• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

An Honest Look At Open Carry: Is It Time To Stop?

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
This is only part of the story. Don't forget about all of the "crime prevention" regulations we have. Traffic regs are a prime example. Injury or property damage prevention is not the business of government in a free republic.

Really?

Someone actually prefers to wait until after the idiot running a red light kills someone to impose any kind of penalty?

SMH!
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
Really?

Someone actually prefers to wait until after the idiot running a red light kills someone to impose any kind of penalty?

SMH!

The trouble with many good honest law abiding citizens is they think every body is like them.

What they don't understand is that there are a lot of people who just do not care about others.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
the job of a police officer is to make sure that our rights are not being violated by illegal actions. if you want to call that "protecting us", then you can, but it should never be implied that their job is to "physically" protect us.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
the job of a police officer is to make sure that our rights are not being violated by illegal actions. if you want to call that "protecting us", then you can, but it should never be implied that their job is to "physically" protect us.

Try asking a police officer that you know well, in private for an honest answer. It will NEVER be this.

His job is to go home safely and maybe, -maybe- make his quota.
 

Dario

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2013
Messages
204
Location
Larimer County, CO
In a nation of 320 million persons and with both CC being common in most of the nation and OC legal in most, we're hard pressed to find cases of armed LACs making a situation worse, or causing any real confusion for cops, or getting themselves shot, or shooting each other.

Charles

This unfortunately is the one thing that gets over-looked/down-played the most. Most people don't seem to realize just how large a number 320 million humans is. Even if "gun violence" were to quadruple what it is now it would still be a tiny fraction of that number.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
the job of a police officer is to make sure that our rights are not being violated by illegal actions. if you want to call that "protecting us", then you can, but it should never be implied that their job is to "physically" protect us.

And the Supreme Court has made this abundantly clear, yet there are still morons trying to sell us this carp that police are sheepdogs, and we are sheep.

Many of us own dogs for various reasons, but dogs can be very dangerous, wolves rarely attack people. That does not make all dogs bad, it is just silly to expect a dog to make you safe 24/7 although they are more capable of it than police.

Most of our problems come from lack of respect, and lack of responsibility. Criminals have no respect for the law, and most people do not take responsibility for their own safety. They believe the lie that is constantly repeated by either morons or statists that police protect us from harm.
 

redhawk44

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
53
Location
Wheatland, MO
In this part of the world, a cop making a suspected DUI or excessive speeding stop might well be 50 miles from the nearest backup. A trailer without working lights is a real safety hazard on rural, dark roads and a stop is fully warranted. Is the driver just a nice rancher or Good Sam Club member whose trailer electrical connection came lose? Or is he a violent felon, smuggling a few sex slaves, and he isn't go back to prison no matter what?

I spend a bit of time on the roads and I don't care to share them with dangerous drivers or with drivers who won't maintain some minimum safe level of operation of their vehicles.

The same kind of math that helps explain why carry laws can reduce violent crime even if only a small percentage of people carry, also applies to traffic stops.

If only 1 traffic stop in 1,000 is dangerous, how long can an officer go before he faces a dangerous stop? At 10 routine stops a day, an officer has about a 97% chance of having a dangerous stop in any given year. Call it 1 in 10,000 and he still has a 30% chance of facing a dangerous stop in any given year.

And what indicates that an otherwise routine stop is going to be dangerous such that he even knows he ought to call for back up? Should I only carry my gun or wear my seat belt when I think I might need them?

Actually, we know no such thing. What we know is LEOs are less likely to be killed on the job than are those working in about a dozen other careers. But it is somewhat simplistic, lazy, or dishonest to equate "statistical risk of being killed on the job" with "most dangerous job".

It may be that being a cop is actually more dangerous than many other jobs, but the type of danger faced can be mitigated through the very types of techniques that are being criticized. Maybe lumberjacks actually face life threatening risks less often than do police officers, but the particular risks faced by lumberjacks are harder to mitigate. Which job is actually more "dangerous", the one where you face a deadly risk twice a year but can survive if your skills are good enough, or the one where you face a deadly threat once in 10 careers but it is pure luck whether you survive or not?

Furthermore, death does not fully capture the full realm of "danger". How often do lumberjacks face the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS or Hep C from a dirty needle stick as part of their jobs? You ever get to go home and tell the wife no unprotected relations for the next 6 months until tests can come back clean? I'll bet that does wonders for a marital relationship.

How often do lumberjacks come into contact with others' blood in situations where donning protective gloves and goggles may not feasible? How often are crab fishermen exposed to the nasty chemicals used to cook up meth?

"Danger" encompasses a lot more than just death.

That doesn't mean cops get a pass to violate rights or demand I surrender my rights to make their jobs easier. They signed up for the job knowing what it entails and they are free to quit any day they like.

But those of us who recognize the dangers from violent criminals sufficiently to go through the hassle of carrying a gun even though odds are we'll never need it, should be a bit less hostile to those who sign up to try to get violent criminals off the street, to keep traffic reasonably safe, and otherwise maintain law and order in society. They deserve a little better than being accused of fishing expeditions being their biggest risk.

Charles[/QUOTE]
****************************************************************************

Your position, while reflective and thoughtful, is however, subjective and philosophical.

While I am unaware of any objective study(s) numerically rating occupation(s) excluding non-fatality criteria, I will offer my subjective position, having some knowledge and experience with personal occupational injury and disease.

When not considering fatality(s) as an only expression of a dangerous occupation, consideration of actual routine exposure rate(s), known established precautions, and known conditions and loss(s) attributable directly to a specific occupation’s hazards (disease, illness and injury) must be analyzed.

Every position within an occupational title does not have equal exposure directly attributable to an occupation’s expressed hazard(s). When consideration is not only death(s), the acute or chronic “potential” of an occupational hazard (disease, illness and injury), pursuant to exposure, is not relevant; only that the hazard exists routinely.

I submit, an occupation transforms from hazardous to dangerous (my differentiation), when actual conditions or losses have been identified and established that can be objectively expressed, and can logically be expected to exist throughout the occupation. There are many things that can change the hazardous position of any specific occupation in a society over a specific period (social attitudes, policy, legalities, training, scientific and technical advances, etc.).

In this case, has police work been established, as an occupation, to be responsible and attributable to conditions and losses, that places it in a position as one of the most highly dangerous jobs in the U.S.?
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
"To protect and serve." To protect and serve who? In my 66 years not one of my many law enforcement contacts has been for my benefit. To be accurate cops are revenue agents. Only once when I called the police to investigate a squatter on private land, the cop wanted me to cover his back.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
the job of a police officer is to make sure that our rights are not being violated by illegal actions. if you want to call that "protecting us", then you can, but it should never be implied that their job is to "physically" protect us.

That's what the gov't said when it was raping me ! "Quit hitting yourself."
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
"The critical flaw in the system is the obscene notion of 'crime prevention'.
If you are not stopping an actual crime in progress, then any police act to 'prevent crime' is an improper excess of authority exercised against those who are not engaged in criminal acts.
It's a guaranteed death-spiral into totalitarianism. The only way to genuinely prevent all crime is to prevent all unsupervised activity.
It sounds like such a great idea -- who doesn't want to 'prevent crime'?
But in practice, it becomes crimes by the state against non-criminal individuals. A license to dominate, to improperly exercise improper 'authority'."

+1

Massive gov't authority doesn't really prevent crime--it just changes who is committing the crimes.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP

A police officer in his cruiser with his lights flashing can provide enhanced safety to road crews working in construction zones, while also increasing the safety of the driving public.

Readers,

This relatively recent invention is one of my favorites (sarcasm). On the other hand it is one of my favorites--it proves a lie.

Its a little like the police argument that it is vital for police during a traffic stop to see a CCW permit flash on their computer screen--in this case to see whether the permit is revoked--so they can repossess the permit document itself. Same for checking CCW permits against a state database. Remember that argument, fellas? Can't have revoked permits running around. Of course, the lie was proved by the unused alternative. If it really was all that important to recover a revoked permit, then deputy sheriffs would move heaven and earth to recover the revoked permit at the time it was revoked, not wait around until some cop happens to traffic stop the permit holder.

Similar for cruisers with flashing lights in work zone. Besides being a big waste of taxpayers' money, that cop is not out patrolling the roads for drunk drivers. Which automobile association was it that did the big study and found that DUI roadblocks were less effective at catching drunk drivers--that cops on patrol were more effective than DUI roadblocks? So, now he's sitting in a work zone burning payroll* and gasoline to increase safety while not out encountering drunk drivers. Kinda proves their priorities doesn't it?

Nevermind the other alternatives. For example, work zones have plenty of lights, but lets say flashing lights the same color as police use in that jurisdiction really does reduce injuries and death. Lets say it does. All it would take is an amendment to state law allowing work zone contractors to add, say, blue flashing lights on a pole at each end of the work zone. Or, save two or three old cruisers, and instead of auctioning them of to become cabs, strip their police equipment and reserve them for work zone duty. The police drop off the cruiser, the road contractor pays for the gas.


*Oh, I bet the police unions protested and gnashed their teeth overthatovertime opportunity.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Knowing the difference between effect and affect, I certainly have not.

The closest that I have come was at a Halloween Party where a friend came as the Tooth Fairy and I mistook him for a Fruit Fly; wings, tutu, tights, all in white.

I should have said effect, it is very common that is taught to both police officers, and truck drivers. Police because they may become a victim of this tendency. Truck drivers because they spend long hours on the road, and avoiding the effect is vital to safety for everyone. Drunk drivers are more susceptible to the effect then normal drivers, but it affects most everybody. It is called the moth effect because like a moth to a light/flame the driver is attracted/steers towards the flashing lights. It actually makes it more dangerous for road workers to have a car with bright flashing lights on the side of the road, and it is certainly a danger for the officers. I spent a good amount of time driving on NC highways in a tractor trailer, and very seldom were there police on road work. Considering the danger, and the cost it is pretty much a thing of the past.

There are hundreds of video of drunk drivers slamming into the back of patrol cars they can clearly see. As a general rule police now leave their car partially in the road and approach a stop on the passenger side. This gets them off the road and provides some safety for both the officer and the person stopped. Many officers have been hurt when a drunk, or someone not paying attention drives into the officer on the drivers side with no place to escape.


http://policedriving.com/troopers-probe-moth-effect-in-crashes/


Troopers Probe ‘Moth’ Effect in Crashes

January 8, 2011 by Police Driving

Massachusetts State Police are investigating whether new brighter emergency lights on cruisers are to blame for a recent spike in the number of troopers being struck by other vehicles.

Seven state troopers were hit while standing outside their cruisers last year, including Sgt. Doug Weddleton, who was killed in June by an allegedly drunken driver.

Spokesman David Procopio said that the department is investigating whether the “moth effect” is to blame. That’s the theory that drivers, particularly those who have been drinking, are drawn to brighter lights like moths.

He says the agency is looking into different cruiser marking and different flash patterns to see if that makes a difference. He says the study is several months from completion
 
Last edited:

MamaLiberty

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
894
Location
Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
There are many things police and other officials can do to "prevent crime" that are not anywhere close to an improper excess of authority.

Actually, there is no rational justification for non-voluntary government police at all. The problem is that nobody has any "authority" to infringe on anyone else's life or freedom. If someone is actually presenting a real threat of death or serious bodily harm to another, it is right to stop them, of course. But that does not require any actual "police force" to take care of it. If YOU want to hire a private bodyguard to take care of that for YOU and your family, no problem. There is no justification for a despotic "force" to be hired with stolen goods, that's all.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
The trouble with many good honest law abiding citizens is they think every body is like them.

What they don't understand is that there are a lot of people who just do not care about others.

Either that, or they think they are invincible and will be able to handle whatever threats to their life, limb, property, and just decent society might arise. In the young, healthy male it can be excused somewhat as part of YAMIC (young adult male invincibility complex, which is the cause for about 85% of all need for search and rescue out here in the West at least). Anyone old enough and/or who has recognized his own mortality and limitations enough to know better....ought to know better. But some cling to ideology rather than allowing changing realities to also change their mind.

I'm always reminded that the men who formed our nation considered anarchy at least as bad as a tyrannical king.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Your position, while reflective and thoughtful, is however, subjective and philosophical.

That is what I'm going for. Just a little more thought than blindly looking at death toll per 1000 employees.

I submit, an occupation transforms from hazardous to dangerous (my differentiation), when actual conditions or losses have been identified and established that can be objectively expressed, and can logically be expected to exist throughout the occupation. There are many things that can change the hazardous position of any specific occupation in a society over a specific period (social attitudes, policy, legalities, training, scientific and technical advances, etc.).

I certainly don't intend to pick any nits over your submission. It is thoughtful. And that is all I'm after. I might suggest that we could also consider the nature of the "hazards" involved. Most specifically, the difference between acts of God or your own mistakes, vs the overt attempts of others to inflict harm. Acts of God tend not to be personal. Our own mistakes can be trained against and avoided; they are within our control. I think the overt attempts of others to inflict injury or death imposes a different kind of toll. It also requires a different kind of response.

A lumberjack or fisherman will certainly do what he can do to minimize his risk. But since his risk doesn't come from other humans, there is noting he does that will affect others.

A cop is no different in wanting to minimize his risk. But since a lot of his risk does come from other humans, and in many cases it is difficult or impossible to know which humans pose a risk vs which don't, his attempts to reduce risk will necessarily involve some action toward other humans, sometimes toward those who don't actually pose a risk.

This is not license to violate rights. But it might help us understand with a little more clarity than just assuming cops are power hungry tyrants who get off on abusing their fellow citizens.

In this case, has police work been established, as an occupation, to be responsible and attributable to conditions and losses, that places it in a position as one of the most highly dangerous jobs in the U.S.?

I question whether that is the most important question or whether the unique nature of the danger is more important.

Put another way, if over the next year or two cops move up from number 15 (or whether they currently are) to number 2 or 1, will anyone's position toward them and their conduct change? Or will some suggest their jobs are dangerous only because they mistreat innocent people?

I don't think the actual risk level of their job is all that relevant for those who most often bring it up as not being the "most dangerous" or "not in the top 10". Other than pinko-commie Dave Letterman, what makes the top 10 sacred? With 10,000 or so different jobs in this nation, top 20 or top 100 might all be notable.

My concern isn't nearly so much exactly where cops rank in job danger, but how some use relative job ranking to justify very negative attitudes toward officers' desires and attempts to make their jobs safer where possible.

Charles
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
This relatively recent invention is one of my favorites (sarcasm). On the other hand it is one of my favorites--it proves a lie.

...

*Oh, I bet the police unions protested and gnashed their teeth overthatovertime opportunity.

First of all, to zero in on one example I offered while ignoring the others entirely is tantamount to admitting there may be some validity to my overall thesis. But heaven forbid you be mature and civil enough to treat me like an equal and actually have a conversation rather than just typing past me as if I were not present.

Secondly, some of you need to be a bit less parochial. I'm well aware of the featherbedding union-imposed requirements to have a cop present anytime you touch a public street for construction in many areas back east. Remember, I've lived in the Boston area, also Chicago, and even Virginia during my lifetime. How many of the gaggling anarchists here have lived in Utah or anywhere else in the Intermountain West?

So far as I know or can discern, we have no such requirements here. I believe it is up to the construction manager to determine when and under what conditions the presence of a marked cruiser is warranted and wanted.

I currently drive through at least one major construction zone on a federally numbered InterState Freeway at least half a dozen times a week. Most of the time an officer is not present. When one is present, it is quite obvious that something is different. Lane patterns are being actively changed, or men are working on the traffic side of the safety barriers, or something similar.

Obviously, it is not merely the color of lights, but the presence of the cruiser and officer with the ability to make a stop and write a ticket that catches drivers attention and encourages them to obey posted limits, pay attention to the road, etc.

And yes, we've all heard of the moth effect. And yet, it appears that lighting up the back of a cruiser during a stop is still safer than not lighting it up. I think those who claim that officers provide no deterrent or preventative effect are taking a very myopic and narrow view of what officers do. That such persons seem less interested in honestly discussing the issue than in throwing up scat as diversions speaks volumes of the weakness of their ideological position.

Charles
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
This relatively recent invention is one of my favorites (sarcasm). On the other hand it is one of my favorites--it proves a lie.

...

*Oh, I bet the police unions protested and gnashed their teeth overthatovertime opportunity.[/QUOTE

First of all, to zero in on one example I offered while ignoring the others entirely is tantamount to admitting there may be some validity to my overall thesis. But heaven forbid you be mature and civil enough to treat me like an equal and actually have a conversation rather than just typing past me as if I were not present.

Secondly, some of you need to be a bit less parochial. I'm well aware of the featherbedding union-imposed requirements to have a cop present anytime you touch a public street for construction in many areas back east. Remember, I've lived in the Boston area, also Chicago, and even Virginia during my lifetime. How many of the gaggling anarchists here have lived in Utah or anywhere else in the Intermountain West?

So far as I know or can discern, we have no such requirements here. I believe it is up to the construction manager to determine when and under what conditions the presence of a marked cruiser is warranted and wanted.

I currently drive through at least one major construction zone on a federally numbered InterState Freeway at least half a dozen times a week. Most of the time an officer is not present. When one is present, it is quite obvious that something is different. Lane patterns are being actively changed, or men are working on the traffic side of the safety barriers, or something similar.

Obviously, it is not merely the color of lights, but the presence of the cruiser and officer with the ability to make a stop and write a ticket that catches drivers attention and encourages them to obey posted limits, pay attention to the road, etc.

And yes, we've all heard of the moth effect. And yet, it appears that lighting up the back of a cruiser during a stop is still safer than not lighting it up. I think those who claim that officers provide no deterrent or preventative effect are taking a very myopic and narrow view of what officers do. That such persons seem less interested in honestly discussing the issue than in throwing up scat as diversions speaks volumes of the weakness of their ideological position.

Charles

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/myopic

I never say anyone go faster than the speed limit. 3*E8 m/s. There's a reason why you cannot get a jury trial for speeding in most states...jurists would just say "who cares!"
 
Top