Wow, I have a large amount of comments to attempt to address. Because of the majority of them have similar thoughts, I will try to address them as best as I can.
This first bit does not apply to everyone, only about 25 percent. Just because I have an LEO next to my name does not imply that I disagree with people OCing. I am a strong supporter of citizens carrying and I believe if more citizens did carry, either openly or concealed, many violent crimes would resolve themselves.
The LEO next to your name does not imply that you disagree with people OCing. Your comments of what you would do if you got called to one TELL us what you are and what you think.
QilvinLEO said:
Many people stated Law Enforcment officers should basically ignore this call completely, informing dispatch that the OCer was acting completely legal. In a perfect world, that might work. However, with the recent changes in law enforcement to a community based policing service, the message most departments have changed to back to the ol' days, where citizen and officer got along and there was no Us vs Them concept. Granted, we are not there yet, but that is the current trend. So therefore, how is ignoring citizen complaints = building a trust between police and citizens. It doesnt. If we, as police officers, stopped responding to all the bogus calls that come in to dispatch on a daily basis, we would have alot more free time on our hands. However, that is not the case. We serve you. Therefore, when your fellow citizen believes you, the OCer, is doing something illegal, it is our duty to respond. Granted, does that mean we need to sit you on the curve, degrade you and badger you. Of course not.
False. No one said to "ignore citizen complaints." There is NO ONUS TO RESPOND, sans suspicion that a crime is actually being committed. Respond,
to the caller.
QilvinLEO said:
I would like to see anyone find some caselaw invovling where police officers are unable to make voluntary contact. You wont.
What relevance to you associate to that comment?
QilvinLEO said:
Onwards to the next subject that I seemed to notice alot.
"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. By talking to most of you, You seem to know your laws, espcially gun laws. Why are you SO afraid of saying something inaccurate? Even if the only thing you are comfortable with is citing the law that shows you are legally carrying, do it. Please dont just walk away. Police are just like anyone else. We partially have a feedback system. We will only get better with law abiding citizens help as well.
So, to YOU, it is "shut," "shut," "talk?" Of course you want that.
It is "shut," "shut," "goodbye." The first two are simple. Get a lawyer for arrest or detention. The third is also simple. A consensual encounter is TWO-PARTY consent. The LE consents, and the person who was minding his own business wants to continue minding his own business.
LET him do so, as opposed to attempting to coerce 'consent.'
That may not have been your intent with your comments, but that IS how you are coming across.
Also, as to the "community based policing service" comment above, do NOT forget that the person OCing is part of that also. Let him remain part of it, educate the idiot that makes false 911 calls.
QilvinLEO said:
Alot of people brought forward instances in which something has happened to them or others by an arrogant, dumb ass officer. Yes, we have "that" guy in law enforcement as well and I will openly admit it. However, because of that one encounter, and law enforcement is the only place this happens, an immediate attitude happens. It becomes "Guess what THOSE cops did to me this time". THOSE cops did not do anything. I will gaurentee I have never done anything to harm or break your consititional rights to any of you. So why do you immediatly treat me as one of "THOSE COPS"?
No, most people won't immediately treat you as one of those cops. But, how you respond is paramount. And if your response is as you indicate in the scenarios you present, you WILL get treated like one of those cops,
because you are acting like one of those cops. Look up passive aggressive behavior for a clue to what you said you would do.
QilvinLEO said:
An example of this would be, I call a plumber John Doe to fix my toilet. Doe finished last in his class in plumbing school, (Just work with me here), and doesnt have a clue about plumging. Therefore, he completely messes up my plumbing. Therefore, I decide, I no longer chose to trust ANY plumbers based upon my experience with John Doe.
Nope, not relevant. Your plumbing was broken, and your neighbor called to report your bad plumbing and Joe got the MWAP call, and "fixed you rat ep."
QilvinLEO said:
This is the typical attitude by citizens when dealing with the police. THOSE COPS.
Break the silence, and fix THOSE COPS.
[
QilvinLEO said:
I hope I have answered many of the relevant posts made by people. There were plenty of great posts and Thank you for commenting and keeping your thoughts intelligent and not worthless. To those that didnt, Please try to understand the point of a forum is to have conversation and share ones thoughts of the matter with each other. One day when you grow up, you will understand.
As I mentioned already, had you wanted conversation, you asked for it in a less-than-conversational way.
QilvinLEO said:
To those that said something to the affect of "Qilvin LEO leaves the forum upset". I have alot worse things said to me as an officer. You are going to have to try alot harder than that.
And one other thing that stood out that slightly annoyed me. To the decorated former officer who was injured in the line of duty, Let me first, Thank you for your outstanding service and hope you recovered well. Now onto the negatives. It might have been the policy of the department you worked for that officers have no outside contact with citizens. That being said, That is YOUR department. My department does not have no such policy and I personally believe that a police creates and US vs THEM attitude and destroys the relationship between citizens and police officers. That being said, you will never get me to comment on a real event that is currently under investigation, nor will you ever learn what jurisdiction I am employeed at. But, just to be slightly more polite than you were with me in saying I should be counselled, I will add a signature that says something to those affects that you are looking for.
Hyperbole. Be out there. Be visible. But, leave them alone.
And, if the attitude you indicate by your scenarios of "how a cop will respond" isn't how your leadership presents it, why bother creating ersatz 'what if' scenarios?
QilvinLEO said:
Final thoughts:
Because OCing is still a realtively abnormal event, Officers should, at the very least make attempt to make contact with the OCer, just to keep up with PR. 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 and not be a part of the problem creating an US vs THEM aspect. I promise, my side, I do my best on a daily basis to not create an US vs THEM mentality.
You claimed to plan to keep stopping an OCer for conducting lawful activity. ONE STOP would have been rational. Your comment to keep stopping them was a clear indication of an intent to "punish attitute." If that IS you, YOU are part of the problem.
QilvinLEO said:
That being said, I dont know any officers who wake up in the morning, put on their badge and think "I'm going to go violate somebody God given rights today, lose my job, a large sum of money when I'm sued, and have the possibly of going to prison."
Good. Then why do your words here indicate that you would do exactly that?
