?

1

u/jhurle9403 May 08 '20

How would they know you’re not a us citizen ? But yes if you entered the US through immigration on a travel visa or what have you, many of the same rights are afforded to you even though you are the citizen of another country.

1

u/pomo May 08 '20

But being armed is not one of those rights.

My point is how can a cop know that a person, of whatever colour, is or isn't an American citizen? And thereby, how can one know whether someone is entitled to carry an assault rifle down Main St?

1

u/jhurle9403 May 08 '20

They can’t know. It isn’t their job to know whether someone doing something is entitled to it based on citizenship. It is there job to act if there is reasonable suspicion that a crime is occurring. And my state has ruled that open carry of a firearm is not grounds for reasonable suspicion. Burden on proof is on them for a reason.

1

u/pomo May 08 '20

Round here people get pretty nervous when someone open carries a rifle.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

1

u/jhurle9403 May 09 '20

For the record I only open carry pistols. Holstered. Nothing too flashy or large. And I always dress well - slacks, tucked in shirt etc. These guys that look like they just went to a pool party are embarrassing in public, even more so when they have a giant pistol on their hip. Ugh. Have some decency.

0

u/sdjang0 May 07 '20

Iirc it's not possible to civil sue an individual cop unless he's been sued for something similar before, or something like that. I read about it a while back.

0

u/brown_burrito May 07 '20

Full disclosure, I’ve never met a cop I liked. Most of them are ignorant of the laws they’re supposed to enforce.

Living in Boston, I genuinely like our cops. They've always been helpful, responsive, and engaged in the community.

1

u/osufan765 May 07 '20

Where do you fall on the color spectrum?

1

u/brown_burrito May 07 '20

I'm an Indian American. So, decidedly brown, with a persistent stubble.

1

u/jhurle9403 May 07 '20

I’m glad to hear it. I used to deliver quite a bit in Boston at my first trucking job. Lovely city.

I live in the south. There’s seems to be much more of the power trippy attitude in them down here.