COPS TV Show - Some Disturbing Attitudes

M

Mike H

New member
Just saw a couple of those COPS shows on TV, this is what transpired, rather than foisting my views on you, I'd be interested to hear what you guys think about what happened :

Case 1 - 2 young men questioned in a car park in Albuquerque, NM. Found to be in possession of a Glock 26 and a Patriot style semi auto. Failed to declare presence of weapons on their person when in the vehicle as they did not have permits, but admitted carrying when asked to exit the vehicle for a search. Comment from arresting officer, "why do you feel the need to carry guns man", reply "for self protection".

Case 2 - 2 young men in Washington State rural area seen shooting an SKS in their yard which had open fields to the rear and no houses in the immediate vicinity. Officer was courteous and understanding, a real credit to any force, right up to the point when he got back in his vehicle and said "a lot of people who legally are entitled to own guns should not be able to".

Case 3 - Man seen handling revolver in his car by person in car park, he was not pointing it at anyone, merely "handling it". Resulted in felony traffic stop with 3 attendant forces, Troopers, State and County LEO's. Gun was an old S&W .357 Mag, found to be unloaded in the glovebox. Comment made, "unfortunately there is nothing we can book him on as this is a victimless crime"

I agreed with most of what I saw, but some of the sentiments didn't sit well with me, I'm just curious to get some opinions.

Oh, and I'll issue the usual warnings about not turning this into an anti LEO thread, comments on the specific actions of the individual officers concerned only please, or personal experiences of a similar nature.

Thanks,

Mike H

[This message has been edited by Mike H (edited June 10, 2000).]
 
My attitude about the TV shows is separate from my attitude about the officers' behavior or comments.

These TV shows generally seem to try to create an "atmosphere", an "emotional climate" which is anti-gun.

1. The officer may have been trying to get a better feel for the two guys. They were legal, but unless he wants to go to a lot of trouble to check whether the guns were stolen...Maybe just trying to get a better feel about the guns maybe being stolen?

2. I've said the same thing a lot of times--although I won't say it on TV.

3. I don't fault the checking-out of the driver, but the "unfortunately..." was totally uncalled for. "...victimless crime"? Duh? Face it: There are indeed some LEOs who don't think "just any legal citizen" should have a pistol.

Welcome to modern America, I guess...

:(, Art
 
OK, I'll throw out my thoughts on this.

C1) What were they doing to justify a search in the first place?

C2) This is a blatantly ridiculous statement on the part of the LEO involved, unless the guys shooting were doing so in an unsafe manner. It's not up to the LEO to make a judgement on whether or not someone is qualified to own a firearm, only to judge if they are acting in an illegal manner. Horsefeces. Why did the LEO even stop in the first place? Because two citizens were exercising a Constitutional Right and he wanted to harass them for it? Sheesh.

C3) An even *more* blatantly ridiculous statement by the LEO. Can't book him on a victimless crime!?!? If there was a crime, then book him; obviously there wasn't, as they didn't, and they sure as hades would have if they could've with the cameras rolling.

(leaves muttering about the idiocy displayed by the LEO's in question)


[This message has been edited by JimR (edited June 10, 2000).]
 
I think there is something about a TV camera that makes ordinarily normal people put on their stupid sign.
 
The jerks on COPS do not in anyway resemble most of the LEOs I know. They are part psychologists, part social workers, and part criminologists, and are very compassionate human beings.



[This message has been edited by RR (edited June 10, 2000).]
 
Jim,

Trouble is I'd be typing for an hour to get all the details down, but to put some more flesh on the bones of these stories:

In case 1. I believe the officers were in an area known to be frequented by druggies and to be fair, one of the young men had a personal quantity of herbal cannabis in his back pocket. The guys weren't dealers but obviously took their guns as protection. One earned himself a minor misdemeanour for the dope but they both got a "goodbye career and reputation" FELONY conviction for the handguns.

In case 2. A woman neighbor claimed to have heard bullets "whizzing around" although it was established that she had never left her house and had almost certainly just heard the report of the rifle being fired.

In case 3. The LEO's considered prosecuting the driver of the vehicle because there were six rounds of live .357 lying loose in the glovebox by the unloaded weapon. It is certainly the case in Pennsylvania that if you have a gun in the car and ammunition (but no CHL), one must be locked in the trunk whilst the other (preferably the ammo) is kept completely separate in the glovebox. Although a different state was concerned, this appeared to be the "law" they were debating over. Now someone help me out, how do you get that vomiting icon to appear ?

Mike H
 
barf.gif
................ :D
 
I don't personally know ANY officer that has been aired on COPS, but I get a very strong impression that the camera crew picks the mouthy, opinionated officers for their ride alongs for a reason. How many people would watch these shows if they rode with Lt. Headsmart, who calmly used common sense to resolve conflict?

Also, I would be willing to bet that the guys they DO pick to ride with are encouraged to ham it up for the camera. Some oblige by showing their ass and making comments like the ones above without really thinking about how they sound. I mean, some of them *COULDN'T* be thinking!!

Just my $.02...

------------------
The Glock freak formerly known as Chris...
 
Also, since those shows started, people will call 911 for ANY DAMN THING!!

Here's a few calls that have came through our county's 911. I mean, please. What would one honestly expect a police officer to do for them in these cases?

*My 8 year old won't do what I tell him/her to do. (Whip their ass!! You can, I can't, no matter how bad I want to!)

*Someone paged me and put "666" in my beeper. I think it was a girl I dated about 6 years ago. (So friggin' delete it! You say you haven't seen or heard from this girl at all since 1994 and she never done anything like this while you were together or when you broke up? Why the hell did she decide to page you tonight, after 6 years, just to harass you? Oh, I know. She waited 6 years to page you with "666" so no police officer under the influence of COMMON SENSE would ever believe that it was her! Uhhhhh, ok. Hey, here's an idea! Your buddies *MIGHT* be playing a little joke on you. Ya think?)

*My neighbor's garage door has been up since yesterday. (Ummmmmmm, mind your own damn business!!!)

*My neighbor's dog crapped in my yard. (Well, I ain't cleanin' it up! I don't even own a dog!)

*There are some kids playing in the woods. (Heaven forbid!! I'd better call out SWAT for this one!! That's more than I'm trained to handle.)

*The clerk at the store won't sell me beer because I'm drunk. I want you to come over here and tell them to sell me some beer... Yes, I drove to the store! Why? (Well, I'll be there in a minute. Also, by the time you make bond and get out of jail, you should be just about sober enough to buy more beer. Good enough?)

*My puppy is stuck in a vent duct. (I'll be right there! I knew this HVAC tool kit that they gave us in the academy would come in handy some day!!)

Man, I could go on and on. Maybe I should write a book and call it, "Problems *NOT* to call 911 for and the answer to those problems."... :D

FWIW, I do not reply to these calls in the same manner that I have in these examples. I bite my tongue and politely give them the best advice I have to give.

For example, to the nosey neighbor:
Ma'am, I made contact with your neighbor and she said that her husband just forgot to close the garage door when he left for work the last couple mornings. I can appreciate your concerns for your neighbor's welfare but everything is fine. Have a nice day! However, see the replies in parenthesis for what I am really thinking. :D

Also, you should have seen the look on the face of the woman with the open door when she came to the door and was informed that her neighbor had called us out to check on her because the garage door was up!! I think I'd have a serious talk with my neighbors!!

The frequency of this type call has grown dramatically since COPS and similar shows have been on the air. The older officers hate these shows for that very reason. ;)

------------------
The Glock freak formerly known as Chris...
 
Let's keep this in perspective. Some lame ass syndicated TV fluff speaks for all cops?

Things to keep in mind:
1) Lame ass
2) TV fluff
3) All of the above

Ya'll are bright enough to figure out what goes into syndicated fluff.

This will not turn into a cop bashing thread, esp. based upon this indiscriminate type crap.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
"a lot of people who legally are entitled to own guns should not be able to".

I won't in any way, shape, or form disagree with that one at all. At least the concept.

Some people should not have children, some people should not drive cars, some people should not have guns, even though there is absolutely NOTHING that prevents them from doing so.



------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
 
I suspect most police officers who are being
filmed will generally act differently.

It would have a tendency to elevate the ego
a touch.

And could someone explain to me what a victimless crime is?

Would running a stop sign be considered a victimless crime?

Waterdog
 
A victimless crime is usually things like making an illegal wager on a sporting event , prostitution , selling booze on a barred day or in a "dry" county . Mostly it is where no can claim they were wronged by this action taking place . The Stop sign ? YES . The general public is at risk according to the law . This brings up the question " Must you stop if there are NO cars for like forever coming from any direction ? It must be yes . If you are allowed to make a judgement call in that case where do you draw the line ? A car a mile away ? How about 1000 feet ? How about 100 feet BUT I got a REALLY fast car ? It's a slippery slope that is better not traversed .
As to the original point of this thread I don't know how many of you have seen the videos of cops that stopped the pick-up full of illegals here in SO. CA. . They tried to cause wrecks to cover their escape when being chased by the police . All the frustration came out in several officers and they were "less than friendly" to the perps upon capture .
After seeing people get off on technicalities or given bozo light sentences ( 3 yrs. suspended and 25 hours community service ) you will be frustrated . when you finally get a chance to say something AND be the last word you may just spit something dumb out . I'm sure if many of those LEO's could go back and change what they said the outcome would be different .
I know a few guys that are no longer LEO's because The Criminal Justice System guarantees Justice to the criminals . Kill 10 people and your confession could be thrown out . Push a perp into the car you can ( and probably will ) be sued and repremanded .

------------------
TOM
SASS AMERICAN LEGION NRA
 
We have lots of 'victimless' crimes, and the folks on the other side of that debate stretch a little to come up with 'victims'. Rather like Congress using the 'Commerce Clause' to legislate everything except your bowell movements ... and the FDA is looking at that issue. ;)


My favorite conversation on one of these shows was a traffic / drug stop by two LEO's. The female officer said 'it's a leased car', and the male officer said something to the effect of 'there goes the seizure'. Not one of the finer moments in police work I trust.

Regards from AZ
 
I didn't see the show. However, here in New Mexico it is legal to carry a firearm including a handgun loaded and concealed in your vehicle. Your car is considered an extension of your home. I would suppose that if the men had drugs then there might be a firearms charge also as a result of illegal drugs, but I'm not sure how that would work. The head of the state police is against concealed carry and I guess this rubs off on other LEO's. Jerry

------------------
Ecclesiastes 12:13  ¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14  For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
 
Jerry--

I'm glad you brought that up. I was scratching my head at case 1 because I understood NM firearms law to be just how you stated. So, I couldn't understand how the guys in question, as long as they were in their vehicle, could be in violation of the firearms law. I also understand NM has state preemption, so being in Albuquerque shouldn't matter. Does the preemption law have holes to exempt certain cities/situations? Maybe like you said the drug/firearms combination played into it.

Mike, could you give any more detail to help with my confusion? Did the arresting officer mention anything related to my concerns? Were the guys too young for handgun possession or something?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike H:
Case 1 - 2 young men questioned in a car park in Albuquerque, NM. Found to be in possession of a Glock 26 and a Patriot style semi auto.[/quote]

I don't remember why they were stopped but the guy with the Glock 26 was under 21 and had the gun concealed under his waistband.
The driver was over 21.
 
To give all the info. I can remember on case 1. and what seemed to lead to the arrest.

When questioned in the vehicle, the 2 men (they could have been juveniles but looked early 20's) stated that they were not in the possession of any firearms or drugs. On being told to exit the vehicle for a search, they then admitted to carrying, both weapons were being worn strong side under t-shirts with no holsters, as mentioned previously, there was a small amount of dope found on one of them. The LEO's understandably seemed most aggravated about the failure to declare the presence of the guns, when asked why they had not done so, the driver replied that he was scared to do so. Perhaps the combination of drugs/guns and failure to disclose weapons to an officer resulted in the arrest, I cannot determine the exact nature of the charge, but they certainly seemed to be more interested in felony firearms violations than the dope which was only about enough to make 4 joints or so.

You're lucky to have that car and gun carry law in NM, I believe the Carolinas and Texas have a similar law, here in supposedly gun friendly Pa we are not so lucky and must be on our way to the range or gun repair shop, even if the gun is locked in the trunk. Aren't we all supposed to live in the same country how about some firearms laws standardized on those in Texas.

Mike H
 
:(
June 11, 2000

Comments made in this thread remind me it isn't so much a New World Order, but a Who World Order.

[This message has been edited by RAE (edited June 11, 2000).]
 
Rainbow Six --

Great post. I'm still laughing out loud. Good thing I was never an LEO . . . I have a difficult time dealing with morons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top