Special Citizens

Yeah, "LEO worship" is subsiding at the same rate as "citizens are basically good people".

LEOs are getting less respect than they used to because of the way they act or the things that they do. This is because LEOs come from society not some magical ethics world. As society degrades so will those who serve the public.
 
Last edited:
Most LEOs deserve respect.

That said, this thread is about specific legislation and its consequences, and neither worship or cop-bashing will add to the discussion. The latter, especially, will have its own consequences.
 
LEOs are getting less respect than they used to because of the way they act or the things that they do. This is because LEOs come from society not some magical ethics world. As society degrades so will those who serve the public.

Agreed. They come from the society and are empowered by the government. And government as well comes from the people. Its all connected eh?

Most ...neither worship or cop-bashing will add to the discussion. The latter, especially, will have its own consequences.

Bashing...I'd agree is a NO GO. Being critical of LEOs shouldn't be seen as bashing however and we shouldn't be so terrified of exposing them as individuals or PDs as institutions when the "special citizens" or the organizations the empower them get out of line.
 
Last edited:
Being critical of LEOs shouldn't be seen as bashing

Depends on how it's done. A generic negative categorization of all LEO's everywhere is bashing. An historic pattern referenced of ONE department, or several specific departments that share that same historic pattern evidenced by federal investigations and mandates isn't.

To me: LEO's are turning to crap is bashing however -> LAPD and Seattle PD have both had a history of poor choices from management on down leading to the Feds getting directly involved in those management decisions trickling down to the rank and file... is not. Neither is: NYPD has some image rehab to do following their stop and frisk program. The difference is a specific pattern or program that can be attributed to a specific department.
 
Also, I do not think that is bashing when exposing what appears to be a discriminatory trend in laws favoring LAW ENFORCEMENT as a whole.
 
^of course^ that's why I said criticize (meaning it stemmed from study) and not bash (meaning it stemmed from emotion).

Ill upgrade my comment with the adjective "specific". We should have specific criticism and skepticism of LEOs and PDs. Not for recreational purposes but so they improve. After all, they are OUR servants. Not the other way around.

ATX has an interested police chief and PD. Good and bad. I never bash him/them but there are appropriate and specific criticisms to offer up.
 
JimDandy said:
Depends on how it's done. A generic negative categorization of all LEO's everywhere is bashing. An historic pattern referenced of ONE department, or several specific departments that share that same historic pattern evidenced by federal investigations and mandates isn't.
And we have a winner! Thank you, JD. :)

<nudges thread back on topic>
 
I do not feel there is a special citizen status applied to LEO's. Many of the politicians though want to keep either their level of security (for those that have security details), or to be able to say "Hey, the public is still protected because we allow LE to carry/possess certain firearms." I think this aspect is what has been pushing for some of the LE exemptions over the years, and not a specific feeling that LE is greater then the public.

Getting back to the OP:

OP said:
...I do have a problem with them being able to own them in their personal inventory if they are illegal to the general public. I feel it should be the property of the state and they should be the caretakers of said weapons. The states should purchase these, maintain these, and issue them as needed. I understand the special circumstances of an individual who may be on a SWAT team and that they may need to carry the dreaded black rifle in their trunk.

I do agree with the sentiment about personal ownership you mentioned for the most part. The part I do disagree with you is that due to the budget situation, there are departments that refuse to purchase the item (mostly carbines) and basically push the officer to do without, or purchase hisself (where legal).

Also, for some of the small towns/rural counties, there may not be a SWAT unit to call (speaking of a useful response time) nor may there be a huge availability of officers to respond to assist. I know where I work, there is 1 or 2 officers working (depending on day/time/etc) and even though its fairly normal calls (nothing major usually), I do see a need for an officer to be able to carry a carbine because he/she may be on their own for a bit if a shooting was called dispatched out. Nearest available deputy may be in the far corner of the county and be 30-45 min out or more. So I do realize I am a bit biased here with this view. Also, for the record, I do not feel that the public should be restricted from owning the various firearms and mags that are being discussed, or banned in some states.

JimDandy said:
...And like most of us have said, we don't object to LEOSA, we just feel its only half of what should have been enacted...

I hear a good bit of complaints about the public about LEOSA from non-LE folks, and I see what they are getting at with respect to being able to carry a few more places under LEOSA, then is able to with a CCW permit. What most fail to see is how LEOSA is essentially a "may issue" and comes with the whim of the admin of the department, which is vastly different from how a "shall issue" CCW permit is.

Like it or not, I prefer an interstate compact type system for the CCW's and every state being "shall issue" and my view is due to the states rights side of the issue. Also, due to LE agencies restricting an officers ability to carry with a CCW permit off duty, I do feel that either, the ability to restrict off duty carry needs to change, or there should be some level of "shall issue" for law enforcement also (speaking of LEOSA), as it is for the public in many states.
 
Last edited:
I'm fairly new to the site, and I'm basically continuing off-topic, so I guess that's two strikes against me. But I have been reading this thread and I can't help but think of a conversation my wife and I have had repeatedly as long as I've known her. I think that police officers, judges, etc. are entitled to respect by virtue of their position. The individual officer/judge may be a jerk, but the "system" only works when those people have the public's respect. If officers and/or judges are on average of such low quality at this point, then we are in trouble.
 
The individual officer/judge may be a jerk, but the "system" only works when those people have the public's respect. If officers and/or judges are on average of such low quality at this point, then we are in trouble.

I think this is part of the problem. We are in trouble, but not necessarily because the individual people filling the positions are "such low quality" to make it so. Although I'll not deny knowing a few specific bad apples myself. And I know good ones too.

I come from a family that is basically "full of cops" if you will. A number of LEOs as cousins, though neither I nor my wife work in enforcement. And previous generations as well. So I saw some changes.

And I can certainly say that the days of the friendly officer sitting at the lunch counter talking to the little boy in the Norman Rockwell picture are long gone. Forever.

In part it's sociological change in how a far more densely congregated and sophisticated criminal element interacts with law enforcement. After the fourth or fifth gang murder of Barney Fife occurs the small towns police department gets far less friendly. And just because you might not be out to kill Barney doesn't mean he knows that when he stops you.

After a while Barney can't take police work any more, and Kojak shows up.

Certainly I've condensed 65 years into 50 words, but I hope you get the point. The police *ARE* different today. They have to be. And it's a shame, no kidding.

And I agree that a lot of law enforcement agencies are reaching a tipping point that they're loosing the confidence of the citizenry, which is dangerous. They have to correct and step back. I'm not going to rehash the recent LAPD debacle in this post, but I think that set them back quite a few yards behind the scrimmage in the public trust game.

I don't have those answers. Wish I did.
 
i have to admit that i am surprised by the hostility, vehemence, and ignorance toward LEO's displayed in this thread. No, i am not surprised that some posters feel that way or express those opinions, what i am surprised about is that the moderators encourage it and participate in it themselves. That I have not experienced in any other gun forum that i have participated in.

The overwhelming majority of police officers and firefighters for that matter are strongly patriotic and strongly pro second amendment for everyone. I personally in the last few months have made numerous phone calls, written numerous letters and emails to my federal and state representatives opposing any negative changes in gun laws for anyone. I have also contributed to a lawsuit here in New York to overturn the SAFE Act for all.

Maybe but the response is to this assertion of special rights. for police officers. It isn't just carry, it is even soley non official, not department owner home defense weapons lases that police and polciue organizaitosn have insisted on special exemptions.

Look at the comment below:


My son is an LEO and has arrested drug felons as well as other violent felons. He has appeared in court and testified against them, some are in prison for a very long time, others not so long. My feeling is that I want my son to have whatever weapon is necessary to protect himself, his wife and my grand children. I would not want him out gunned by the criminals. Also why disarm him after he has served the public for many years making him an easier target for payback from the felons he protected us from ?

There is no evidence that retired or active police are at any more risk at home from felons than the general public is at risk. In fact the numbers show they are in less danger at home.


If anything police and retired police are MUCH more likely to use a weapon to commit suicide, so to apply the current climate's logic it is specifically active and retired police who should be the most prohibited class for home weapons ownership.

When you couple those facts with the evident presence of a large number of high ranking police officials donning their uniforms to publically support gun control -- and participate in the smearing, stigmatizing and scapegoating of law abiding owners --and not raise the issue of felons on the street, you get a natural and just resentment.

Do you think a retired NY cop ought to be able to keep a 10 round clip on his home defense weapons when he is factually in no more danger than anyone else or not? If you think so you are part of the smear and irrational fear campaign. Do you think retired cops who hire themselves out as private security to the wealthy ought to be able to have 10 round clips? If so you are asserting special status for the wealthy as well as for the cops
 
Very insightful post, mrbatchelor. As with many issues, there are multiple potential causes and no obvious solution. But I think you hit on one of the real problems with police forces today: how militarized they are. It has occurred to me more than once in the last few years -- and the specific issue posed by this thread really brings it home -- that some of our law enforcement agencies may be in the process of becoming exactly what our founding fathers were afraid of.
 
"My son is an LEO and has arrested drug felons as well as other violent felons. He has appeared in court and testified against them, some are in prison for a very long time, others not so long. My feeling is that I want my son to have whatever weapon is necessary to protect himself, his wife and my grand children. I would not want him out gunned by the criminals. Also why disarm him after he has served the public for many years making him an easier target for payback from the felons he protected us from ?
Don't get me wrong, I am as upset and angry as anyone over the NY Safe act and other laws like it, I have and continue to write letters, send emails and make phone calls to let my representatives know how I feel and who will and won't get my vote for re election. "

I understand the above position, being a Father, also retired military, but in most circumstances, the police are responding after the fact. And when they do get active, they respond in numbers, have swat teams, negotiators, other special units and the "every day LEO is mostly backup,crowd control or traffic.

We, on the otherhand, in a situation, it's US as in singular. I'm not saying anything to lower the value of any LEO, or simplify their duties but "WE" are mostly defending ourselves alone. And "WE" don't have kevlar and bullet resistent vests.

I believe in equal armament as to say if "WE" can't have semi automatic weopons and large magazines, why should "they" or anyone else in a domestic setting.

The "safe act" was a knee jerk oportunity for a shot at the fast track to the presidency. It is not "common sense" as the dictator states.

All the mass shootings are horrible. But so is the manner the president used with live children to support his values. The anti gunners are fueled by mass murders but fail to acknowlege that law abiding sane citizens who are following current restrictive laws, are not involved but the proposed legislation,and current, mostly affects the sane,law abiding citizen.

Change the laws that upon a pat down, if an illegal weopon is found..5 years minimum with no parole. 10 years minimum for a crime with a weopon..no parole...20 years to life if injury or death....no parole....no exceptions.
Get the illegal people off the streets. Leave the sane,law abiding citizen alone.
 
Very insightful post, mrbatchelor. As with many issues, there are multiple potential causes and no obvious solution. But I think you hit on one of the real problems with police forces today: how militarized they are. It has occurred to me more than once in the last few years -- and the specific issue posed by this thread really brings it home -- that some of our law enforcement agencies may be in the process of becoming exactly what our founding fathers were afraid of.

There weren't any "police forces" in 1776. The whole concept is relatively new in history. Not to say that there hasn't been a "high sheriff" for centuries. Especially in places under English common law.

But the militarization of crime is driving the militarization of law enforcement. And that comes from money. Profit. Pure and simple. Nothing more. The number of weirdos in crime for the power trip is vanishingly small.
 
TDL
There is no evidence that retired or active police are at any more risk at home from felons than the general public is at risk. In fact the numbers show they are in less danger at home.

do you have a citation for that? this is the first i have heard of that.
 
"My son is an LEO and has arrested drug felons as well as other violent felons. He has appeared in court and testified against them, some are in prison for a very long time, others not so long. My feeling is that I want my son to have whatever weapon is necessary to protect himself, his wife and my grand children. I would not want him out gunned by the criminals. Also why disarm him after he has served the public for many years making him an easier target for payback from the felons he protected us from ?



We do think he should be able to have whatever weapon is necessary to protect himself, his wife, and your grand children.

We also believe that WE should be able to have whatever weapon is necessary to protect OURSELVES and OUR WIVES and OUR CHILDREN. What we want for all of us takes nothing away from him. But mark this well: His life has no more value than mine... and I want the same tools.


Willie

.
 
"His life has no more value than mine... and I want the same tools."
Well put, Willie

"Very insightful post, mrbatchelor. As with many issues, there are multiple potential causes and no obvious solution. But I think you hit on one of the real problems with police forces today: how militarized they are. It has occurred to me more than once in the last few years -- and the specific issue posed by this thread really brings it home -- that some of our law enforcement agencies may be in the process of becoming exactly what our founding fathers were afraid of."

I agree. I think the police forces have become increasingly militant in nature. The police uniform is even evolving more like a BDU than that of a police uniform. If you couple that with the police union pushing for taking away our weapons, there being a seemingly decrease in due process (i.e. in L.A), and fact that legislators are pushing for only retired and active police to have weapons suitable for defense, we run into a very sticky situation. I think our active group in uniform is responsible enough for this to not get into their heads but what about our next generation? This uneven balance of power could easily come back to haunt our children of the future.

I think that officers who are pro RKBA should be debating these points with officers who are not. Consider this like religion (I am sorry for not finding a milder comparison); There are people who are sitting on the fence. Sometimes a little persuasion is all that is needed. Pro-RKBA officers should also be petitioning the Law Enforcement unions as well. The gains may be modest, but anyone who is for the Constitution is a huge gain.
 
I think that officers who are pro RKBA should be debating these points with officers who are not...

A lot of officers who are pro RKBA are trying to win others, including the admin over (though many officers at least in rural NC are pro RKBA).

...Pro-RKBA officers should also be petitioning the Law Enforcement unions as well...

There are many officers who are trying try sway the local FOP and PBA over to taking a strong stance for RKBA. Issue is, no one wants to listen to "Officer Smith" around the corner...They want to listen to Chief or Sheriff so n so instead. Many of the Chiefs, are restrained by politics from taking a public side, and Sheriffs may have a similar issue when it comes to their community which elects them, meaning they are to do the job, not play politics and not have time to do the job they were elected to do.
 
delarosadavid said:
I think the police forces have become increasingly militant in nature.
I think, David, that you meant "military in nature," although militant may apply here as well. ;)

Just for the sake of clarity, a tiny linguistic digression: "Militant" and "Militarized" mean different things.

"Militant" refers to behavior, or to a person who engages in such behavior: "Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist. n. A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party."

While "militarize" means : "1.to give a military character to... 2. to equip with military forces and defenses"

And now, back to your originally scheduled thread... :)

The point about a general trend toward militarizing the police is a very good one.
 
Im my personal opinion the average officer is out there doing the best they can do on one of the worlds most thankless jobs. I get it that not every officer is worthy of that badge but that kind of thing applies to every profession.
50K a year, retirement after 20 years, full medical, uniform allowance, etc. I feel a whole lot worse for my garbage man. I don't want either job, but I'd much rather be a police officer than a garbageman even if pay was matched. I bet the garbage man gets a whole lot less respect than most LEO.

My life would also be more affected by lack of waste disposal services than police. I've lived a few places that effectively had no police(so corrupt you avoided at all costs), but I have never lived somewhere without a decent waste disposal system.

growing body of evidence that innocent law abiding citizens are being attacked with police weapons by former and current police using Ar's and whatever other weapons.
I don't think the problem is new weapons or changes in police behavior. The simple fact is everyone everywhere carries a video camera and recorder on them all the time now. LAPD got it with Rodney King, not because it was the first time they beat someone so high they didn't feel anything into submission, but because it was the first time someone in that neighborhood had a camcorder to record the event. What they were doing was par for the course nationally at that time and if you watch the full 45 minute video and look at what options were available to them you can sort of see why. Now they have tasers and OC spray.

The overwhelming majority of police officers and firefighters for that matter are strongly patriotic and strongly pro second amendment for everyone.
Odd, because LEO in my area HIRE a union to represent them politically and fund the union to do so with a considerable amount of financial support dedicated to political activity. On every last battle for CCW, mag restrictions, AWB, etc., the LEO unions, hired and funded solely by law enforcement officers as their representatives, are anti-gun. In most cases the keystone of the anti-gun campaign is some anti-gun quote by a police chief or LEO union. The union dues of LEOs in my area are wiping out any number of phone calls and letter writing they can claim.

You stay in the biz long enough, you make enemies. You make enough enemies, sooner or later one will try to settle your hash. That alone is justification enough for cops to carry 24/7.
As if police have anywhere close to a monopoly on this claim. I have had my life seriously threatened on several occasions related to work. I am sure many other non-LEO have also.

The part I do disagree with you is that due to the budget situation, there are departments that refuse to purchase the item (mostly carbines) and basically push the officer to do without, or purchase hisself (where legal).
DOD provides rifles to LEO free of charge. The CLEO just has to do a very minimal amount of paperwork.

Ohio AG runs some yearly statistics on crime and they are categorized by industry. I don't know if other states do this or not. I have never seen other statistics so categorized. Police come out on the top of the list for major crimes every year. The stand-out is human trafficking for which they often rank in the top three. Now that isn't to say all police are involved. The percent of police is still small even if greater than other parts of society. What disturbs me about these statistics is I find it hard to believe their fellow officers aren't knowledgeable of their actions and overlooking them or even conspiring with them.

No one is saying police officers shouldn't be able to protect themselves, we/they are just saying they aren't "special" in this need.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top