Off the CCOPs site.Scary

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

beemerb

Moderator
Dear CCOPS:

I live in Sebastopol, California, which is approximately 60 miles north of San Francisco and approximately 8 miles east of the Pacific coast line. Sebastopol is a bedroom community of approximately 8,000 people. It is in Sonoma County. Sebastopol and Sonoma County have repeatedly voted for Clinton, Gore, Feinstein- -champions of more victim disarmament laws. Sonoma County has one major daily newspaper, The Press-Democrat, which strongly supports more victim disarmament laws.

What follows is true. The date was late 1999. The scene was a beautiful, sunny day, in a neighborhood at Dowd Drive, in Sebastopol, California.

I was walking my dog when I saw a man, in civilian clothes, walking his dog, coming toward me. When this man and I crossed each other's path, I started a conversation with this man. The following is a faithful, paraphrased, recreation of this conversation, not an exact quote.

In the dialogue that follows, PM stands for me, Peter Mancus, and RS stands for Robert Smith, who was the other man walking his dog.

This Robert Smith is a white male; approximately 5'9"; approximately 145-150 pounds; approximately 50-55 years old. He is wiry; athletic, trim looking; he has a flat abdomen; medium brown hair; bushy mustache; a gaunt look; and tight facial skin with deep smile lines [diagonal lines along nose, above mouth.]


PM: Excuse me. May I please talk to you briefly?
RS: Yes.
PM: Are you a Sebastopol Police Officer?
RS: Yes.
PM: I thought so. I normally see you from the chest up, in blue uniform, behind the steering wheel of a patrol car.
RS: [No comment.]
PM: What's your name?
RS: Bob Smith.
PM: Have a question for you. How do you feel about gun control?
RS: I don't have any problem with most people having guns. It is a mistake to over rely on the police. We cannot be every where. You have a right to guns. You should get proper training. I own guns. I like to shoot. I can understand how others would like to keep their guns. I think some people in Sebastopol might be unsafe with guns, but it is their right. They make me nervous about how they handle their guns.
PM: Have another question for you. If civil authority gave you an order to go house to house to disarm law- abiding citizens who never misused their firearms, what would you do? And why?
RS: Don't worry about that. I do not think that will ever happen. I've been a cop for 25 years. I do not anticipate receiving that order before I retire. I do not believe our chief [recently retired Dwight Crandall] would ever give that order. I think the chief would be extremely reluctant to issue us that order. I just don't think he would do it. I am very confident that I will retire before I ever get that order.
PM: Thank you for sharing that with me, but please do not avoid the question. The question is [and I repeated it.] If you were given that order, what would you do? Assume that you were given that order, what would you do? [For several minutes Officer Smith gave me evasive, non-responsive answers, while I did my best to keep him focused on giving me a direct answer responsive to my specific question.]
RS: [Eventually] I would carry out the order.
PM: Why?
RS: Because it is an order?
PM: Any other reasons?
RS: Yes. I've been a cop for 25 years. I have worked hard. I have put up with a lot--stress, danger, heartache, etc. I would not like doing it but I would do it [enforce the order].
PM: What if the home owner citizen [who is otherwise law-abiding] tells you something like this, "Officer. I respect your title. Thank you for your service. But I am not going to give you my guns. Society and the courts have gone off the deep end. They are wrong. I have rights. My rights limit your duty, regardless of what society says. I am going to stand up for those rights. I am not going to let you cross the threshold into my home to confiscate my guns. I have never misused my guns. I am not responsible for what criminals do with their guns. I am not a criminal. I wish you well. I harbor no animosity toward you. Please. Just leave in peace, without my guns. Stay on that side of my door, and you are a peace officer. Cross the threshold to my home to confiscate my guns, and you are a government goon. I will support and obey a peace officer. I will not support and I will not obey a government goon," what would you do then?
RS: I would not leave. I would enforce the order.
PM: What if the citizen then made it politely and tactfully clear to you that if you want the guns, you will have to use lethal force because he [or she] is willing to use lethal force to resist? What would you do then?
RS: In that case, the situation is no longer academic. I would not leave without that citizen's guns. I would enforce the order.
PM: Even after the citizen warns you of the personal physical risk you take? Even after the citizen urges you to leave in peace?
RS: Yes!
PM: Why?
RS: I have received an order. I am a cop. It is my job to enforce the law. This hypothetical citizen you've described is a gun nut. He is willing to risk his life and his freedom for his damn guns. When it comes down to his guns and my retirement benefit, I am not going to give my department any excuse for terminating me, for keeping me from retiring and collecting my retirement benefit. I am not going to let my fellow officers down. I will carry my weight. I will do my job. If necessary, I will become a vicious bull dog to enforce that order. I want to collect my retirement. I want to keep my job. My wife and I are counting on me keeping my job. We need the money. I am not going to let my family or my department down.
PM: So, would you be willing to kill that otherwise law-abiding citizen to disarm him? To enforce your order?
RS: Yes!
PM: And, assuming you did that and that you survived that encounter, would you then go to the next house hold to enforce your order?
RS: Yes!
PM: And what if that citizen told you the same thing as the other one that you just killed? What would you do then?
RS: I would enforce my order.
PM: Including using lethal force to kill that citizen, too?
RS: Yes!
PM: And after you do that, would you then move on to the next house? And the next?
RS: Yes!
PM: Is that how you treat citizens who paid your salary via their taxes for 25 years? Would you really do this? Shift after shift until Sebastopol was a gun free zone?
RS: Hey! Do not get upset with me. I would just be doing my job. If anyone has a problem with me doing my job, they should obey my command to surrender their guns to me and then take it up with a judge. They have a legal duty to obey my order. If they threaten me with lethal force, I will take care of myself, which will be bad for whomever resisted my order.
PM: Have you ever heard of the "Nuremberg Principle"?
RS: Yes.
PM: Do you know what that principle is?
RS: No.
PM: Have you ever received any training about the "Nuremberg Principle"?
RS: No.
PM: So you would just continue going from house to house, shift after shift, day after day, enforcing that order, killing everyone who refused to surrender their guns?
RS: Do not get upset with me. I am just a small cog in a big piece of machinery. If the citizens want to stay alive, they simply just have to surrender their guns, as ordered.
PM: Is there any order you would not enforce to keep your retirement benefit? To protect your income?
RS: I do not want to continue this conversation. [Officer Smith then walked away.]
Almost a year after this exchange with Officer Smith, I am still disturbed. The implications of this exchange are alarming. I did not like how quickly Officer Smith was willing to reduce me, and people like me, to gun nut status. I do not like Officer Smith's mind set that his retirement benefits are more important than the rights and lives of gun nuts.

Sebastopol Police Officer Robert Smith exists. I did not make him up. It is a mere coincidence that his last name is Smith. I described him with particularity on purpose. Good citizens need to know what Officer Robert Smith told me, and they need to know what he looks like so they will have a fighting chance to stay alive and remain free.


Peter J. Mancus
A Conversation With Sebastopol Police Officer Robert Smith © Peter J. Mancus 2000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------
Bob--- Age and deceit will overcome youth and speed.
I'm old and deceitful.
 
The following conversation is a work of fiction.

LD stands for LawDog, and PM stands for Peter Marcus.

LD: Excuse me, may I speak with you?

PM: Of course.

LD: Do you see that man over there?

PM: The Pope? Of course.

LD: If he were to break into your house tonight and try to rape your wife, would you kill him?

PM: Don't be ridiculous.

LD: Please don't avoid the question, sir.

PM: The man is 80+ years old!

LD: If he kicked in your door and sexually assaulted your wife, would you kill him?

PM: The man is physically incapable...

LD: Sir, you are being evasive, I repeat my question: Would you kill the pope for raping your wife?

Or, in another vein, but using the same type of questioning...

LD: Excuse me, may I speak with you?

PM: Of course.

LD: When did you stop beating your wife?


Here's Peter Marcus, probably relatively well known about his hometown, and definently hot enough on the Internet to post the real name and physical description of an officer. I would imagine the local PD knows him quite well. He starts asking thesee questions and finally bullies an answer out of the officer.

My, my, my. On that politically-charged question, probably with an anti-gun Police Chief, and talking to a man who slings whateverthehell info he feels like across the Internet for untold squillions of people -- maybe even my Chief -- to read and disseminate, I wonder how I'd answer that question.

"Yep, I'd disregard that order. I'd tell the Police Chief to go to hell in the process."

Guaranteed to give your Superior Officer the warm-and-fuzzies. As he's trashing your retirement.

:mad:

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited October 31, 2000).]
 
Thank for the wider perspective, Lawdog.
Clearly, Robert Smith dutifully gave the answers that would be expected of him. If the situation ever became real, all bets are off.
 
Posting the physical description of an officer, naming the town he works in, and giving his name on the internet, and giving a paraphrased answer to a dumb question is very dangerous. I don't think you thought about that before you posted. I only hope nothing happens to this poor man as a result of your stupidity. :mad: I am glad he chose to walk away from you, but only wish he did it before he answered. You are attacking the wrong person here.

Everyone asks LEO's that question, but its the wrong question to ask. You need to address the politicians that put that law into affect, and in turn, yourself, for letting someone like that be elected to make those laws. LEO's don't make the law, they enforce it, they are apart of the executive branch of the goverment. The Legislative branch of the government is responsible for MAKING the laws, you need to direct your attention to someone on that end.

I'm with LawDog on this one!
 
What is really disturbing, is the information given out.

What if something happens to this officer in the next six weeks? Some two-bit, no-future critters takes a shot at him. Worse, kills him?

After having a RKBA site practically give targeting information.

Can anyone think of a better PR coup for the gun grabbers?

We do not, in any way, shape, form or fashion, want the Second Amendment linked to cop killing. No way, no how, nopenopenope.

Yet, here is a supposed RKBA organization giving out everything but the man's shoe size, blood type and photograph.

If there aren't any 'fringe right-wing elements' in that part of the country, you can bet your bottom dollar that the media will find or invent some thirty seconds after something, anything happens to that officer.

God save me from my allies. I hope Peter Mancus can pull some heavy favours from God, because he just dealt CPHV, HCI and Feinstein three aces.

LawDog



[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited October 31, 2000).]
 
"............squillions..........."

My Gawd....how long before THAT finds its way into the Federal budget proposals?
 
It's not the guns; it's the principle.

Money is more important than principle.

this conversation begs the question once again about which direction an officer is going to take; follow the law or obey the oath.

Damn! Why does that keep popping up!?

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!

www.cphv.COM & www.handguncontrol.NET are being sued by Handgun Control, Inc.!

See the "cease and desist" letter here: www.cphv.com/lawsuit.html

[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited October 31, 2000).]
 
Let's ignore, for a moment, the lack of tact in posting these details to the 'net. I see nothing in the exchange above that indicates Officer Smith expected this to be posted for all the world to see.

IMHO, it is quite naive to assume that most LEO's would not react in a similar manner to what Officer Smith describes. Having said that, I believe we should simply quit thumping our chests about this issue, assume government employees will generally do what they are ordered, and make our own arrangements accordingly. And, most of these discussions are better had offline.

Regards from AZ
 
Lawdog, agree with you on the info disseminated, wrong move...........
Your answer very smart............
Who cares about a pension, when you won't be around to spend it?
The scenario in question went about two houses too far...........it would have been over before then.
 
Peter Mancus appears to be a few rounds short of a full magazine and exhibits a clear lack of understanding of the law, poor interpersonal skills, and seems to generally be a rude person. The cop in the story seemed to handle things very well and especially showed a great deal of patience for a person who was off duty. Apparently Mancus thinks cops should simply not enforce any laws they don't agree with personally. What a dork.
 
At the distinct risk of whiz'n off our LEO friends... which is not my intent... nor is this considered a flame nor a put-down of all LEOs... that said...

I would suggest that it ain't much of a stretch to assume that given an order to enforce a law to confiscate contraband (which a stroke of the pen can make any firearm) why would one expect them to do any different than they do now... which is the enforcement of *numerous* un-Constitutional laws day in and day out... 'it's my job... I'm obeying lawful orders... etc.'...

db
 
Point 1. I'm not involved in police work, or law enforcement, nor am I a "peace officer". Never was any of the foregoing either.

Point 2. Other than the above, warts and all, the piece was interesting reading.

Point 3. Based on some comments that I've seen on Unintended Consequences, a number of people have, I believe, misconstrued the point of that too, just as some could misconstrue the point of this COOPS article.
 
Hey, what's the officer's home phone number? That's about the only piece of information that's missing.

Good grief.

------------------
Smith & Wesson is dead to me.

If you want a Smith & Wesson, buy USED!
 
Are police not allowed access to the constitution?

I was wondering because the same arguments always come from LEOs re: interpretation/enforcement issues.

Police do not have to ignore every law they disagree with. They need to ignore every law that is unconstitutional.

If you have access to the constitution then you have the ability to make the correct choice.
 
While the police should not enforce unconstitutional laws, what is deemed "unconstitutional" is based on current popular and legal "opinion" and is not a clear cut issue. Case and point is the 2nd Amendment we all hold so dear and feel clearly states we should have the right to bear arms. Others argue that it is a statement of/for the militia to be maintained, not for individuals. Hardly a clear cut issue.

It is not the job of the police to decide what is constitutional and what is not. That is the job of the judicial branch of government. That is why cops just follow orders, as they are supposed to do.
 
Did Mr. Mancus ever consider that the LEO was shining him on? He said he recognized him as a local LEO. Maybe the officer recognized Mancus as the village idiot.
 
Maybe the cop didn't know who the hell PM was. Maybe he thought some jerk reporter was trying to record him saying something that would embarass the police dept. Think about what you would say if some stranger walked up and started asking you questions like that.

------------------
Wayne D
NRA Life Member
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top