I know. That's why this change to the War on the Public mentality is so disturbing. The local police used to be the local citizens. Now they are militarized professionals who fear the people they used to be.

We're living through scary times, for sure... The whole of the western world has changed, and not for the better, I'm afraid.

 

I know. That's why this change to the War on the Public mentality is so disturbing. The local police used to be the local citizens. Now they are militarized professionals who fear the people they used to be.

What we need in America are more cops like this one.

http://www.thelocal.se/20160728/did-this-swedish-cop-just-make-the-arrest-of-the-year

YOU ARE NOW CONDEMNED TO DEATH BY SNU SNU!

 

It's at least partly a downside of the precious "diversity" we are all harangued to admire. By that I mean that the people paying for and running law enforcement are not from the same pool as those on the receiving end of it. Anytime you have a lopsided authority, it's toxic to both sides. Parents versus children, prisoner versus guard, DMV worker versus citizen, and so on. The powerful become corrupt and the weak become hateful.

Ideally, cops are responsible to their tax-paying bosses and the taxpayers are happy with the policing they pay for.

So how do you police a gang-filled ghetto as in Chicago in such a way that the lopsided authority doesn't produce the inevitable imbalance? I simply don't know, but things would look different if they put me in charge of it.

 

Our esteemed Sheriff did come across like a rabid Gestapo. The, "he" to whom you refer did quote the Sheriff:
“thrown down on the ground with a gun pointed at them — or worse.”
“going to take one in the chest because he’s a threat.”

Yeah, a properly vetted citizen with a carry permit obliviously walks in on a crime scene, so he's, “going to take one in the chest because he’s a threat.”
That's not the kind of Sheriff I want and I am eagerly awaiting the next election. There are two victims of police harassment running against him. I hope one of them backs out so they don't split the opposition vote and let the present Sheriff win by default.

As much as I don't like this guy's positions, I have to admit that I think this statement is being take WAY out of context. The block states:

"The good sheriff said Thursday that law abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights will be 'thrown down on the ground with a gun pointed at them — or worse.'”

This makes it appear as if the sheriff is maintaining that anyone, anywhere, that is exercising their Second Amendment rights in any way will be thrown down on the ground at gun point. But the context in which this statement was made was:

"For instance, he said, if an officer arrives at the scene of a crime and sees someone with a weapon, 'At a minimum, they’re going to be thrown down on the ground with a gun pointed at them — or worse.'”

So how should an officer respond when, upon arriving at a crime scene, they see someone with a weapon? I think this guy's statement about being thrown to the ground "at a minimum" is exaggeration to make a point, but in many instances such a response would be quite justifiable. If YOU (or I) came upon a crime scene (that wasn't already under control of the cops) and saw someone with a gun, would we automatically assume that the person posed zero threat? I sure wouldn't -- and I wouldn't blame the cops for assessing the situation in a manner that afforded them good safety, up to and including drawing on the person and disarming them until their bona fides are established. In fact, in most states with rational concealed carry statutes the rights of police to disarm a concealed carry permittee during any interaction with them are codified in law, along with the requirement to return any firearms once that interaction is concluded. Another thing that (nearly) all concealed carry holders are made clearly aware of is the need to keep in mind that in almost all scenarios in which someone, other than a cop, is armed at a crime scene it IS the criminal; so while the cops DO need to keep in mind that it might NOT be the criminal, they are still going to have firmly in the back of their mind that it probably IS the bad guy. So the onus is on US (and, frankly, the motivation is strongest on US, since WE would be the ones to get shot, however mistakenly) to make sure that we are NOT seen as the criminal -- and, yes, depending on the circumstances that might be easier said than done, which is why, as a general rule, a private citizen should draw a weapon only for the purpose of dealing with an immediate threat that cannot be dealt with any other way and they should holster their weapon as soon as that immediate thread no longer exists (regardless of how it was resolved).

 

What we need in America are more cops like this one.

That's the best looking cop I've ever seen!
But then, the second best looking cop I ever saw was a devout lesbian.

 

This thread needs a bit of Dead Kennedys.

 

As much as I don't like this guy's positions, I have to admit that I think this statement is being take WAY out of context.

It's unfortunate that the context of the rebuttal wasn't in the original statements. It would have avoided all this controversy. Meanwhile, thanks for posting the summary for those who don't want to click on the links.

The more I think about this, the more I realize the Sheriff must have assumed everybody would know he was talking about the bad guy putting one in your chest because the police never put just one bullet in your chest. Cop-think so deep that he assumed we all think like cops.

 

It's my position that to be "misquoted" one must have a reporter quote them. It happens all the time. With the "freedom of the press", sometimes the reporter will send you a draft copy, not for editorial control, but to make sure they have the details correct. Misquotes of a technical nature certainly exist.

 

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/08/02/police-fatally-shoot-armed-woman-in-baltimore-county/

In charging documents obtained by WJZ, police say Gaines was pulled over on March 10, 2016 when officers noticed she had a rectangle piece of cardboard where her license place should be.

The rear piece of cardboard read, “Any Government official who compromises this pursuit to happiness and right to travel, will be held criminally responsible and fined, as this is a natural right and freedom.”

A piece of cardboard that was placed in front of the car read “free traveler”.

Just how nuts do you have to be for that?

 

Maybe you even know some of them. This is another well known thing with extreme right wing groups or militias or patriot groups.
http://archive.adl.org/mwd/trafstop.html
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/08/...iapatriot-groups-among-greatest-threat-to-us/
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/...n=display_arch&article_id=2862&issue_id=22013

 

There is too much to say... but all change comes from within. That goes for any person black, white or rainbow-colored. I do not care who you are, but as long as you cling to the past, no chamge is possible. So as long as someone wants me to appologise for what my grandfather may or may not have done, there is no way forward. This is true slavery. Slavery is in the head and the mind, so is true freedom. I am afraid these people are slaves forever... One can be free while in prison and vise versa. These are sad times if only because we have seen it all before...

 

Maybe you even know some of them. This is another well known thing with extreme right wing groups or militias or patriot groups.

I don't think even the extreme right wing welcomes these nut job idiots from an insane little world.

 

Maybe you even know some of them. This is another well known thing with extreme right wing groups or militias or patriot groups.

I don't even know what's "right" or "left" any more. It used to be that The Constitution was the Bible of the patriots and the U.S Congress. Now, patriots are called terrorists and "Constitutionalist" is a slander when it comes from the mouth of a LEO. So, clue me in. If I wish The Constitution was still in force, am I right, left, or terrorist?

 

these people are slaves forever

They are slaves of their own choosing.

 

She is a fine example. I'll let you decide whether it's a good one or a bad one.

 

If I wish The Constitution was still in force, am I right, left, or terrorist?

Yes.

 

I don't even know what's "right" or "left" any more. It used to be that The Constitution was the Bible of the patriots and the U.S Congress. Now, patriots are called terrorists and "Constitutionalist" is a slander when it comes from the mouth of a LEO. So, clue me in. If I wish The Constitution was still in force, am I right, left, or terrorist?

You need to think for your self and do what is right for ALL people. Only living by a "party" line is whats bad about our country and the world now. To blindly support one party's rhetoric, just because you see your self as a dem, repub, or what ever is where the world is going wrong. Obstructing, refusing to compromise to get things done, seeing the bogey man behind every shadow, is not doing the country or world any good.

Some of the blame has to be laid on the internet and social media. It allows people to be faceless and say things to others that they would never say to others face to face. Empathy and consideration for others is what got us (society) to where we were before the internet/social media started bring us down. The refusal to see good in others only breeds a need to retaliate for slights real or perceived.

 

Only living by a "party" line is whats bad about our country

I don't even know which political party is called right or left (and I don't live by any of them).

Yes.

Boo! Not helpful.

At first blush, it looks like few people know which side The Constitution is on.

 

I don't think even the extreme right wing welcomes these nut job idiots from an insane little world.

So because she was black she is wrong? Of course she was wrong, but she is no different than the white "sovereign", "militia", "patriot" groups that do the same thing. You can't separate these type of people into right or wrong because of color of skin. Their ALL wrong.

 

At first blush, it looks like few people know which side The Constitution is on.

Finding a party and candidate on the side of the Constitution may be a challenge, but one is demonstrably against it. There is no lack of evidence of this fact, but here's a recent summary.