yiteurp wrote:So I was listing to the scanner the other day at work, and heard the following ...
unit 84 respond to (address) for report of theft from home.
* Enroute* 84 dispatch on scene
*clear*
84 dispatch.
go ahead 84.
Please contact the RP and advise I will be unable to complete report. He has a sign posted absolutely NO firearms allowed on property.
Advise RP he can come to station tomorrow and file a report..
uuuummmmm Standby .. (sounded completely puzzled)
84, RP says its OK for you....
Dispatch, please advise the RP to come to the station and file report, I don't want to offend him. I'll be on station ..
I like the sign, I love the LEO's response. If the Fed's come to your door can we have them disarm before entering our property as we have to do on Fed property?
suthdj wrote:I like the sign, I love the LEO's response. If the Fed's come to your door can we have them disarm before entering our property as we have to do on Fed property?
The officer did this to make a point. He could have carried on the property just as the FEDS can carry. Neither will not disarm for you. In this case the RP or reporting party, was the one that called the police asking the police to come to his house. The reality of this incident is that the RP will probably file a complaint that the police refused to take a report and the officer will receive discipline. After all, as many point out all the time in here, he is there to serve.
Any, not really sure it is bashing innuendo or bashing at all, however I do think that we are asking are the LEO's always right? I am not a LEO apologist and never will be, they are civilians that have a hard job, some allow themselves to gain an US vs THEM mentality and begin to hold the people they SERVE in contempt. I believe that's its good to question things especially some of the policies that begin with for the safety of the office we will kill anything we think might possibly maybe gonna cause us something as little as a hang nail. Including dogs when an interloper enters the dogs domain. Also when A LEO gives an opinion that is clearly contrary to the law because he or she has this mentality of all people except them and the blue line are constant and willingly criminals
JP171 wrote:Any, not really sure it is bashing innuendo or bashing at all, however I do think that we are asking are the LEO's always right? I am not a LEO apologist and never will be, they are civilians that have a hard job, some allow themselves to gain an US vs THEM mentality and begin to hold the people they SERVE in contempt. I believe that's its good to question things especially some of the policies that begin with for the safety of the office we will kill anything we think might possibly maybe gonna cause us something as little as a hang nail. Including dogs when an interloper enters the dogs domain. Also when A LEO gives an opinion that is clearly contrary to the law because he or she has this mentality of all people except them and the blue line are constant and willingly criminals
I am certain that posts such as you describe can be ferreted out and dealt with. Healthy debate is good and is not what I was referring to. This is what I was referring to and this is not appropriate as it does nothing to resolve any issues of which you describe but only displays contempt and in no way reflects the poster's handle:
Pacifist wrote:Surprised he didn't just shoot the RP's dog and been done with it.
Anygunanywhere
"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." Mike Vanderboegh
"The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." – Ayn Rand
not to thread hijack, but last question for you to consider then no more on this subject.
Given the number of Police shooting of dogs as of late, is the comment really all that much bashing as opposed to being reality and a reflection of policy that has been stated by a LEO senior administrator and the authors belief of activity that has become the norm as opposed to the exception, maybe it could have been said a bit differently but the feeling would be the same and just as valid
JP171 wrote:Any, not really sure it is bashing innuendo or bashing at all, however I do think that we are asking are the LEO's always right? I am not a LEO apologist and never will be, they are civilians that have a hard job, some allow themselves to gain an US vs THEM mentality and begin to hold the people they SERVE in contempt. I believe that's its good to question things especially some of the policies that begin with for the safety of the office we will kill anything we think might possibly maybe gonna cause us something as little as a hang nail. Including dogs when an interloper enters the dogs domain. Also when A LEO gives an opinion that is clearly contrary to the law because he or she has this mentality of all people except them and the blue line are constant and willingly criminals
I am certain that posts such as you describe can be ferreted out and dealt with. Healthy debate is good and is not what I was referring to. This is what I was referring to and this is not appropriate as it does nothing to resolve any issues of which you describe but only displays contempt and in no way reflects the poster's handle:
Pacifist wrote:Surprised he didn't just shoot the RP's dog and been done with it.
Anygunanywhere
Ayup. I have also been skeptical of some LEO stories and there is definitely room for healthy debate, but my default position is one of support, and I don't default to "surprised hie didn't just shoot the dog" kind of comments. Furthermore, and police vs. dog shootings aside, it had nothing to do with the OP, which was about an LEO who made a point of supporting the second amendment. THAT cop doesn't deserve such comments. Instead, he deserves applause.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
