Another likely idea is a high profile stunt to appear that they’re "doing something" about a cold case … not really interested in making cops look good in the public eye just for the sake of it … kinda makes me yawn a bit.
To get really politically incorrect here, crime on criminals tends to make me yawn a bit too.
On the flip side, I don’t have to worry about this one since I wouldn’t be selling or buying a S&W anyway … and anyone buying a S&W after 2000 shouldn’t expect, and doesn’t deserve, privacy here.
Well, you guys would call me paranoid, but I wouldn’t comply unless the cops were willing to explain a little more about why they wanted the info.
If they want to shorten a list of suspects to concentrate on, it sounds legit to me … but why are they asking for old addresses and phone numbers if that’s the case ? Sounds like they could be trying to build a bigger net rather than sort through a list of suspects in a picking box. That’s where I get a little edgy. The prospect of helping them to harass a guy whose only "crime" was buying a particular make of pistol in a certain time frame just doesn’t sit well…. especially after having been harassed, insulted, and pressured (attempted pressure, anyway) by the cops because I fit a profile in the mind of couple of lazy, pea brained, vindictive children with a little power… more than once. "Us vs. them" attitude ? …. Somewhat, but "they" started it.
I used to naively give the cops any support and information I could. Because of a couple of bad ones, and a large number of mostly-good ones that were more than willing to back up the scum in their midst, that is no longer the case. Now, all cops (except for a few that I know well, and that have become good friends) have to convince me that their requests are legitimate, or expect no help from me. This really torques the cookies of some of them (yawn) and downright ticks ‘em off when you say "If X is the case, I have information for you, but if you are not willing to say X is the case, then I have no information of value to you." followed up by … "I have given you the condition where my knowledge would be germane to your investigation, but I am not satisfied that your motive in gathering that information is legitimate investigation. If your motive is legitimate, you should have no difficulty in getting a subpoena based on the condition I provided, and I will happily comply with any court order, or you demonstrating a need to know." The bored, scripted-sounded way of saying it ticks ‘em off too.
What’s really funny is when one of the cop friends calls up and asks "What’s the deal between you and Detective Goob over the "whatever case", and you lay it all out for him with all the details. Cop friend then goes back to Det. Goob and either tells him what you had to say and that you’d be happy to testify in court, or to drop it because the information is none of his business.
It’s all about trust as far as I’m concerned, and while some cops whine that I shouldn’t judge the department’s trustworthiness by the actions of a couple of bad apples … I reply that I don’t. I judged the bad apples by their actions, just as I judged my cop friends as trustworthy. I judged the department by the overwhelming number of cops backing up, or remaining silent about the bad ones … just because they were cops.
Political grandstanding on the question of gun rights (and rights in general) by police chiefs representing their departments combined with the general unwillingness of departments weighing in on the other side of the issue kinda calls into the question of trustworthiness of police depts. in questions like this one, imo. The few "rank and file" cops that speak up on the pro-rights side of the issue might be considered to be like the "cop friends", but they don’t (and can’t) represent the departments because of their position and either lack of numbers or unwillingness to speak up in numbers.
Well, I guess I probably just alienated a bunch of cops (yawn), but I figure there wasn’t much point in being friendly with the ones that would be alienated by what I had to say anyway…
To get really politically incorrect here, crime on criminals tends to make me yawn a bit too.
On the flip side, I don’t have to worry about this one since I wouldn’t be selling or buying a S&W anyway … and anyone buying a S&W after 2000 shouldn’t expect, and doesn’t deserve, privacy here.
Well, you guys would call me paranoid, but I wouldn’t comply unless the cops were willing to explain a little more about why they wanted the info.
If they want to shorten a list of suspects to concentrate on, it sounds legit to me … but why are they asking for old addresses and phone numbers if that’s the case ? Sounds like they could be trying to build a bigger net rather than sort through a list of suspects in a picking box. That’s where I get a little edgy. The prospect of helping them to harass a guy whose only "crime" was buying a particular make of pistol in a certain time frame just doesn’t sit well…. especially after having been harassed, insulted, and pressured (attempted pressure, anyway) by the cops because I fit a profile in the mind of couple of lazy, pea brained, vindictive children with a little power… more than once. "Us vs. them" attitude ? …. Somewhat, but "they" started it.
I used to naively give the cops any support and information I could. Because of a couple of bad ones, and a large number of mostly-good ones that were more than willing to back up the scum in their midst, that is no longer the case. Now, all cops (except for a few that I know well, and that have become good friends) have to convince me that their requests are legitimate, or expect no help from me. This really torques the cookies of some of them (yawn) and downright ticks ‘em off when you say "If X is the case, I have information for you, but if you are not willing to say X is the case, then I have no information of value to you." followed up by … "I have given you the condition where my knowledge would be germane to your investigation, but I am not satisfied that your motive in gathering that information is legitimate investigation. If your motive is legitimate, you should have no difficulty in getting a subpoena based on the condition I provided, and I will happily comply with any court order, or you demonstrating a need to know." The bored, scripted-sounded way of saying it ticks ‘em off too.
What’s really funny is when one of the cop friends calls up and asks "What’s the deal between you and Detective Goob over the "whatever case", and you lay it all out for him with all the details. Cop friend then goes back to Det. Goob and either tells him what you had to say and that you’d be happy to testify in court, or to drop it because the information is none of his business.
It’s all about trust as far as I’m concerned, and while some cops whine that I shouldn’t judge the department’s trustworthiness by the actions of a couple of bad apples … I reply that I don’t. I judged the bad apples by their actions, just as I judged my cop friends as trustworthy. I judged the department by the overwhelming number of cops backing up, or remaining silent about the bad ones … just because they were cops.
Political grandstanding on the question of gun rights (and rights in general) by police chiefs representing their departments combined with the general unwillingness of departments weighing in on the other side of the issue kinda calls into the question of trustworthiness of police depts. in questions like this one, imo. The few "rank and file" cops that speak up on the pro-rights side of the issue might be considered to be like the "cop friends", but they don’t (and can’t) represent the departments because of their position and either lack of numbers or unwillingness to speak up in numbers.
Well, I guess I probably just alienated a bunch of cops (yawn), but I figure there wasn’t much point in being friendly with the ones that would be alienated by what I had to say anyway…
Last edited: