Lots of people on the job use this as an excuse to break their Oath. Lots of officers.
LEO should be subject to the same restrictions as civilians.
- Thread starter RooftopKorean
- Start date
Lots of people on the job use this as an excuse to break their Oath. Lots of officers.
The Dems threatened to filibuster the legislation if it passed the house. The threat of a filibuster was enough to scare the republicans.
I am not against reciprocal carry, just the opposite in fact I don’t believe any one should be required to have a special permit to carry at all, let alone own one.
I am just pointing out it would never have gotten out of the senate. The parliamentary tricks the Dems would us and the spineless Republicans doomed it from the start. If you want to blame Paul Ryan that is your right. I blame Mitch and Paul for its failure. I blame Mitch because he has no spine, cowered at the threat of filibuster and I believe he asked Ryan to kill it. I blame Ryan for going along with it.
I find it funny you would imply I am against receptivity, I could imply you just don’t know how debate in the senate works, but that would be pointless and do nothing to further this discussion. I think it is enough to say that legislation was doomed because the republicans didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to get the hard things done. They also failed to repeal Obama care and support Trump on the wall.
U.S. Senate: About Filibusters and Cloture
www.senate.gov
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
That may be the armorers fault, but you'd think an elite trooper would have realized the mistake when he or she took posession of the weapon and corrected it. If most people in those units are only good for posing for photo ops and couldn't break down their weapon properly, as you say, then why does the government trust them and not us with those types of weapons? Why the fuck are they exempt from all the gun control laws?? Why the fuck are they considered "elite"? Why the fuck are they involved in public safety in the first place? Help me make sense of that.
It was defiantly a controversial decision as no president in modern history had done it up until that point. The country was non-the-worse for it and eventually everyone forgot about the little home grown terrorist.So this is murder according to you
Who were the 4 U.S. citizens killed in drone strikes?
Of the four victims of U.S. operations against al Qaeda since 2009, only one was specifically targeted, AG Holder sayswww.cbsnews.com
@ArmedCorgi I’m sorry your request to make sense of the things governments do has hit a logic barrier that cannot be resolved, please restate the question in 35-40 years.
/sarcasm
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
It was doomed by the not good enough crowd. It wasn’t a guarantee to pass but like any filibuster , it depends on who is fighting it, what bill it’s attached to , and how bad they wanted.The Dems threatened to filibuster the legislation if it passed the house. The threat of a filibuster was enough to scare the republicans.
I am not against reciprocal carry, just the opposite in fact I don’t believe any one should be required to have a special permit to carry at all, let alone own one.
I am just pointing out it would never have gotten out of the senate. The parliamentary tricks the Dems would us and the spineless Republicans doomed it from the start. If you want to blame Paul Ryan that is your right. I blame Mitch and Paul for its failure. I blame Mitch because he has no spine, cowered at the threat of filibuster and I believe he asked Ryan to kill it. I blame Ryan for going along with it.
I find it funny you would imply I am against receptivity, I could imply you just don’t know how debate in the senate works, but that would be pointless and do nothing to further this discussion. I think it is enough to say that legislation was doomed because the republicans didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to get the hard things done. They also failed to repeal Obama care and support Trump on the wall.
U.S. Senate: About Filibusters and Cloture
HR218 was stalled and threatened by such tactics but it got thru in 2004. The tactics to on such filibusters work both ways . HR218 passed because of the two caveats passed with it . There is a vocal crowd that does not want the federal involved with permits in any fashion including making federal laws to get states to honor another state’s permit — that is the next battleground once SCOTUS gets the lower courts to honor the current decisions— they killed it when it had a chance.
Remember that some progress in carry rights and federal law did occur under even under Obama like national parks despite a potential filibuster . The compromise was that it had to be legal in that state that park was in.
Okay. Let’s put you on the hot seat for a minute . Ever have cross complainants each claiming self defense and you can’t determine who started the fight ? And both want to press charges or the injuries rise to felony levels ? What happens? They both get arrested right ? You know they do. But you know one must be telling the truth. Now, add the wrinkle that’s it a domestic incident where you would be required to make the arrest . You know you are going to arrest both of them eventhough you know one is telling the truth or you are just going to just pick one ( usually the guy ) for an arbitrary reason . You know it. I know it. And everyone reading this knows it. As an officer you try not and make every reasonable effort but you know it’s going to happen.
So this is murder according to you
Who were the 4 U.S. citizens killed in drone strikes?
Of the four victims of U.S. operations against al Qaeda since 2009, only one was specifically targeted, AG Holder says
Point to The Constitution where the president has the authority to Assassinate people. I will wait.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
It depends on the department, unit , etc.
I have worked with guys who were originally from the LAPD who think NY departments have puss poor general firearms training . Then go do some of the specialized courses like HITDA, you would get a different impression.
The military should have better firearms training because they have the time and focus to do it . They also have the down time to do it when rotate in and out of deployments. Most patrol units can’t do that type of stand down training because of time constraints. They have to get officers to cover for the officer who is at training or get another unit to do if they are to train as a unit and in some cases , get another police department to come in from outside to cover for them as they train. Who covers that other department’s responsibilities then . They bring in guys on overtime then which costs . The military and the feds don’t have that issue .
Los Angeles does monthly requals because they prioritize their firearm training but they have non firearm issues that other departments train more in .
I shoot more often than most and definitely agree that most military guys probably could out shoot me with a rifle . Handgun? Not a guarantee unless thdy aren’t in a high speed unit or train on their own . I’m saying this from working with military guys who are cops . Handguns weren’t their thing . Tactics . We are back to what unit they were in the military and their experience. It’s a different situation for most police involved situations as opposed to military excluding SWAT type operations.
I get all of this. With my department, we go to range day, once per year. We qualify, have classroom instruction and then we run all kinds of drills the rest of the day.
I have no issue with arrests. I like them, a lot. I have made quite a few arrests during my years in the different jobs that I have had.
I do all that I can not to violate Constitutional Rights. I have in the past, sometimes, no way around that. I get that part well. I have never violated someones Rights due to what I believe is a full fledged violation of the 2A for example.
Some Rights are easier to misunderstand than others.
Someone with a 30 magazine in NY would never be detained by me, for example. Too many cops go out of their way to arrest and violate Rights. I do my best never to do that. I have always gone out of my way not to arrest unless very much needed. My goal is not to go out of my way to ruin a persons life over a mistake.
I still believe my job is to care for the public and serve the public.
That is becoming tougher and tougher each day, that is why I am leaving the job altogether, I work with and around too many that are more than fine with breaking their Oaths and that are more worried about how they look on paper. Sometimes, this is not the fault completely of the officer, but due to policies and the element in society. We live in a much different world than when I started in this field.
I'll go be a cart boy, or a gun salesman again. And be much happier.
I love that mindset.
I like the, "Can I solve this without an arrest?"
I have been watching re-runs of the original Dragnet, I ave come to respect SGT Joe Friday more and more.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
It’s really not enough if we were to compete ( sims or real world) against trained opponent group who train together often . I worked in places with that once a year mentality to places that would send us to additional training but not in groups like the military does . Simmuntions training was good stuff and we would things like entries for school shootings or warrant executions. 4 man diamond , two man stuff but it’s not with more than a few guys you might actually work with when it happens. It’s slower to pick up non verbal cues from guys you don’t train with . Or just know how they are going to move .
I’m out of the game now. My training is basically just shooting at targets so in a real situation, I’m going to be slower.
I actually think LEOs should be subject to GREATER restrictions as to what they carry. On duty that is, privately no separate restrictions beyond what private citizens have. Also get rid of qualified immunity.
Also also- Police officers ARE civilians. Civilian simply refers to anyone not in the Military. Cops ARE NOT soldiers, no matter how much we have been conditioned to belive otherwise.
A cop is a public servant as opposed to be being a private citizen. Public servant, private citizen that is tge terminology for cops and non-cops.
The Police ARE NOT soldiers. Soldiers by the way are subject to considerable firearms restrictions btw, on post and on duty that is. Off post and in their own time only the local private citizen restrictions apply.
Also also- Police officers ARE civilians. Civilian simply refers to anyone not in the Military. Cops ARE NOT soldiers, no matter how much we have been conditioned to belive otherwise.
A cop is a public servant as opposed to be being a private citizen. Public servant, private citizen that is tge terminology for cops and non-cops.
The Police ARE NOT soldiers. Soldiers by the way are subject to considerable firearms restrictions btw, on post and on duty that is. Off post and in their own time only the local private citizen restrictions apply.
Every time I see people talking about getting rid of Qualified Immunity, I have to wonder if they actually understand what it means, and what it would mean if officers had none.
I know what qualified immunity is. Learned about it in the academy.
I am more than happy to leave qualified immunity as it sits, if we can shit can all public sector unions.
This is 100% true. Me and my buddy who is a cop went to a tactical AR-15 training class. At the end of two-day session there was scenario, a two-floor warehouse with two assailants using UTMs. He went in first, came back out in about 5 minutes. I asked what happened and he said he got hit, game over.
I have never received any formal training before this. I've only done plenty of dry firing, played paintball in the past, and did clearing exercises in my apartment utilizing what I've seen in YT videos and in movies.
Using everything I learned myself I was able to take out both assailants and embarrassed my friend. After completing the scenario, I was asked by the instructor if I was prior military or was/is LEO. After I told him that I was not, he was shocked by my performance and ability to move as I did and pie doors correctly.
Another instance, I went shooting with my FDNY Fire Marshal buddy and some NYPD guys to the range, I outperformed the majority of them, only being out done by my friend and his friend who is in ESU.
Last edited:
As for the Qualified immunity, I am curious if all are aware that this is not just a thing for the Police?
Qualified immunity has protected LEO, Mayors, Council Members. City managers. Count and State Administrators. Firemen. Nearly all government department heads. School officials to include teachers. Dog Catchers in most jurisdictions have this as well. Correction Officers. Probation officers.
EMT's have this.
I will sum this up in this manner.... Qualified immunity applies to all government workers, whether local, state, or federal level employees.
Qualified immunity has protected LEO, Mayors, Council Members. City managers. Count and State Administrators. Firemen. Nearly all government department heads. School officials to include teachers. Dog Catchers in most jurisdictions have this as well. Correction Officers. Probation officers.
EMT's have this.
I will sum this up in this manner.... Qualified immunity applies to all government workers, whether local, state, or federal level employees.
Indemnification != QI.
If I mess up paperwork with one of my parolees the default is that I'm in the wrong. Even if I didn't mess it up. Guilty until proven innocent. Now we do have representation from the state, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a default to being in the wrong.
Not so with cops.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
We can get into definitions of civilian later but your understanding of restrictions isn’t correct .
Under NYS law , an active duty military member can carry just about anything. The restrictions on his carrying weapons is primarily from his organization. What is authorized by his chain of command is what he or she can carry, correct? Heck, if your chain of command says you can carry what you want home , NYS has nothing to say about it including machine guns .
A police officer is also restricted by his department. Some only authorized carry of one gun. Some can carry anything. For years I could only carry my service gun and one authorized off duty/back up gun. If I was caught carrying an unauthorized gun, I would have been suspended and possibly fired . While active , I could not get a gun permit outside my job so they had constant control and could take away my guns anytime they wanted to. I have more freedom in what I carry now that I am retired.
I refer to organizational restrictions for military personnel which unless things have changed recently are extraordinarily strict. In garrison that is. Basically you can't carry anything except at the range or in specific duty cases. MPs have their own regulations of course.
When I was in I only touched my m16 other than maintained ot training. The only time we ever had ammunition was at the range and only when on the line. Even on 9/11 when we formed rapid reaction patrols we didn't have ammo or even magazines. We carried empty M16s with no magazines even issued which made zero sense to me.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
And some LE departments are like that . I know of one where the can only carry their service gun on duty. I definitely know of many peace officer positions that can’t carry at all as per their department policy.
I knew one where only their sergeants could carry a gun and only changed after 9/11.
Eliminate Qualified immunity for all.
I do not think it would work out the way you want it to.
I do have a serious and a sincere question for you, do you understand exactly what it is and why we have it?
"In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from lawsuits for damages unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known".[1] It is a form of sovereign immunity less strict than absolute immunity that is intended to protect officials who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions",[2] extending to "all [officials] but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law".[3] Qualified immunity applies only to government officials in civil litigation, and does not protect the government itself from suits arising from officials' actions.[4]
The U.S. Supreme Court first introduced the qualified immunity doctrine in Pierson v. Ray (1967), a case litigated during the height of the civil rights movement. It is stated to have been originally introduced with the rationale of protecting law enforcement officials from frivolous lawsuits and financial liability in cases where they acted in good faith in unclear legal situations.[5][6]"
There are too many laws, too many ways to become a criminal and FAR too much scrutiny on the ability for private citizens to defend themselves. A private citizen is liable for all their actions and so should public citizens.
The sole justification for the application of lethal force should be whether or not the recipient of that force was in commission of a felony at the time. If proven so the defender should barred from all prosecution.
As far as I am concerned all I need you to do is collect the evidence and the body. I can take care of myself otherwise.
Under such a system I suspect we would run out of criminals rapidly.
Actions must have consequences.
I will give you an example, one that happens quite often with firemen.,
House is on fire in a neighborhood. Firemen go to the hydrant to hook up the water. There is a car parked, blocking the hydrant, they smash out the windows to feed the hose through the car, or they destroy the car while getting it out of the way. Under Qualified Immunity, they cannot be sued. Without it, they would be sued in court and very well may lose, just for trying to do their job. Wonder how homes would burn down.
It's illegal to block fire hydrants, qualified immunity shouldn't apply. If someone is doing something illegal then they shouldn't have any legal recourse for any damages that arise from their actions. That goes for private citizens and public servants.
Actions must have consequences.