REFUSING to talk to the police. STUPID.

Fallschirmjäger said:

...You're going to do it all over again? You're going to Detain them, and then when they ask if they're detained, you're going to say "No" and watch them walk away. And the next time it happens, you're going to Detain them and again say "No, you're not being detained" and watch them walk away again?...

Click to expand...

Einstein said that doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different outcome, is a definition of insanity.

[Yeah, I know, he did not mean it the way we usually take it, but I do find that part of the OP's post to be particularly advocating insane action. So the quotation came to mind.]

Citizen said:

2) we hear a profound silence from so-called good cops who should be publicly decrying the actions of their colleagues, demanding reforms, sounding the call for stiff penalties to help them remove the bad cops from their ranks, and so forth.

Click to expand...

This profound silence seems to fly in the face of the comments '99% of LEOs are honest, good and uphold 2A and 4A rights' comments.

Why? Well, the sad truth is that the 'good officers' use the loose cannons and aggressive LEOs much like one uses a junkyard dog, to flush out the vermin. And, like gill net-fishing, if it catches a few good guys, well we just throw them back.

In fact, I think the 'good cops' often depend on the bad ones to make them look good/better and they are silent because the practices suit their purposes. This goes all the way to the top - my hypothesis, only.

I do know that many, many good cops are embarrassed by the actions of their colleagues, and a couple have told me just when they had the situation calmed down (an ultimate goal in many cases - less drama and chaos is better), the 'aggressive LEO' will come up and undo all his work.

It's not a commentary on LEOs or authority, it's a comment on human nature. We need to empower LEOs, give better education, better pay and support from the top down. OTHERWISE we will get what happens when we underpay, demotivate and frustrate and stress out the officers back at the station. Poor equipment, uninterested supervisors with political agendas. It's gotta be the pits in many departments. It's important we see the 'root causes', which is why I'm diatribing.

QilvinLEO said:

..."By talking to the officers, I will probalby just get myself in trouble". Yes, when you are under arrest, shut your mouth. When you are being detained, shut your mouth. When your in a voluntary contact with an officer and doing nothing illegal, no need to shut your mouth...

Click to expand...

How wrong can you get?!

The reason for the "Am I being detained?" question is precisely to determine whether the contact is voluntary. If the answer is no, the SMART thing to do is leave. The voluntary contact is still investigatory. What is STUPID (to use YOUR word) is talking to someone who is "investigating" your actions, especially in a situation where they can get away with not informing you of your rights because your are not YET a suspect!

Someone raised the point of ignorantly breaking the law. Because of this possibility (see the bit about the fish in the video), talking to an officer, who is acting as an agent of the State, is STUPID (again, YOUR word).

In a similar vein, YOUR ignorance of the law is no excuse either. Violate my rights at your legal peril. I will show no legal mercy to an officer who violates my rights and is not willing to make amends.

QilvinLEO said:

Bring the tally up to one person on my side.

Click to expand...

He is another officer.

Oh, and on his "know [sic] harm" comment: again, I refer you to the example of the fish in the video. Discussing one's actions, that he is convinced are legal, but may not be 100%, with an officer acting as an agent of the STATE, is (to use YOUR word) STUPID.

golddigger14s said:

Like I said, some people on this and other forums are opinionated. I don't think any body hates you. Disagree: yes, Hate: no. If I am wrong, please put the flamethrowers down now.

Click to expand...

I hate what he said. I hate the attitude it betrays. I don't hate the man. I pity his ignorance.

Badger Johnson said:

This profound silence seems to fly in the face of the comments '99% of LEOs are honest, good and uphold 2A and 4A rights' comments.

Why? Well, the sad truth is that the 'good officers' use the loose cannons and aggressive LEOs much like one uses a junkyard dog, to flush out the vermin. And, like gill net-fishing, if it catches a few good guys, well we just throw them back.

In fact, I think the 'good cops' often depend on the bad ones to make them look good/better and they are silent because the practices suit their purposes. This goes all the way to the top - my hypothesis, only.

I do know that many, many good cops are embarrassed by the actions of their colleagues, and a couple have told me just when they had the situation calmed down (an ultimate goal in many cases - less drama and chaos is better), the 'aggressive LEO' will come up and undo all his work.

It's not a commentary on LEOs or authority, it's a comment on human nature. We need to empower LEOs, give better education, better pay and support from the top down. OTHERWISE we will get what happens when we underpay, demotivate and frustrate and stress out the officers back at the station. Poor equipment, uninterested supervisors with political agendas. It's gotta be the pits in many departments. It's important we see the 'root causes', which is why I'm diatribing.

Click to expand...

But 'GOOD COPS' wouldn't remain silent about BAD COPS. One can't suggest that because one cop is evil that, that makes them an angel. It would only (at the least) make them the lessor of two evils. IMO

William Fisher said:

But 'GOOD COPS' wouldn't remain silent about BAD COPS. One can't suggest that because one cop is evil that, that makes them an angel. It would only (at the least) make them the lessor of two evils. IMO

Click to expand...

It doesn't make one an angel, but by contrast gives them the appearance of being angelic.

Badger Johnson said:

It doesn't make one an angel, but by contrast gives them the appearance of being angelic.

Click to expand...

Oh, jeez! We have enough LEOs who think they are the law. Lets not give a divine connection to the rest!

Seriously, though. Some of us are treading close to the line of cop-bashing. Lets take a moment to remember where the line is so we don't step over it. I'm not saying anybody needs to change anything already written. I'm saying the line is not far away; if any aren't quite paying attention to the line, its probably time to start.

Citizen said:

Oh, jeez! We have enough LEOs who think they are the law. Lets not give a divine connection to the rest!

Seriously, though. Some of us are treading close to the line of cop-bashing. Lets take a moment to remember where the line is so we don't step over it. I'm not saying anybody needs to change anything already written. I'm saying the line is not far away; if any aren't quite paying attention to the line, its probably time to start.

Click to expand...

cop bashing

William Fisher said:

Click to expand...

Don't they sign up cause they like the abuse?

Citizen said:

Oh, jeez! We have enough LEOs who think they are the law. Lets not give a divine connection to the rest!

Seriously, though. Some of us are treading close to the line of cop-bashing. Lets take a moment to remember where the line is so we don't step over it. I'm not saying anybody needs to change anything already written. I'm saying the line is not far away; if any aren't quite paying attention to the line, its probably time to start.

Click to expand...

I disagree that anyone has even come close to 'cop bashing' in this thread. I see a discussion about LEO attitudes, LEO opinions and how they affect LEO behavior and impact LAC reaction to different attitudes displayed in different situations.

As for Qiv, well, I feel that he is getting closer and closer to being confirmed as a TROLL.

As for the original topic of this thread, well, I have seen it time after time that LEO and most other state agencies are not interested in the TRUTH, but rather, their agenda is to find evidence to PROVE wrongdoing to get a conviction. IMHO, none but a very few of my local LEO have earned my respect, but I do not confuse that with trustworthyness. The only trust I have for any LEO is for them to do the very least they are required by their superiors to do, which is generally a good thing, IMHO.

Talking to an officer, even in a voluntary situation can and does lead to charges often enough for LAC to proceed with caution during any encounter with LEO.

okboomer said:

I disagree that anyone has even come close to 'cop bashing' in this thread.

Click to expand...

OK.

As a definition, I see "cop bashing" as characterizing all cops as ignorant, pig-headed, jack-booted thugs, etc., etc. Those epithets are, to me at least, just as wrong as the various epithets we see applied to certain ethnic groups. Both are deplorable and uncivilized.

What we have had so far in this thread is a discussion about the actions and motivations of some cops and why those actions and motivations are not actively resisted by other law enforcement officers. That, to me, is a legitimate discussion concerning an issue that effects every citizen and not just those of us who choose an activity seen by both LEA and fellow citizens as "outside the norm."

All too often, the "good cop" majority will, at best, remain silent concerning the actions of the "bad cops". There are a variety of reasons for this with the fear of retribution high on the list. Does anyone remember Frank Serpico? A New York undercover cop who exposed a lot of corruption among his fellow officers and got shot for his troubles? He was set up to be shot by some of his fellow officers and, at one time, was living in fear of his life. Nobody wants to live that way.

Badger Johnson said:

Are you asserting that the typical LEO is a chicken-sh*te who is so afraid of the common citizen that they have to act illegally to obtain their agenda (which is to make an arrest in any way possible, including arresting the victim)?

That would just be wrong to assume that because we know that 99.999% of LEOs are...(checking notes)...honest, law-abiding and kind.

BTW, who is teaching them how to abridge our rights? The Academy or is it OJT?

Click to expand...

Well I'm not asserting that, but if they really upheld the Constitution they would advise everyone they come in official contact with to **** and not talk to them. And tell people to never allow a search of their person or vehicle. But they don't do that do they.

I guess I'm upset by their pledge to defend and uphold the Con..., but they they get trained on how to walk all over it. Just have new officers skip the pledge, that way they can proceed with a clear conscience.

WalkingWolf said:

I am not going to take the drivel apart piece by piece, but as a former decorated LEO that has been wounded in the line of duty, you need to find another job. If you find the job so stressful that you feel the need to vent to law abiding citizens who as a group come together to discuss one or all of the freedoms provided by the constitution, then the job is not for you. For one thing if I was your boss and found you whimpering in a public forum representing my force you at the least would be counseled. Somewhere some of you have forgotten that public relations is part of your job. Not acting like a three year old because the public does not worship the badge. I suggest that if you are a LEO, and you wish to keep your sanity, you for the most part leave work at work and find a hobby. I also suggest that you make friends or contacts in the NON LEO community to help you understand and interact with the public on and off duty.

As far as the man with gun calls it is the job of your boss, and your dispatchers, and 911 personal to know the laws and customs of the area you work. The proper response for a 911 operator is to ask what the person is doing with the gun, no matter where the location or jurisdiction is. There is a big difference between walking peacefully with a firearm, even if it is illegal, or violent handling of a firearm. The line officer has the impetus or should have to be able to weigh a situation. The most that should be done with LAC man with gun call is drive or walk by and confirm that it is a LAC peacefully going about their business. You are required to do no more than that. If the caller is a persistent caller tying up emergency lines I suggest the department educate the caller.

BTW citizens do not have to kiss your ass, that is not a violation of the law. On the other hand if you do not kiss our ass, I most assure that sooner or later you will be looking for employment. Or enjoying a room at the gray bar hotel yourself if you take it too far.

Click to expand...

Well said.

NavyLCDR said:

SNIP I disagree with your first statement. There is nothing in the Constitution that says it is the government's responsibility that citizens know what their rights are. I have no problem with police asking whatever they want to ask.

Click to expand...

My thinking on this has shifted over time.

I have decided it is not a good idea to let police ask. It becomes a cop game, capitalizing on citizen ignorance, timidity, and social nature.

Just for example, let me illustrate using the 4th Amendment. The 4A says in relevant part, "The right of the people to be secure...against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated;"

Well, along comes SCOTUS saying that a search done with consent is reasonable. Suddenly the police turn this into a game of asking consent all over the place, sometimes just for a fishing expedition, sometimes intimidating, sometimes using a trickily worded question, sometimes badgering: "Well, if you have nothing to hide, why do you mind?" Etc, etc. I didn't see where the 4A said it is limited to only people who know about it, who are courageous enough to refuse consent. Even timid people have 4A rights. Even people who, through disuse, have forgotten about it, or never learned how to exercise it from their government school.

Let's say I ask you permission to sleep with your wife. Does my asking suddenly make it reasonable to sleep with your wife? Is my asking reasonable? Granted the asking is not as offensive as the actual doing, but that does not make it reasonable to ask.

For comparison, imagine a government solidly committed to protecting rights. Imagine a government that included up-to-date changes in 4A and 5A case law every time it mailed out tax return booklets. Or, a Department of Motor Vehicles that included in every driver's manual all of a citizen's 4A and 5A rights as related to encountering police while driving. Imagine a government where police were required, at every "business contact" to announce, "I am investigating you; you have the right to _____ " Government's sole legitimate reason for existence is to protect rights. If government really wanted to do that, it could go a long, long way toward protecting them by educating and reminding people at every turn.

Regarding government taking advantage of citizen ignorance, Justice Marshall said this in his dissent in Schneckloth vs Bustamonte: I must conclude, with some reluctance, that, when the Court speaks of practicality, what it really is talking of is the continued ability of the police to capitalize on the ignorance of citizens so as to accomplish by subterfuge what they could not achieve by relying only on the knowing relinquishment of constitutional rights. Even the occasional SCOTUS justice will openly recognize what's going on.

Letting cops ask just gives cops the chance to stretch the limits. Rights belong to everybody, not just those who know to exercise them, not just the forceful, not just the smart (who know not to fall prey to the cops' various conversational gambits).

Let's say I ask you permission to sleep with your wife.

Click to expand...

Wow...

Cop; " Mind if I search your vehicle?"
Me; "Mind If I sleep with your wife?"

"Kind of a stupid Question, isn't it..."

xd shooter said:

Wow...

Cop; " Mind if I search your vehicle?"
Me; "Mind If I sleep with your wife?"

"Kind of a stupid Question, isn't it..."

Click to expand...

Imagine a government where a cop asking consent to search your vehicle can be charged with disorderly conduct for an utterance that would tend to provoke a disturbance.

BaconMan said:

Just watched the video "Don't talk to the Police" and the professor made good points for individuals who were criminals. If you are a law abiding citizen, it does you know harm to talk to the police. By not talking during a stop or sounding like a person who is upset because you were stopped only makes matters worse. If the officer is there because he/she received a call, they have to respond. If they don't, people will complain, it's that simple. If the officer stops a person who is OCing to check the person out, oh well, that person has to comply and complain later is he/she felt the stop was unjustified. A word of advise to everyone, I say ask the officer if you are being detained, if they know their stuff they will tell you rite then, yes or no, so you know where you stand. If he/she says, yes, stay where you are, if he/she says, no, then excuse yourself and kick rocks.:dude:

Click to expand...

You need to watch it again (the whole thing) and then read the book "Three Felonies a Day" by Harvey A. Silverglate. There are so many obscure laws that the average person doesn't know that if an LEO or prosecutor is looking to nail you, which is their primary job, ANYTHING you say can hang you.

QilvinLEO said:

We serve you. Therefore, when your fellow citizen believes you, the OCer, is doing something illegal, it is our duty to respond.

Click to expand...

If you serve me (if I were in your jurisdiction), then it's also your duty to not commit a crime against me.
And if you see me doing nothing illegal, why bother me?
As I've said before, if you want to buy your coffee & sit & chat that's fine.
But if you start asking nosy or inappropriate questions, the conversation will end.

QilvinLEO said:

"By talking to the officers, I will probably just get myself in trouble".
Yes, when you are under arrest, shut your mouth.
When you are being detained, shut your mouth.
When you're in a voluntary contact with an officer and doing nothing illegal, no need to shut your mouth.

Click to expand...

:banghead: Go watch the 2 "don't talk to cops" videos.
With the myriad of laws, most of which I don't know, I've probably done something illegal I don't know about.
(Example above about carrying in the next town over.)

QilvinLEO said:

I will gaurentee I have never done anything to harm or break your consititional rights to any of you.
So why do you immediately treat me as one of "THOSE COPS"?

Click to expand...

Why are some people who have been bitten by dogs scared of all dogs?
Why are some women who have been raped uncomfortable around all men?
And why is the citizen in the wrong for expecting the public servant to know & follow the laws s/he is hired to enforce?

I've had 2 very bad experiences with police (resulting in 2 1983 suits... yes, that bad). The most recent one left me with diagnosed PTSD (which I think I'm pretty much over). I will be cordial as long as I don't think the officer is out of line, overstepping legal bounds. But I won't waive my rights just for her convenience or curiosity. (My friend who happens to be a LEO might ask nicely & I might consider his request, friend to friend... but he still might be told no.)

QilvinLEO said:

If your goal is truely, as a OCer, is the educate others in the benefit of being an OCer, this should include the officers of the law

Click to expand...

About 93% of the reason I carry is self-protection.
About 3% education, 3% "because I can", & 1% potential protection of others.
If you want to have a chat about the merits of OC, or LACs, or the intricacies of the latest change to the cc law, fine. I've done that with friends who happen to be LEO.
Even explained the ins & outs of the "gun-free" school zone law one morning. Encouraged him to go read it for himself, just so nobody else gets jammed up wrongfully.

BaconMan said:

Just watched the video "Don't talk to the Police" and the professor made good points for individuals who were criminals.
If you are a law abiding citizen, it does you know [sic] harm to talk to the police.

Click to expand...

Go watch it several more times, both parts of the video, until the message sinks in.

QilvinLEO said:

[attending a meet-n-greet] will probably not happen anytime soon based upon the amount of hate some individuals already have for me. If it does, You will not know I am QilvinLEO, that is for sure.

Click to expand...

I'd be perfectly happy meeting you & chatting in person, as long as you don't try to ask nosy & inappropriate questions in your official persona. (Or at least, understand that the conversation would be cut off at that point.)

QilvinLEO said:

For the individuals who carry in order to deter crime to happen to another person instead of them.
That is not deterrence.
Deterrence is the prevention of crime though some act, which we all know is impossible.
...push the criminal to murder, rape, rob etc. a less prepared law abiding 19 year old girl that knows nothing about firearms

Click to expand...

If I, by driving defensively, avoid being hit by a car which then crashes into someone in the next lane who wasn't as attentive, is it my fault that the other driver was harmed? No. That person needed to be paying attention, and the driver of the out-of-control car caused the problem in the first place.

What a criminal does isn't my fault or responsibility.
By carrying, I deterred a crime against me. That's my goal.
What another adult does with her life, the choices she makes, aren't my concern unless they affect me.
Unless she hires me, or was my child, I am not responsible for her education.

An adult may legally possess a pistol. In most states, an adult may legally carry a pistol openly with no gov't interference. If she, through ignorance of her rights or conscious choice not to exercise them, does not effectively defend herself, that's her fault. It's the fault of the criminal for attacking her, & hers for not being prepared for an emergency.

I'll be sorry to hear she was harmed, don't get me wrong. But I won't feel guilty for somehow causing it.