LEO Threads

[Charles L. Cotton]

I previously posted in a LEO thread responding to another Member's comment about the growing number of LEO threads. I have noticed the increase also, but more importantly we are seeing legitimate threads turning once again into a combination of global COP-bashing and "COPS are always right" posts. I'm sick of both of those categories and it was tempting to change the rules. However, that's hardly fair to those who start these legitimate threads and those who post on such threads. Very often incidents involving LEO's have great educational value, so we are not going to stop or limit such threads.

At this point this is just a request, but it can become a policy in short order if necessary. If you feel compelled to always assume the LEO is wrong and/or feel the need to post a generalized anti-COP post -- don't! Your post will be summarily deleted and if we have to do it too many times, you'll be gone. If you simply must exhibit that attitude, do it elsewhere. In all candor, the Moderators know full well who the frequent offenders are and on this issue, we're going to have a short fuse.

Here's another request; those of you who simply cannot allow yourselves to acknowledge the fact that not every action taken by a LEO is lawful, justified, or moral, don't feel compelled to jump to the defense of LEO made the subject of a thread. More often than not, such posts are condescending and antagonistic and they will no more be tolerated than those who post blatant COP-bashing posts.

Let's face it, emotions frequently run high in various LEO threads and some people simply cannot stay objective. That's not a condemnation of anyone, it's merely recognizing reality. There are some threads I will not read because I know I'll be tempted to post something that may or may not violate our rules, but would certainly violate the spirit of those rules. I've already made a couple of posts in the LEO threads I wish I could retract, not because of the content or opinions expressed, but the way I expressed those opinions.

LEO threads have a high degree of educational value when they are rational, respectful and objective and they will remain a part of the Forum. Everyone needs to decide for themselves whether they are an appropriate topic for them to read and follow.

To anyone I may have offended with my comments in the LEO threads, I sincerely apologize for the way my comments were delivered.
Chas.

[rbwhatever1]

I hope I have not offended any LEO's out there as well. I might have a "slight tendency" to not sugar coat things as I Monday morning quarterback being armed in a free State, or being unarmed in a not so free State depending on where one lives. Nothing personal. Most of you LEO's are doing an awesome job out there every single day for decades so don't let the "bad apple with a firearm" ruin your outlook or your day!

[A-R]

As always, Charles, I wholeheartedly support your efforts (and those of the hardworking mods) to keep this forum civil, especially on this particularly contentious issue.

But I also want to recognize and thank you for noting the educational value of law enforcement related posts even if they are not directly related to CHL issues. It would be easy to just put up a hard-and-fast rule banning LE threads that don't directly relate to CHL issues. It is a testament to the continued high level at which this forum operates that you are striving for a more inclusive standard while at the same time standing firm against the rampant bashing.

I hope everyone on this forum can and will live up to these standards so we may continue to discuss such matters openly. Such threads are one of many aspects that make this forum so worthwhile.

My own personal rule of thumb: if by replacing "cops" or "police" or "LEOs" in your response with "black people" or "women" or "gays" or "Christians" or "CHL holders" or any number of other groups, you would surely incur the wrath of those groups, then your response is likely too broad and derogatory for the purposes of this forum.

If your goal is to "stir the pot" then perhaps you need to find another pot.

[chasfm11]

Charles, thank you for your forbearance in this subject area and allowing reasonable, civil discussions to continue.

As I've said many times, when I got my CHL, it was not my intention to carry daily. Now I do. Doing so opens up a whole new set of questions and possibilities, not all of them good.

I believe that my chances for interaction with an LEO are many times greater than my possibility of running into a BG. I'm fortunate (read this as my not having a lead foot) in not being stopped for traffic rule violations but there are a lot more chances for me to come in contact with LE, some of which I have deliberately initiated. To date, all of them have been very professional as I expected. Our daughter was a dispatcher for 7 years and through that time and her stories, I think that expectation is well founded.

I very much appreciate the interaction with the active and former LEOs who are members of this forum. I've learned a lot from their posts. I don't expect to agree with them on every incident discussed but I do respect the input that they provide. It is in the more contentious situations where I feel that I've gained the greatest insights. There seemed to be little disagreement, for example, in the OH officer's treatment of a CHL and that his actions indicated problems which should have lead him to another line of work. On some of the other situations that were discussed, the back and forth exchange showed me new perspective and helped me to decide, in advance, what is and isn't helpful if I face a similar situation.

I've become stronger and more vocal in many of my political points of view in the past 5 years. That has lead me to challenge things which I see and which I believe are heading our society in the wrong direction. I think it is important for me to be able to balance that with not appearing confrontational at the wrong moment. I'm still seeking to understand all of the ways that I can do that. I remain concerned that as I am more publicly vocal about my political beliefs, I'm more likely I am to come into contact with LE and other governmental agencies who claim LE type powers. I still have lots of questions about those situations and think that an ongoing dialogue about them, before I'm personally faced with them, is very beneficial. I do not appear to be alone in this. I see discussing the specific situations that are happening in this regard the same way that I see playing Monday morning quarterback with crime blotter items. I very much hope that we can continue doing that.

[mojo84]

I think our country is the result of much hearty debate. It will take much more hearty debate to keep our country a country of Freedom and Liberty for ALL.

I've done my best to stay to true to the "rule/guideline" of making sure I am discussing a specific incident or encounter or crime and try to avoid broad generalizations. I also believe it is OK to form my personal opinion based on information I have readily available and state that opinion regardless which "side" my opinion favors in that particular situation.

Hopefully we can continue to discuss such issues in an adult reasonable manner here as the less educated and less informed are already making considerable "progress" in transforming our country. Having such a medium as this to discuss and debate issues regarding Bill of Rights, Constitution, CHL, guns and personal liberty is much appreciated and extremely valuable. Sometimes the discussions will hit close to home and will definitely be influenced by one's perspective. That is just part of life.

Cops are not always right nor are the people with whom they interact.

[JSThane]

As an active LEO, I appreciate this. On the one hand, the "hair trigger" to automatically convict the cops in the court of opinion whenever a situation arises is highly aggravating and angering. While there are bad apples out there, drawn to the badge only by the desire to exercise control over others, or jaded to the point of assuming everyone's a criminal through constant interactions with real criminals, we're not all like that. In fact, most of us aren't. Guilty until proven innocent attitudes towards cops only serve to heighten mistrust of the police and to strengthen and justify certain cops' attitudes of scorn and disdain for the general populace.
On the other hand, the instinctive support of the cops in whatever situation is also problematic, as I -know- there are bad apples out there. A couple of the local LEO departments and certain specific officers were recently the subject of a fairly lengthy thread here, and from what I know of the situation (and the officers in particular), the condemnation was rightly deserved. Automatic support for us no matter the case is as harmful to us and the public at large as universal suspicion and approbation. As we ARE in the public eye, charged with enforcing the law, giving cops an automatic pass until absolutely proven otherwise empowers and emboldens those bad actors, who then feel they can get away with all kinds of violations of law and rights.
Mixing the two, automatic condemnation with reflexive support, just makes the whole thing even worse. Any iffy situation will generate both. The condemnation alienates cops from the public, and the support tends to justify errors and violations as "for the greater good" because "the public supports it," and even further isolates the cops from reality, which usually lies somewhere in between.

We are, like any other citizen, entitled to a presumption of innocence until proof of guilt is established. By no means does that say that questions should not be raised, or that apparent impropriety should not be called out. What it does mean is that improprieties should be handled on a case-by-case basis as far as individual incidents are concerned. If there is a policy or law that facilitates impropriety, that should be brought to attention publicly, but please, don't condemn the individual officers for it; use the righteous indignation generated as impetus to change the law or policy, instead of slamming the officers, or declaring the whole authority under the law invalid because of one area of violations under color of law.

I can certainly say for myself, as an LEO, that I would greatly appreciate having fewer laws to remember, fewer crimes to enforce, and more freedoms for everyone where we simply don't have to get involved. Repealing most of the vast multitude of laws out there, most of which are utterly pointless and unjustifiable (see malum prohibim vs malum se - I hope I spelled those right), will make life easier on everyone, and help restore the faith and trust that has been lost on both sides of the LEO-public equation.

[Charles L. Cotton]

As an active LEO, I appreciate this. On the one hand, the "hair trigger" to automatically convict the cops in the court of opinion whenever a situation arises is highly aggravating and angering. While there are bad apples out there, drawn to the badge only by the desire to exercise control over others, or jaded to the point of assuming everyone's a criminal through constant interactions with real criminals, we're not all like that. In fact, most of us aren't. Guilty until proven innocent attitudes towards cops only serve to heighten mistrust of the police and to strengthen and justify certain cops' attitudes of scorn and disdain for the general populace.
On the other hand, the instinctive support of the cops in whatever situation is also problematic, as I -know- there are bad apples out there. A couple of the local LEO departments and certain specific officers were recently the subject of a fairly lengthy thread here, and from what I know of the situation (and the officers in particular), the condemnation was rightly deserved. Automatic support for us no matter the case is as harmful to us and the public at large as universal suspicion and approbation. As we ARE in the public eye, charged with enforcing the law, giving cops an automatic pass until absolutely proven otherwise empowers and emboldens those bad actors, who then feel they can get away with all kinds of violations of law and rights.
Mixing the two, automatic condemnation with reflexive support, just makes the whole thing even worse. Any iffy situation will generate both. The condemnation alienates cops from the public, and the support tends to justify errors and violations as "for the greater good" because "the public supports it," and even further isolates the cops from reality, which usually lies somewhere in between.

We are, like any other citizen, entitled to a presumption of innocence until proof of guilt is established. By no means does that say that questions should not be raised, or that apparent impropriety should not be called out. What it does mean is that improprieties should be handled on a case-by-case basis as far as individual incidents are concerned. If there is a policy or law that facilitates impropriety, that should be brought to attention publicly, but please, don't condemn the individual officers for it; use the righteous indignation generated as impetus to change the law or policy, instead of slamming the officers, or declaring the whole authority under the law invalid because of one area of violations under color of law.

I can certainly say for myself, as an LEO, that I would greatly appreciate having fewer laws to remember, fewer crimes to enforce, and more freedoms for everyone where we simply don't have to get involved. Repealing most of the vast multitude of laws out there, most of which are utterly pointless and unjustifiable (see malum prohibim vs malum se - I hope I spelled those right), will make life easier on everyone, and help restore the faith and trust that has been lost on both sides of the LEO-public equation.

Thanks for an excellent post! I especially agree with the last paragraph, but sadly we seem to be moving in the opposite direction.

Chas.